How male and female forms evolve simultaneously in many many creatures?
First of all, do not refer to asexual reproduction, you are not answering. Suppose the first male creature evolved by chance, but there were no female creatures. That male creature could not produce any offspring, and so the male mutation would die out in the first generation. The same thing is true if a female evolved alone. Therefore, male and female forms had to evolve simultaneously for the sexual mutations to establish a population. It does not apply to few species, but many many species, and amazingly, sexual reproductive organs are basically homologous organs shared by different groups that are completely unrelated to each other. How do you explain this, evolutionists.
I have read many answers regarding the evolution of sexual reproduction, and the evolutionists only did not really answered because they merely stated the advantages and benefits of sexual reproduction. Yes, sexual reproduction provides a method of eliminating genetic errors from the population. It also allows for variation. There’s no argument about that. Since it good, it must have evolved. What? That's not the answer as to how sexual reproduction had evolved.
The reason why I posted this question in R/S is because the theory of evolution is not science. It's pseudo science.
As I see it, from many evolutionists, once the principle in the theory of evolution is adopted, even the most impossible scenarios are easily accepted. What a wishful thinking.
To Michael H, sorry, biology does not need evolution to progress, or the development of antibiotics for that matter. In fact, it's the other way around.
- jacob_vLv 510 years ago
What you fail to understand is that evolution is a process which effects populations, not individuals. The relevant consequence here is that in a species with two genders the offspring will inherit their gender from a parent (in most cases the father through the inheritance of either an X or a Y chromosome). Thus it fundamentally misunderstands what's happening to believe that evolution requires a spontaneous evolution of each gender in every new species. The genders are already present in the genetic material. As for the first male, the very first males were almost certain indistinguishable in every way from that species female except one. This one way being the germ cell. The males would have produced a smaller mobile germ line cell while the females of that species produced a larger stationary germ line cell. Also the first gendered species were almost certainly hermaphroditic. This is supported by the fact that the simplest gendered species are in fact hermaphroditic. Equally interesting is the fact that more complex animal species (such as many species of frog) are able to spontaneously change gender from female to male if there are insufficient males in the population. One implication of this fact is that the biology isn't really as different as you might think. This implication is confirmed by the fact that the same embryonic structures which become the female sex organs in human females turn into the male sex organs in human males.
- AstarothLv 710 years ago
This is where many people get it wrong. Evolution is GRADUAL. There could be many genes that affect the change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction and thus a blurred bit in the middle where species would be able to reproduce sexually or asexually. There are even organisms alive today that treat sex as optional. It would almost definitely have started with fishes and other such organisms whereby one partner lays the eggs and the other fertilises those eggs.
You know what, why don't you just study evolution? It would be quicker and easier for you to study the subject with an open mind rather than me try to explain things to someone who does not understand the science behind it. Come back when you have a firm grasp of the principles and just want the finer points explained.
- 10 years ago
Because the organs and systems ARE homologous, it points back to a common ancestor. It means sexual reproduction didn't have to arise several times, only once. All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common ancestor which could have been a single celled eukaryotic species. Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants.
Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was. The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.
Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi). Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction, but rather an example of horizontal gene transfer. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid. Similarly, it has been proposed that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids.
Sex may also be derived from prokaryotic processes. A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearised genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.
But just because we don't know the exact answer yet, doesn't mean an answer won't be found. And no matter how many particular holes who think you see, it won't prove your particular God, and it isn't even very good POSITIVE evidence for an Intelligent Designer to be named later.
- 10 years ago
Well, you're looking at it the wrong way. Don't think of it as male and female sexes having to evolve separately, yet also needing to arise at the same time so that you get both. Instead see it as the two sexes diverging gradually from a starting point where there is no sexual differentiation.
This is not as odd as it may sound. Most species of snails and slugs are hermaphrodites, that is, each one can function as male and female. This allows them to undergo sexual fertilization, and gain all the benefits of gene mixing, without requiring two separate sexes. From a starting point like this, separate male and female genders could diverge gradually.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous4 years ago
well when you're talking about the embryo, everyone starts out as a girl. Eggs that receive an Y chromosome then change into males. So essentially you could say all males evolve from female eggs.
- Marika HLv 610 years ago
"The reason I posted this in R/S is because the theory of evolution is not science. It's pseudo science."
No, the reason you posted this here is because you don't want your butt handed to you in the biology section. If you wanted a real answer, you would have posted it there. Instead, you posted it here, so you can play that silly little "atheists are stupid" game that helps you keep your ego inflated and your brain empty of knowledge. If you really want an answer, go post this exact same question in biology. I'm gonna go hop over there now and see what you do.
(15 minutes later....) Still nothing in the biology section, I see.
- Anonymous10 years ago
Speciation is a gradual process which means you don't wake up one day with a new species you didn't have yesterday. Every species is a copy of it's parents with minor genetic differences these differences if beneficial increase the likelihood of that particular difference becoming more prevalent in the genetic sequence of the species, as these changes compile they eventually lead to speciation.
- Anonymous10 years ago
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.Source(s): If you think biology is not a science.. than you (sir) are ignorant.
- 10 years ago
Good question, I guess the first creatures to have sexual reproduction were not really male and female as we know them now, they were probably close morphologically, basically just getting their genes together by some chemical method.Source(s): a guess
- Anonymous10 years ago
Your primary error is the assumption one or the other gender evolved independantly.
Your secondary error is the assumption that there are not intermediary steps between fully sexual and fully asexual reproduction.