SciFi? Would an Actual Sex Between M and F be Proof of I.D.?

[WhatsamattaU]

Recognizing that there are species of fish that can be female and then become male (Asian sheepshead wrasse) and others that have two variations of males (coho salmon with 'hooknose' and 'jack' males), would reproduction in a species where one sex fertilized the egg in a second member of that same species and then the second sex deposited the fertilized egg into the third sex of that species for gestation and birth be a good argument in favor of 'Intelligent Design'?

Circumstances behind the question: I am taking part in a Science Fiction writing RPG and I have no intention of trying to force my view on the lead writer. I would just like to see some discussion on the idea. Interestingly enough, the fictional alien species, to my understanding through correspondence, is completely secular and even xenophobic to the notion of animism/spiritualism.

A third sex, as so described, seems as unlikely to me (a member of a species that is overwhelmingly of two physical sexes) as sexual reproduction might be to a being that propagated through asexual reproduction, UNLESS there was something that created their species that way.

[The Alma Mater]

You may want to read "the gods themselves" by Asimov. It contains a nice depiction of a triad species.

That being said, 3 sexes species exist in real life, right here on earth.

[Cetacea]

You may want to read "the gods themselves" by Asimov. It contains a nice depiction of a triad species.

That being said, 3 sexes species exist in real life, right here on earth.

Kinda, Trioecy in earth species involved males, females and hermaphrodites with the hermaphrodites being able to self fertilize. Its not the OPs notion of three members involved in a single conception event.
Also nematode studies suggest that hermaphrodites are a mutation that occurs in progeny of older mothers and that male-female breeding is still the most common strategy

[Rusozak]

You may want to read "the gods themselves" by Asimov. It contains a nice depiction of a triad species.

That being said, 3 sexes species exist in real life, right here on earth.

Kinda, Trioecy in earth species involved males, females and hermaphrodites with the hermaphrodites being able to self fertilize. Its not the OPs notion of three members involved in a single conception event.
Also nematode studies suggest that hermaphrodites are a mutation that occurs in progeny of older mothers and that male-female breeding is still the most common strategy

When without a mate, replicate?

[Neanderthaland]

Evolution has produced some spectacularly convoluted sexual schemes, so I don't think that would ever qualify. Even if it were the case that whatever it was was actually was intelligently designed, it would probably be possible to imagine a scenario in which evolution might select for it too. So it would, at the very least, be muddied.

What you really want for a proof of intelligent design, is some characteristic that has no business being there at all. Like a polar bear with derived insulating, water-proof feathers.

Or the sudden removal of inefficient or deleterious traits from an organism's evolutionary history. Like the mammalian eye is not as well designed as it could be, and all mammals have a nerve that goes to the larynx but wraps around the heart for no good reason. Among other things. If there was a single lineage of mammals in which all of these issues, and many more, were spontaneously resolved at some point in their evolutionary history, that would be pretty good evidence for ID.

[Heloin]

The existence of the blind spot in the human eye is more then enough proof for me that anyone who ever claims intelligent design is a possibility doesn’t understand biology.

[Postauthoritarian America]

43 species of parrots. Nipples for men. Slugs. All dispositive arguments against intelligent design.

[Heloin]

43 species of parrots. Nipples for men. Slugs. All dispositive arguments against intelligent design.

Imagine how cold and miserable the world would be without the majestic Norwegian Blue though.

[Cetacea]

43 species of parrots. Nipples for men. Slugs. All dispositive arguments against intelligent design.

I know it’s a quote but none of those are arguments against ID though. Parrots remain parrots, nipples are just for babies

[The United Colonies of Earth]

The "sexes" are groups of organisms which produce specific gametes, which are definitionally diploid in nature. Hermaphrodites are a special case that produces both.

If you got a species to require three different sub-normal chromosome count cells to reproduce, and thereby (likely) have somatic cells which inherit thirds of their DNA from the parents, that might be proof if the organism is exceptionally unique among others in its ecosphere or has evolved in the presence of lifeforms that are (or is, itself) sapient. Otherwise, I would raise doubts.

[Neanderthaland]

43 species of parrots. Nipples for men. Slugs. All dispositive arguments against intelligent design.

Lasers! 8 o'clock! Day one!

