How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: luthier

BTW, you got that backwards too. Get yourself a decent biology book.

a reply to: Phantom423

Lol. Read the definition of a peptide. And read some physics

a reply to: luthier

Answer the question: how is DNA formed from amino acids.

There are quite a number of species which reproduce asexually, animals and plants. But it seems there are some evolutionary advantages to sexual reproduction since there are many which use that method as well.

I prefer the latter, personally.

a reply to: Phantom423

Sure. It's when carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen bonded and interacted to make organic compounds/amino acids...amino acids created peptide chains...etc amino acids were the first organic compounds on earth.


What you are confused with is a biological system creating amino acids.

You dont seem to grasp biosynthesis.

a reply to: luthier

I'll take your replies as: "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about so I'll skirt the question and hope I get away with it".

Nice try. No banana.

Over and out.

a reply to: Phantom423

I answered it. If you understood the origin of organic compounds you may have a leg to stand on.

a reply to: AlienView

Why is Evolution happening?

Still, I've yet to see an explanation as to why in an inorganic universe a biological experiment is taking place?

There's a whole lot to unpack in the first bits. First off, you don't need to know why something is happening to know that it is happening. Secondly, calling life an "experiment" presumes an experimenter. Thirdly, you're misusing terms like "anomaly" and "inorganic."

I think what you're basically getting at is why did life arise from an inanimate universe?. (aka the origin of life aka abiogenesis)

The first thing to ask yourself is what is life? What distinguishes living things from the inanimate stuff? After all, they're composed of the same building blocks.

There have been all sorts of attempts at defining what constitutes life. I would say that among the most fundamental traits of living organisms are that they're composed of cells (or self-contained units) which sustain biochemical reactions and are capable of reproduction (or at least of being reproduced).

Although not everything that reproduces is alive, everything that is alive reproduces. In this way, evolution and life are inextricable. In fact, evolution predates life. Evolution can be thought of as change over time resulting from the effects of selection on a thing that reproduces — but not just any reproduction, for selection to occur, the reproduction must be such that there are variations between generations.

After all, if the reproduction is exact, there's no change.

So if we assume that evolution began with some sort of prebiotic replicators, the next question is what is the minimal replicator? There's nothing definitive as far as the precise chemical pathway but a very popular hypothesis is that all life on Earth probably originated with self-replicating RNA (the RNA World hypothesis). That's not to say that there weren't stages in evolution before "RNA world" but rather that all life as we know it is a result of an evolutionary history in which this was a stage.

Recent research has demonstrated that RNA can assemble from precursors under certain geochemical conditions (source) and scientists have also synthesized RNA enzymes capable of replication (source). Interestingly, those replicating RNA enzymes are a pair that reproduces one another (cross-replication):

The replicating system actually involves two enzymes, each composed of two subunits and each functioning as a catalyst that assembles the other. The replication process is cyclic, in that the first enzyme binds the two subunits that comprise the second enzyme and joins them to make a new copy of the second enzyme; while the second enzyme similarly binds and joins the two subunits that comprise the first enzyme. In this way the two enzymes assemble each other — what is termed cross-replication. To make the process proceed indefinitely requires only a small starting amount of the two enzymes and a steady supply of the subunits.

Notice that none of this requires any "why."

(continued in next post)

a reply to: AlienView

As for the origins of sexual reproduction, there's a bunch of competing hypotheses there as well but what you need to first realize is that sexual reproduction doesn't require two sexes or exactly two sexes. There are sexually reproducing species with a single sex and those where the same organism is both sexes (most plants, most snails, etc) and even species with tens of thousands of sexes (fungi).

All eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, protists — organisms composed of cells with nuclei) that reproduce sexually, do so through a process of meiosis (cell division which produces haploid cells — gametes — with 1/2 the chromosomes of the parent) and gamete fusion (gametes fusing to form diploid cells with all the chromosomes). There are species where the gametes are the same size/form (isogamous) and those (like all higher order organisms) where the gametes differ in size/form (anisogamous aka heterogamous) — the smaller gamete being the sperm (male) and the larger the egg (female).

In anisogamous species, gametes can be motile or immotile. In most species you're thinking of when you think of sexual reproduction between two sexes, the process is oogamy (immotile egg fertilized by motile sperm).

