Evolution and Sex.

I have a Question about Evolution. As far as I know the Theory goes we started as a one cell organism somehow. And then divided up and eventually turned into a Fish. Then the Fish Grew Legs Yada Yada Yada and Eventually we got to be a pretty Hairless Ape that think they are pretty Cluey. Some Think they can Dance but personally I think the jury is still out there.

So on to the Sex bit. When said Fish Grew Legs did his wife just Suddenly Grow legs and Follow him to become a Different species or was he a magic fish that could fertilise himself?. 😁😉

And even if the Egg came before the Chicken or Vice Versa there is still only one chicken in the end. Or did the Dinosaur or whatever that bore the Chicken Magically know to produce a female and Male ? Or Is they bore a Female Chicken How did She make the Next egg to make another Man Chicken to then have sex with and have more Chickens?

Also does this mean everything from Sciences point of View starts out incestial? Like pretty much everything?

I don't see how Two or even more animals changed into the exact same different thing. I find this to be a hole in the Theory of Evolution as it seems and improbability that it would happen any of these ways.

a reply to: TheSkunk
Ah Skunk, you're being too simplistic. Look deeper. a couple of relatively quick examples that you can see for yourself, not wait billions of years.
Take a petrie dish and put a fast "breeding" virus on the dish, You can actually watch them multiply. Then add an antibiotic to the mix and you'll see some viruses "mutate" to become resistant to the antibiotics. They are all the same virus but some are different than others.
That's called evolution in action. The old viruses die off, killed by the antibiotic. Yet the others go on to "reproduce". Some one more scientific on here will give you a more detailed answer.
Now, as you should know dogs have been bred from wolves. In fact they have just found a pup from a few thousand years ago (been deep frozen, so in good condition) that could be a link between a wolf and a dog. Easy that heh.
Now think on this, how many dog breeds do you know? They're all dogs but look completely different. This diversity has only took a few "hundred" years to achieve not thousands or billions of years. Yes, man was the governing factor in this evolutionary practice, but it proves the mechanism for evolution.
Or are you just trolling and you are going to come up with "god" "intelligent design" etc.

You need to research evolution a bit.

a reply to: TheSkunk

Then said Fish Grew Legs did his wife just Suddenly Grow legs and Follow him to become a Different species or was he a magic fish that could fertilise himself?

Oh, come on. It is not that hard. The wife would have been a "normal" fish, but (some of the) offspring would have fathers legs. And so on.

a reply to: TheSkunk

Then the Fish Grew Legs Yada Yada Yada and Eventually we got to be a pretty Hairless Ape that think they are pretty Cluey. Some Think they can Dance but personally I think the jury is still out there.

Absolutely vile.

However, given that you just had to get such an ignorant, hurtful and hateful statement right in at the beginning, I'm not surprised that the rest of your OP is so nonsensical based on presumptions. Starting with your presumption that Mr. Fish came first...

I don't remember the details right now -- and I'm not inclined to search it for you, you can try to prove me wrong if you are so inclined -- but we do have known examples of aquatic life producing BOTH male and female reproductive capabilities, so it is possible that some/many/most/all life were likewise were capable of self-reproducing, and at some point evolved to perform only male OR female reproductive roles. But such a self-reproducing creature would necessarily be considered more female than male, having the necessary body parts to not just conceive, but for gestation and birth.

I once read an interesting theory that this was the true story of Adam and Eve and the apple: Until that point, women self-reproduced, and the boys/men were considered defective and inferior. So in effect, by eating the apple, God and/or Eve made man "equal" to women, creating an incentive to join forces so to speak, to cooperate and work together to build something greater than they alone could achieve.

I have read that it is also entirely possible (though not probable) that even today a very rare few women retain/develop both male and female reproductive functions, and could self-reproduce. We really cannot know because it would be impossible to test every single female born to make such a determination. Even if such a woman gave birth, and no father could be matched via DNA testing, it would be impossible to know there was no father just because we don't know who he is. It would, however, be very interesting to start testing such women for self-reproductive capabilities.

This is actually a fascinating subject with lots of variables and exceptions and anomalies.

a reply to: crayzeed

Did you not read the question, most pointless answer ever
It completely disregards the question posed

Go study micro and macro evolution before using such a simple and pointless analogy

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: TheSkunk

Then said Fish Grew Legs did his wife just Suddenly Grow legs and Follow him to become a Different species or was he a magic fish that could fertilise himself?

Oh, come on. It is not that hard. The wife would have been a "normal" fish, but (some of the) offspring would have fathers legs. And so on.

Did you not read the question either, are evolutionists deevolving on ats now

He asked about sex and reproduction, used legs as an analogy,
You replied by saying wife and father, already making the sex issue irrelevant and the sex issue was the question

Did you study English, never mind science
The thread title is evolution and sex, He is asking how mummy and daddy fish became mummy and daddy fish, incredulous!

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Did you study English...

Did you?

He asked multiple questions.

I provided the answer for one of them.