[WhatsamattaU]

Thanks you: Cetacea, Rusozak, Helion, United Colonies of Earth.

Also to Neanderthaland, but I just found it odd that this other author came up with the method of sexual reproduction that she did, but her sentient beings had no spiritual or animistic beliefs. I'm not looking for proof, just opinions.

Postauthoritarian America, I find your claim and examples of proofs specious. Why wouldn't an Intelligent designer make 43 species of parrots? If they come in different sizes and have any variation in diets then they can be seen as fulfilling a role in an ecological niche. Nipps on men are delightful and since many believe that mammalian life is based primarily upon the female, then nipps on men are simply something like an appendix (a sometimes helpful leftover from an earlier development). Slugs are an important part of the food chain for other animals.

[The Alma Mater]

What you really want for a proof of intelligent design, is some characteristic that has no business being there at all. Like a polar bear with derived insulating, water-proof feathers.

That actually would not prove ID either. It is similar to the problem of "irreducible complexity"; where creationists claim that certain complex structures in organisms would serve no purpose in a simpler form - "and therefor have to be designed".

In reality, every one of those structures turned out to be either

A. Not irreducibly complex at all; but the simpler organ would serve a different purpose than the complex one. The flagellum is the most famous example of this - simpler forms of this organ are possible and in fact exist in nature; but they serve a different purpose (e.g. a weapon instead of propulsion).

B. "Vestigal". While a simpler version of the standalone structure would indeed serve no purpose we can determine*; a more complex structure with a different purpose could and does not need to be irreducibly complex.

So maybe your polar bears are descendants of massive birds

*Which technically is problem 3: that WE cannot think of a function does not mean it does not exist.

[Neanderthaland]

What you really want for a proof of intelligent design, is some characteristic that has no business being there at all. Like a polar bear with derived insulating, water-proof feathers.

That actually would not prove ID either. It is similar to the problem of "irreducible complexity"; where creationists claim that certain complex structures in organisms would serve no purpose in a simpler form - "and therefor have to be designed".

In reality, every one of those structures turned out to be either

A. Not irreducibly complex at all; but the simpler organ would serve a different purpose than the complex one. The flagellum is the most famous example of this - simpler forms of this organ are possible and in fact exist in nature; but they serve a different purpose (e.g. a weapon instead of propulsion).

B. "Vestigal". While a simpler version of the standalone structure would indeed serve no purpose we can determine*; a more complex structure with a different purpose could and does not need to be irreducibly complex.

So maybe your polar bears are descendants of massive birds

*Which technically is problem 3: that WE cannot think of a function does not mean it does not exist.

You misunderstood. I meant to suggest that these are normal polar bears. We understand their evolutionary history. We know that they are mammals. Except somehow they have a highly-complex, derived archosaur trait.

It's not a matter of irreducible complexity, it's a matter of horizontal gene transfer on a level that shouldn't be possible. As well as a trait emerging suddenly from essentially nowhere. And with no means by which it could have naturally evolved (since feathers are modified scales, and mammals don't have those.)


Which is to say, if you were to come across a polar bear with penguin feathers tomorrow, you'd probably think, "that has to be genetic engineering. It couldn't happen naturally."

And the fact that you never see anything like this in nature is a pretty compelling argument that ID is wrong. Penguin feathers are better insulators, better waterproofing, and more hydrodynamic than mammalian fur. Polar bears, and other arctic mammals, would benefit from having them. But you never see any mammals with feathers no matter how useful they would be. Because they are constrained by their ancestry.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

I think Star Trek has an episode with a species that has 3 sexes.

Iirc there are certain insects on earth with incredibly convoluted reproductive cycles that have them bouncing between different species.

Regardless, no it doesnt prove intelligent design. Urey-Miller did however prove life can be created without divine intervention.

[Page]

Complexity in general is an incredibly poor argument for creationism, because nothing is more complex than a god.

[Dakini]

Intelligent design is a load of shit and complexity of life is certainly not evidence for it.

[Kilobugya]

You may want to read "the gods themselves" by Asimov. It contains a nice depiction of a triad species.

I totally second that comment

[Kilobugya]

Complexity in general is an incredibly poor argument for creationism, because nothing is more complex than a god.

