It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gender Evolution - Another Challenge To The Theory

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
As one poster described it




What likely happened was that certain species gained the beneficial mutation of being able to combine genes both sexually and asexually. Since sexual reproduction is better for genetic diversity and adaptability, it prevailed and became the norm. Asexual reproduction phased itself out because it wasn't as effective and became irrelevant to survival, whereas sexual reproduction did.


I read that and something just doesn't seem right. The organs that became sexual for both male and female had to develop slowly according to evolution through either mutation or adaptation. The whole time they are not being used while they are developing because well they aren't ready yet, then one day they are ready, did the asexual ability get lost on this day ? How did all the species now know to perform the act of coitus to survive when they had never done it before? And how was every gender of every species in perfect synchronization both male and female. Evolution deals in millions of years of development, if one developed a hundred year difference they would die as a species

In the book "13 things that don't make sense"
Chapter 10 states

Sex. This chapter is a discussion of theories of the evolution of sexual reproduction. The common-sense explanation is that although asexual reproduction is much easier and more efficient for an organism it is less common than sexual reproduction because having two parents allows species to adapt and evolve more easily to survive in changing environments. Brooks discusses efforts to prove this by laboratory experiment and goes on to discuss alternative theories including the work of Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University who proposes that sexual reproduction, rather than being driven by Charles Darwin's sexual selection in individuals is a mechanism for the survival of social groupings, which most higher species depend on for survival.


Thoughts ?
edit on 7-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I read that and something just doesn't seem right. The organs that became sexual for both male and female had to develop slowly according to evolution through either mutation or adaptation. The whole time they are not being used while they are developing because well they aren't ready yet, then one day they are ready, did the asexual ability get lost on this day ?

According to what you posted it was phased out so, if there is any truth to that, no it wasn't lost on any particular day.


How did all the species now know to perform the act of coitus to survive when they had never done it before? And how was every gender of every species in perfect synchronization both male and female. Evolution deals in millions of years of development, if one developed a hundred year difference they would die as a species

There are still species that reproduce asexually so I don't see why you would think that they would die out.

You also don't need a whole species to be in synch. You only need two (one of each sex). I know you are religious so, I will say that, if you can accept that a pair of humans were able take humanity to where it is today, then it shouldn't be much of a strech.


In the book "13 things that don't make sense"
Chapter 10 states
Sex. This chapter is a discussion of theories of the evolution of sexual reproduction. The common-sense explanation is that although asexual reproduction is much easier and more efficient for an organism it is less common than sexual reproduction because having two parents allows species to adapt and evolve more easily to survive in changing environments. Brooks discusses efforts to prove this by laboratory experiment and goes on to discuss alternative theories including the work of Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University who proposes that sexual reproduction, rather than being driven by Charles Darwin's sexual selection in individuals is a mechanism for the survival of social groupings, which most higher species depend on for survival.

All this is saying is that species where the offspring have two parents will be more diverse and will therefore have a better chance at adapting. It makes sense since the result of asexual reproduction is basically a clone. A whole population with the same vulnerability to something in its environment would be wiped out.



edit on 7-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




There are still species that reproduce asexually so I don't see why you would think that they would die out.


But are they transitioning to sexual, they too have been around for millions of years and never needed to transition to sexual. Their evolutionary curve has never made them. I am talking about those in the past that transitioned away from asexual not those simple organisms that still do it.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

What are you saying about them?

If they died out, then they died out.

ETA: Sorry missed the question. Are they transitioning? I doubt anyone can say. That is the thing, until their environments weed out the asexual individuals and the sexual individuals (if any exist) flourish, they might remain asexual. In higher life forms they are rare.
edit on 7-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Well you've been trawling creationist sites again, looking for something not to loose at. Unlike your last thread


(a) The lifeforms which are asexual in reproduction, were not placed under any pressure to evolve away from it. Those who reproduce sexually gain a great benefit from it, namely genetic diversity. Clearly the asexual life forms are under different pressures.

(b)Just as there are still reptiles, sharks, and amoebas, there are still asexually reproducing lifeforms. Their existence has no bearing on evolution's validity.

(c) The author of that book, holds a PhD in quantum mechanics. He is very unlikely to have a deep understanding of genetics, thus is not a SME (subject matter expert). Again as with other things you write. A single source does not prove or disprove a thing. Its not how science works.

You seem very desperate. As if you might go to heaven if you can do this? I don't think that is how that works either. After all it is not your place to judge



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
All were likened to females then later became male in my opinion. If we look at meiosis we still see this happening at a cellular level in all of us.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I think there is a check list this poster is going down. Its the only reason I can think of that would cause this mania.
edit on 7-4-2015 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
It gets back to DNA/RNA these just don't rewrite themselves into ovaries and testicles simultaneously in perfect biological symmetry. To what end if they can't be used immediately, it is an inefficient use of tissue within the organism that is going unused. It actually is going against the theory of evolution, in that the changes don't benefit the organism sooner, but rather much later.
edit on 7-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You seriously do not get biology or genetics do you? You just hurt at the idea that you may be the result of evolution. Let alone that DNA does not reside in just the sperm and ovaries. Could you go do some remedial biology before staring these threads??