What's important to take away is how much variation there is in reproduction among species. The whole female/male thing only applies to a portion of all species, but it happens to be prevalent among higher order species. It's also important to realize that there are forms of gene transfer (and incorporation) in prokaryotes (bacteria, archaea) that are similar to and could have given rise to sexual reproduction in eukaryotes. (particularly considering that eukaryotes likely evolved from some symbiosis of prokaryotes)

As for why sexual reproduction evolved, as with everything else, there are lots of competing (and/or complementary) hypotheses. Most of them seem to fit within a couple categories: overcoming mutations and genetic variability (either promoting or constraining it).

Obviously, mutations, individually or in concert, can be bad for an organism's fitness. In sexual reproduction, during meiosis there's a chance that a mutation will be not be included in the chromosomes of the gamete or that it will be excluded from the resultant offspring in recombination when the gametes fuse.

As for variability, it could be that it sexual reproduction hits a sort of sweet spot, allowing variations that confer advantage in a changing environment, against parasites, etc while also insuring that variation doesn't occur too rapidly. It's also worth noting that sexual reproduction provides a chance that advantageous genes can be passed along from otherwise less fit parents.

Hmmm. The arrogance of Science.

I'm in one of "those moods". So since this is an open forum, I'm going in to bat for the romantic classical point of view.

Living things are not necessarily organic. Sexual reproduction is just one way.

The Nagi (snake goddesses) of India. - Parthenogenesis .

The Wood-Nymphs (Nature Spirits) - Asexual Division.

I am reminded of Shakespeare.

There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Asexual reproduction is not limited to mythical creatures.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Asexual reproduction is not limited to mythical creatures.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did I say it was?

And "mythical"? Humans appear in the classics, are humans mythical too then?

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

And "mythical"? Humans appear in the classics, are humans mythical too then?

No. I encounter them on a regular basis.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

And "mythical"? Humans appear in the classics, are humans mythical too then?

No. I encounter them on a regular basis.

As I encounter wood-nymphs on a regular basis.

a reply to: AlienView

Asexual reproduction (which is the consequence of a single "sex") basically implies that you produce clones of yourself. As a result, change will be much slower, and thus adaption will be much slower, than two genders allow.

Why do I exist? I have no idea, that is out of the current realm of what Science looks at. I speak as a person who works in the science industry. Its also really out of the realm of realm of religion, beyond a lot of UPG/USG (Unprovable either personal (P) or Shared (S) gnoses, ie gut feeling). My own faith does not adress the "why I exist" so much the "how do you want to live?". I'm not abrahamic however so....

a reply to: theantediluvian

Best scientific explanation so far - Does allow for reproduction and sex to be a natural result of.........whatever.

And of course the search for origins and directions may be outside of science and in the realm of philosophy.

- No one really knows exactly why the Big Bang occured in the first place and until, and if ever, a meaning
to it can be determined, all events and directions not explainable by science are hypothetical speculations.

OR - To quote the famous Nobel Prize Winning physicist Max Planck:

"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us".

" Science has no answer to it. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. "

"An experiment is a question which science poses to Nature, and a measurement is the recording of Nature's answer."

Sorry deleted I was out of order with my humor.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

I suppose that may be the closest to an answer we may get - And as usual imaginative and interesting.

And so is listening to Linda Moulton Howe give lectures on aliens and how they have been here for eons.

However real proof is another story - and the wherefrom, where to, and why, of aliens. sex amd genetics
remains to be seen.

I guess what I am trying to convey is if somehow a CREATOR Creation Energy Group considering the Kardashev scale moved into a higher level of existence or type 3+ civilization free of a organic reality, who is to say they too didn't start out as organic based
bio organisms?
Biological organisms that onced required a multiple gender based reproduction system to thrive and or survive but have advanced so far with technology they cannot even remember their biological past or ancestors. Because they are now more technological singularity enhanced. Think of Artificial intelligence assisting in the medical field and developing medicine. For example you ingest nanotechnology that not only can rebuild damaged tissue but rebuild new modified tissue to say fit deep space travel that is impervious to long term exposure to solar radiation.
In short it's basically assisted evolution. Or is it actually natural evolution?

a reply to: LABTECH767

You have me curious now. : )

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Yes, I agree.

Lately I've come to the hypothesis that biological life in the universe is only one possibility

An AI type species not based on biological evolution may exist, and may be the the so called originators
of biological Evolution - 'they' may have evolved, if they evolved at all, in a completely different fashion

- sort of like the entities in the sci-fi movies "Transformers".

Still that is speculation - We can imagine, but not prove, alien intelligence. - Not yet!