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: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I think i see where your confusion is coming from... you're imagining humans all of a sudden becoming sexual and standing around not knowing how to have sex. Quite a funny thought actually...


Gender is just one small event in the evolutionary chain, and it developed just like every other adaptation in history. Since so many species have the gender trait, chances are that any species displaying gender all evolved from a common ancestor near the base of our planets tree of life.

So basically, the trait of gender happened before all major evolutionary branches (plants, fish, lizards, birds, cats, dogs, apes, hominids, etc)... probably back around one of the first complex organisms maybe around the time of the "sponge" point in the evolutionary ladder, floating in the ocean.

We don't actually know the exact point it happened, but I can imagine a few scenarios where it may have been beneficial, such as in the changing environment of the ocean, having quicker access to genetic variation in populations was more beneficial for exploitation of more resources for a species line over other competitors. And having the ability to combine genetics within a species (through sexual reproduction) allowed for more variation and quicker iteration to fill their niches.

It is also not hard to conceive of the benefit of a symbiotic relationship, where one of the pairing can dedicate its adaption to producing and rearing young, and the other part of the pairing can dedicate its specialisation into resource gathering to support the relationship.

From your post it sounds like you think the modern species of humans produced asexually at one point in time. If this is what you're suggesting, it is incorrect.

Homo Sapien Sapien has always reproduced sexually, as have all of our ancestral species back until the first emergence of the trait... maybe in a sponge.
edit on 7-4-2015 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As one poster described it


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


Thoughts ?


You only make three basic fundamental mistakes in your approach.

primarily you have questioned authority, it is unacceptable, stop it

secondly you have searched for evidence because you thought for yourself, that is also unacceptable and FINALLY

You have asked for evidence.

When is your type going to learn, just believe what you are told, I mean come on its science after all it doesnt need evidence



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As one poster described it


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


Thoughts ?


You only make three basic fundamental mistakes in your approach.

primarily you have questioned authority, it is unacceptable, stop it

secondly you have searched for evidence because you thought for yourself, that is also unacceptable and FINALLY

You have asked for evidence.

When is your type going to learn, just believe what you are told, I mean come on its science after all it doesnt need evidence


Hey, you still haven't answered the questions in the other thread - and you're starting to screw up another one???
First things first - respond to the other thread.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

First off, the organs wouldn't have been useless throughout generations. They certainly WOULD have had a use. You are also missing a step here. At some point, I'm sure an asexual organism would become a hermaphrodite with both male and female genitalia. Then as genetic diversity showed to be a valuable survival trait, the unique sexes started to develop.

Stop looking at evolution like a switch. It's not like one day animals decided to stop being asexual and become sexual. There was a gradual process where part of the population continued reproducing asexually and another party became hermaphrodites. The two populations would interbreed passing the new hermaphrodite genes throughout the rest of the population. Eventually the genders split and animals that carried only one version of sexual organs appeared.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
So one poster is saying evolution had one common ancestor to all species that went from asexual to sexual and then all common species continued to evolve from that. Another is saying that it was further down the line with many species evolving into hermaphrodites and then dropping one set of organs.

I have a question if a human hermaphrodite mates today does it produce another hermaphrodite with it's offspring ?
edit on 7-4-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
So one poster is saying evolution had one common ancestor to all species that went from asexual to sexual and then all common species continued to evolve from that.

Common ancestors often share traits yes.


Another is saying that it was further down the line with many species evolving into hermaphrodites and then dropping one set of organs.

It's a theory, it's not 100% known exactly how sex developed, but again you have no theory at all. There are books and wiki pages on this. Perhaps look and develop a testable theory that makes predictions.


I have a question if a human hermaphrodite mates today does it produce another hermaphrodite with it's offspring ?

That's a complicated question, and it depends on the 'condition' or whatever you want to call, if it is genetic etc etc etc ... but more importantly, you would have to identify what you're talking about. No offense, but to be frank I doubt you know enough to understand what you're talking about considering you used the word 'hermaphrodite.'

True hermaphrodites are so unbelievably rare that you're asking a pointless question. As far as intersexed people go, yes some intersex conditions can be inherited and the genes that cause this can mutate over time.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33


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.

All sexually reproducing organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This happened about 1.2 billion years ago and the ancestor was a single-celled organism. Various species evolved from this, and they evolved more specialized reproductive systems and organs to suit their needs. All this was slow and gradual; evolution, as you correctly observe, creates its effects over very long periods of time.

*


a reply to: FormOfTheLord


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.

You are correct in your opinion.



If, as evidence indicates, sexual reproduction arose very early in eukaryotic evolution, the essential features of meiosis may have already been present in the prokaryotic ancestors of eukaryotes. In extant organisms, proteins with central functions in meiosis are similar to key proteins in bacterial transformation. Both bacterial transformation and meiosis in eukaryotic microorganisms are induced by stressful circumstances such as overcrowding, resource depletion and DNA damaging conditions. This suggests that these sexual processes are adaptations for dealing with stress, particularly stress that causes DNA damage. In bacteria, these stresses induce an altered physiologic state, termed competence, that allows active take-up of DNA from a donor bacterium and the integration of this DNA into the recipient genome allowing recombinational repair of the recipients’ damaged DNA. If environmental stresses leading to DNA damage were a persistent challenge to the survival of early microorganisms, then selection would likely have been continuous through the prokaryote to eukaryote transition, and adaptative adjustments would have followed a course in which bacterial transformation naturally gave rise to sexual reproduction in eukaryotes.