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
It gets back to DNA/RNA these just don't rewrite themselves into ovaries and testicles simultaneously in perfect biological symmetry. To what end if they can't be used immediately, it is an inefficient use of tissue within the organism that is going unused.


Just ignore the nay sayers they arent here to contribute just derail. What you say in your OP is actually very interesting, that we used to reproduce and were neither considered male or female. I am under the belief that our human race was closer to female in its inception, and later branched out into males.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

That would contradict the genesis story in the bible, and thus make the OP not happy with the idea. To be honest, there is NO gender until there are two. Then the "first" is irrelevant anyhow.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




Let alone that DNA does not reside in just the sperm and ovaries.


Oh man, that's what you thought I meant, too funny.
Of coarse every cell in the body has DNA in it, we learned that in middle school science.
Now your just being obtuse with my posts.
They guy posting below too.
edit on 7-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
It gets back to DNA/RNA these just don't rewrite themselves into ovaries and testicles simultaneously in perfect biological symmetry.

Everyone is already very well aware of your complete and utter inability to grasp even the most basic principles of biology or evolution (or anything else that doesn't fall neatly in line with your nonsensical ideas). You don't need to keep demonstrating your ignorance.....



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

No, but your ability to communicate is rather limited. Clearly state your point neighbor. I know what your point was supposed to be, its also missing the point. Much like this whole thread. You confuse "efficiency" with whats evolved
No one said evolution was efficient. Indeed one bit of evidence for evolution is the inefficiency of it all. If ID or deity had caused life, they are sloppy, very very sloppy.
edit on 7-4-2015 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well we all know where we stand towards each other, and I agree to disagree.
I am tired of going in circles with you.
I want new fresh posters to contribute to this thread to continue the discussions.
edit on 7-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I will take that as you admitting defeat. You are clearly not up to your self imposed challenge neighbor.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   
The first thing that came to mind reading this was my chickens, as in birds have a vent or cloaca which contains the sex and eliminatory organs all in one. Sure the males and females are different inside but they seem kind of half way along the evolutionary chain compared to, say, humans. We are seeing the end result of millions of years of evolution and as soft tissue rarely fossilises the steps in between are elusive. Not saying chickens will evolve toward greater inny/outy sexuality, just that where they are shows a possible step from asexual reproduction to individuals with distinct sexual parts.

If you are meaning on the cellular level, what about the movement of cells that encapsulate others such as in phagocytosis... couldn't this with a few fluke adaptations have lead to the sharing of dna between individuals of the same species and suddenly a benefit of diversity is created?

Just a thought... not saying I'm right.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: igloo

Now that is the type of posts we need in this thread, thank you.

edit on 7-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


. To what end if they can't be used immediately, it is an inefficient use of tissue within the organism that is going unused. It actually is going against the theory of evolution, in that the changes don't benefit the organism sooner, but rather much later.


Why would this be the case?

Perhaps you're under the false impression that evolution and natural selection are the exact same thing. A lot of people seem unable to separate the two. Natural selection requires genetic variation, because without it there would be nothing to select, but there is no guarantee that evolution is your friend or that natural selection will eliminate nonsense.

This is why our eyes are backwards. Why frogs bump their asses when they hop. Why you eat with your breathing hole. An engineer could come up with plenty of more efficient ways for the human body to do things. Natural selection only impacts efficiency when something will kill you or prevent you breeding. Many species, including humans, have some completely idiotic and life threatening traits.


The organs that became sexual for both male and female had to develop slowly according to evolution through either mutation or adaptation. The whole time they are not being used while they are developing because well they aren't ready yet, then one day they are ready, did the asexual ability get lost on this day ?

Our eyes developed backwards because of this. They're upside down, look it up. They're incredibly inefficient. It's a surprise they work at all.


How did all the species now know to perform the act of coitus to survive when they had never done it before?

Part of this is 'god of the gaps.' There are multiple theories about how 'gender' might have developed. There are no testable and unfalsified theories regarding the spontaneous and intelligent explosion of gender as a trait. For example, there are no ancestorless creatures with fully formed sex organs. It's why monkeys and humans share a common ancestor.
I actually sympathize with the difficulty grasping the topic.

People have a nasty habit of anthropomorphizing evolution or extending the field of evolutionary psychology beyond its remit. This is especially prevalent in 'popular' books.

Just my understanding of it all.




top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join