S

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: TheSkunk

Then the Fish Grew Legs Yada Yada Yada and Eventually we got to be a pretty Hairless Ape that think they are pretty Cluey. Some Think they can Dance but personally I think the jury is still out there.

Absolutely vile.

.

Sorry Bo, why is it so vile
I don’t get your reasoning

According to evolution, hairy apes became less hairy
People now think they are smart

I don’t get your response

As for the rest of your meandering opinion, it’s not science, just stories and assumption based on what you may have heard and then this part about hearing something but won’t verify it, really?

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Did you study English...

Did you?

He asked multiple questions.

I provided the answer for one of them.

The thread title Moab, the thread title

It’s not that difficult, really it’s not

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Did you study English...

Did you?

He asked multiple questions.

I provided the answer for one of them.

The thread title Moab, the thread title

It’s not that difficult, really it’s not

And below the thread title there is a post containing a number of questions.

It’s not that difficult, really it’s not

Take a petrie dish and put a fast "breeding" virus on the dish, You can actually watch them multiply. Then add an antibiotic to the mix and you'll see some viruses "mutate" to become resistant to the antibiotics. They are all the same virus but some are different than others.

Can you prove this happened without someone and a petri
dish? In a hostile environment?

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Did you study English...

Did you?

He asked multiple questions.

I provided the answer for one of them.

The thread title Moab, the thread title

It’s not that difficult, really it’s not

And below the thread title there is a post containing a number of questions.

It’s not that difficult, really it’s not

Go reread it, the op, go on.
Skunk used the fish analogy as an analogy
If you reread the op, he asks

“So on to the Sex bit. When said Fish Grew Legs did his wife just Suddenly Grow legs and Follow him to become a Different species or was he a magic fish that could fertilise himself?. 😁😉 “

The question is still the same
Nothing to do with mummy and daddy fish, husband and wife fish
“Did it self fertilise” was the question


Just acknowledge you are wrong, back out now, it won’t get any better for you

It appears after the process of Creation and during the periods of Evolution that some form of Intelligence interacted with the created single cell or it's descendants...

a reply to: TheSkunk
Good questions

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Skunk used the fish analogy as an analogy

Except that it is a #ty analogy. As it is about trait inheritance through sex and not about the origin of sexual reproduction.

“Did it self fertilise” was the question

That is a separate question. There are species that can self fertilise. There are species that can change their sex from male to female and vice versa.

I suggest you follow your own advice and back out now, it won’t get any better for you

a reply to: crayzeed

I learned rhat antibiotics have no effect on virus. Only bacteria.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Skunk used the fish analogy as an analogy

Except that it is a #ty analogy. As it is about trait inheritance through sex and not about the origin of sexual reproduction.

“Did it self fertilise” was the question

That is a separate question. There are species that can self fertilise. There are species that can change their sex from male to female and vice versa.

I suggest you follow your own advice and back out now, it won’t get any better for you

So now you admit the mummy and daddy fish legs was an analogy, and still justify yourself, your answer to an analogy, not the answer requested in the op question

Skunk didn’t ask about what species were hermaphrodite did he? Did I miss something, are we discussing hermaphroditism in this thread

Don’t try and think yourself clever, it’s not working
Just one strawman on another

a reply to: Raggedyman

Sorry Bo, why is it so vile I don’t get your reasoning. According to evolution, hairy apes became less hairy People now think they are smart I don’t get your response

Good. Says much for you. I'm sorry that I did get it.

As for the rest of your meandering opinion, it’s not science, just stories and assumption based on what you may have heard...

I wouldn't call it "opinion." I really didn't express an opinion. Just sharing various thoughts and informed opinions of others. Neither evolution nor reproduction is fully understood, so any discussion of either is limited in purely scientific terms, and therefore necessarily and appropriately subject to discussion of possibilities and theories.

More to the point, we are allowed to discuss theories and possibilities and speculations.

...and then this part about hearing something but won’t verify it, really?

Yup. Really! It would have been an especially nice gesture on my part to do so... but most likely it would have been completely ignored, and therefore a waste of time on my part.

However, anyone sincerely interested could and would do their own due diligence and educate themselves. Just a simple search of ATS would show plenty of threads (going back years) with links and details regarding the so-called "gender-bending" in nature due to endocrine-disruptors in the environment.

a reply to: Boadicea

Sorry Bo, I don’t get it
Many people believe we come from apes or whatever the believe now
Think they are smart

I don’t have an issue with that statement
I don’t see why it’s so vile

Poorly written, poorly structured, poor explained but vile?
Everything about evolution is vile in my opinion

I don’t understand your reaction, thought I would ask

As for a hermaphrodite conceiving their own child, a both male and female individual conceiving from within, sounds a bit Strange

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So now you admit the mummy and daddy fish legs was an analogy

Where have i denied that the fish story was an analogy?

Skunk didn’t ask about what species were hermaphrodite did he? Did I miss something, are we discussing hermaphroditism in this thread

He asked whether the fish could fertilise himself. As I was not around to witness it, i can not answer that question. But there was no need for the fish to self fertilise in the first place, to pass on his mutation.

So what is your problem again?