Source as linked above. Slightly redacted.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: igloo

You're pretty close. See my post above.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
A single source does not prove or disprove a thing.



Unfortunately, that's exactly how many religious people (note: I did not say ALL religious people) see things.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
So one poster is saying evolution had one common ancestor to all species that went from asexual to sexual and then all common species continued to evolve from that. Another is saying that it was further down the line with many species evolving into hermaphrodites and then dropping one set of organs.


That's the wonderful thing about scientifically-minded people... when there isn't an established scientific theory, folks don't just throw up their hands and look for an easy out, they postulate and hypothesize about how things happened.

There is not a universally accepted explanation for the development of gender so there are different schools of thought within the study of biology. There is no "right answer" at this point but there are plenty of answers that are irrational and can't hold up under scrutiny.

What you may see as a "challenge to the theory" is really just part of the whole picture which isn't fully understood. It doesn't make any other part of the TOE invalid. You seem to think that if the Theory of Evolution can't answer every single question about the origin and development of life on Earth, then it's somehow not valid. That's a completely incorrect assumption and a level of scrutiny that is not placed on any form of accepted science/evidence/proof.
edit on 4/7/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Note: The OP does not want me posting here for some reason, but I tend to not take orders from those who have not earned my respect. There are a few Creationists on here who have earned that too.

Just as well
Given I am religious, though many would argue that my path is not a religion, the US has allowed it to be under the 501.3c so the only people who matter (ask Scientology) consider it thus.

I think its beyond "religious people" and it comes down to the lack of critical thinking taught to people. How often on ATS do we see a "youtube video" held up as absolute proof of a conspiracy? How often do we get credulous posters mob someone with "deep insight"? People don't understand critical thinking. Certain religious beliefs don't help. I'm not saying Christian either, rather flavors if Christianity (and Islam, and Buddhism, and yes my fellow Pagans, oh gods my fellow Pagans!)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As one poster described it


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


Thoughts ?


You only make three basic fundamental mistakes in your approach.

primarily you have questioned authority, it is unacceptable, stop it

secondly you have searched for evidence because you thought for yourself, that is also unacceptable and FINALLY

You have asked for evidence.

When is your type going to learn, just believe what you are told, I mean come on its science after all it doesnt need evidence


Hey, you still haven't answered the questions in the other thread - and you're starting to screw up another one???
First things first - respond to the other thread.



No
You believe what you want to believe, when you get evidence that is valid get back to me

This thread is about the validity of reproductive organs and how they evolved, please address the question,
Its a valid question deserving of a scientific answer



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Man you're like a bad penny.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I watched a documentary about lizards that reproduce through parthenogensis, this was at first if they couldnt find a male, but of course then only produce females through parthogenisis, so with each generation there are fewer and fewer males. They do however "pretend" to have sex with each other to stimulate reproduction.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Answer

Note: The OP does not want me posting here for some reason, but I tend to not take orders from those who have not earned my respect. There are a few Creationists on here who have earned that too.

Just as well
Given I am religious, though many would argue that my path is not a religion, the US has allowed it to be under the 501.3c so the only people who matter (ask Scientology) consider it thus.

I think its beyond "religious people" and it comes down to the lack of critical thinking taught to people. How often on ATS do we see a "youtube video" held up as absolute proof of a conspiracy? How often do we get credulous posters mob someone with "deep insight"? People don't understand critical thinking. Certain religious beliefs don't help. I'm not saying Christian either, rather flavors if Christianity (and Islam, and Buddhism, and yes my fellow Pagans, oh gods my fellow Pagans!)


You know I read this post and all I see is ego

The question goes begging to your incredible intellect

How often do we get credulous posters



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
this was at first if they couldnt find a male, so with each generation there are fewer and fewer males. They do however "pretend" to have sex with each other to stimulate reproduction.


Reminds me of some girls I've seen in the club.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
In both genders their two different systems are very complex, was it mutations in theory that caused it ?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It is just like with, we have now much more free time and can play videogames and other luxury time spending activities, because we don't have to collect our food 24/7 anymore.
Now the same basically happened here, life had reached a point when it was so numerous the need for pure survival got unnecessary and life found a way to make the best out of this "state of plenty"
It is one universal law, everything always strives for the biggest possible reachable chaos.
Will say when the ground was set, life had established itself it started to create a bigger diversity and therefor bigger chaos, or entropy.
The bigger your chaotic pool is, the more selection can take place and the diversity diverts further and further, till we end up with millions of different species and the most apropriate ways to procreate, depending on the species make up.
Like someone already said: not only is sex fun, but it also keeps the blood fresh, when you have all the mamals fighting to get their genes passed on to the next generation. Nature was able to do that, because any extinction of life was no threat, given the masses of simple beings dwelling in the waters...

What I really have a problem with is how people can still deny evolution, everything evolves always, you just have to look at it.
Even your job is today not the same as it would have been hundred years ago, evolution of the workplace.
Families are not the same anymore, when we had children and as many as possible so we would have cheap helpers for our daily fight for survival, the evolution of child education.
In Rome people went to see people kill eachother for fun, now we have actors we can watch doing basically the same, the evolution of entertainment.

Just like the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, life always evolves.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

No, selective pressure caused it.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
In both genders their two different systems are very complex, was it mutations in theory that caused it ?


I contest that evolution as a theory has so many holes in it that it can only be taken on as a faith.

I read comments like your OP and the answers provided and it surprises me how many people just accept that evolution just happens over millions and millions of years, as if its a chemical reaction.

There is no answer, there is no science involved



new topics




 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join