Indeed. The whole law of physics provide a coherent explanation into how a very simple starting point (a quark-gluon plasma, and a set of very simple mathematical laws that more or less fit a single sheet of paper) can gradually create more and more complexity, through gravity, nuclear fusion and then the very powerful process of evolution.

The whole ID/creationism just postulates something orders of magnitude more complicated than anything that comes after at the beginning... it makes absolutely no sense, and there is no level of complexity inside the living world that can justify it, the "God" it requires being itself much more complicated.

[The New California Republic]

The existence of the blind spot in the human eye is more then enough proof for me that anyone who ever claims intelligent design is a possibility doesn’t understand biology.

You could say the same about the appendix as well. It's a net negative to have it, and an evolutionary remnant from a previous stage.

[Kilobugya]

The existence of the blind spot in the human eye is more then enough proof for me that anyone who ever claims intelligent design is a possibility doesn’t understand biology.

You could say the same about the appendix as well. It's a net negative to have it, and an evolutionary remnant from a previous stage.

Or wisdom teeth. Or the vagus nerve going around the heart. There are countless example of highly inefficient things in the human body, so no sane designer would ever have created, but that are vestiges of evolution.

But that's not really the point of topic

[Eahland]

The existence of the blind spot in the human eye is more then enough proof for me that anyone who ever claims intelligent design is a possibility doesn’t understand biology.

You could say the same about the appendix as well. It's a net negative to have it, and an evolutionary remnant from a previous stage.

The appendix does serve a purpose; it acts as an ark for the gut ecosystem to repopulate after a disastrous purging event. But surely an omniscient designer could have come up with a way to do that that wouldn't get infected and kill the host if they didn't get immediate surgery...

Our lower spines are really not built for supporting an upright posture, which is the source of many crippling back problems. We've got vestigial tails; though they've shrunk to pretty much the minimum they can be and still serve the purpose of anchoring the butt muscles, they're still obviously the remnants of tails. Our heads are too big; they require us to be born too early, while we're still half-formed and helpless, and even still endanger our mothers' lives...

[Heloin]

You could say the same about the appendix as well. It's a net negative to have it, and an evolutionary remnant from a previous stage.

The appendix does serve a purpose; it acts as an ark for the gut ecosystem to repopulate after a disastrous purging event. But surely an omniscient designer could have come up with a way to do that that wouldn't get infected and kill the host if they didn't get immediate surgery...

Our lower spines are really not built for supporting an upright posture, which is the source of many crippling back problems. We've got vestigial tails; though they've shrunk to pretty much the minimum they can be and still serve the purpose of anchoring the butt muscles, they're still obviously the remnants of tails. Our heads are too big; they require us to be born too early, while we're still half-formed and helpless, and even still endanger our mothers' lives...

If ID was real we'd have cool tails.

[The New California Republic]

The appendix does serve a purpose; it acts as an ark for the gut ecosystem to repopulate after a disastrous purging event. But surely an omniscient designer could have come up with a way to do that that wouldn't get infected and kill the host if they didn't get immediate surgery...

Our lower spines are really not built for supporting an upright posture, which is the source of many crippling back problems. We've got vestigial tails; though they've shrunk to pretty much the minimum they can be and still serve the purpose of anchoring the butt muscles, they're still obviously the remnants of tails. Our heads are too big; they require us to be born too early, while we're still half-formed and helpless, and even still endanger our mothers' lives...

If ID was real we'd have cool tails.

Or we'd have blood vessels with some kind of mechanism to get rid of blood clots before they cause damage.

[The Alma Mater]

The appendix does serve a purpose; it acts as an ark for the gut ecosystem to repopulate after a disastrous purging event. But surely an omniscient designer could have come up with a way to do that that wouldn't get infected and kill the host if they didn't get immediate surgery...

Our lower spines are really not built for supporting an upright posture, which is the source of many crippling back problems. We've got vestigial tails; though they've shrunk to pretty much the minimum they can be and still serve the purpose of anchoring the butt muscles, they're still obviously the remnants of tails. Our heads are too big; they require us to be born too early, while we're still half-formed and helpless, and even still endanger our mothers' lives...

If ID was real we'd have cool tails.

Honestly, the alternative physics young earth creationism proposes is far more interesting than ID biology.
For one, making a deathray would be trivial. If they were right.