Evolution and Sex.

a reply to: moebius How can the Fish pass on the Mutation between different species? Like a Donkey and a Horse make a mule that is not fertile?

Wow I never knew people could get upset over a question and not actually answer it. Yes I was asking if everytime a Species Changed that did they fertilise themselves, or some how they evolved male and female together.

If it were breeding and changing to a whole different species would it not work like the mule?

Didn't Apes and Humans cone from a common Ancestor that split as well apparently or have I missed something. To the guy shouting me down Like I am stupid. I imagine that a theory of evolution is not proven yet and you were not there so cheers

I asked a bit that has not been answered yet

originally posted by: TheSkunk

Didn't Apes and Humans cone from a common Ancestor that split as well apparently or have I missed something.

What totally shows that evolution is not true is the fact that despite a theorized 25 million years of development from an ape-like creature to the human being we do not have one complete fossil of any of these transitional creatures. Not one complete fossil. Yet we find countless remains of all other creatures... It goes to show there was no mythological 25 million years of transitional hominids that ever existed, therefore invalidating evolution. Take a look at Lucy, one of the supposed missing links, it is missing about 90% of its cranium as well as most of its other features:



Despite how much is missing, they declare it an intermediate species leading to human evolution? It is absurd. It shows they have no actual proof of human missing links.

They have to grasp at straws and make totally unfounded extrapolations because there is no actual proof of any transitional creatures as proposed by evolutionary theory. It is total bunk. Don't be bullied by the blind mockery and insult of "science-minded" people, just look towards the actual evidence and it's obvious that evolution is not true.

a reply to: TheSkunk

The sex bit started from Day 1, it is the way of creation, we are what we are, we must follow the universal script.

originally posted by: TheSkunk
Wow I never knew people could get upset over a question and not actually answer it.

Welcome to Earth

a reply to: Vroomfondel

he goal is ultimately survival of the species, even if it means evolving into completely different species. Its still survival.

No it isn't, it's the end of the species from which the change occurred.

What was the goal again?

a reply to: TheSkunk
a reply to: cooperton
That evolution occurs is considered scientific fact and is not debated by the scientific community.

The details of the "theory of evolution" are debated by the scientific community, in part because the fossil record so far is incomplete. It's not part of the theory that everything has to leave a fossil, in fact most of the time fossils are not left, they only are preserved under specific conditions which do not always occur, so gaps in the fossil record can be expected, but those gaps don't disprove evolution in any way, they result from the hit or miss nature of how fossils are made, not because of a failure of the theory of evolution.

While it's true that the fossil record of human evolution is not as complete as we would like, it's false that the fossil record doesn't show transitional forms, of course it does. The evolution of whales is interesting because of the vestigial hind limbs they possess.

The pace of evolution

In fact, we see many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record. For example, to the right we show just a few steps in the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals, highlighting the transition of the walking forelimb to the flipper.

This thread seems to be asking about how speciation occurs, and that same website linked above has a learning module about that, so I suggest reviewing the module but I fear the ignorance of TheSkunk may be too vast to overcome, talking about "When said Fish Grew Legs did his wife just Suddenly Grow legs" in the OP. Fish didn't grow legs, that's not what the theory of evolution suggests:

Research is ongoing and would be helped by more discoveries of transitional forms in the fossil record, but this explains some of what we know and don't know about the origin of the tetrapods.

The origin of tetrapods

Tetrapods evolved from a finned organism that lived in the water. However, this ancestor was not like most of the fish we are familiar with today. Most animals we call fishes today are ray-finned fishes, the group nearest the root of this evogram. Ray-finned fishes comprise some 25,000 living species, far more than all the other vertebrates combined. They have fin rays — that is, a system of often branching bony rays (called lepidotrichia) that emanate from the base of the fin.

In contrast, the other animals in the evogram — coelacanths, lungfishes, all the other extinct animals, plus tetrapods (represented by Charles Darwin) — have what we call "fleshy fins" or "lobe fins." That is, their limbs are covered by muscle and skin. Some, such as coelacanths, retain lepidotrichia at the ends of these fleshy limbs, but in most fleshy-finned animals these have been lost.

The common ancestor of all those different organisms (ray-fins, coelacanths, lungfishes, tetrapods, etc.) was neither a lobe-fin nor a ray-fin. This ancient vertebrate lineage had fins (with lepidotrichia), scales, gills, and lived in the water. Yet they also had air bladders (air-filled sacs) connected to the back of their throats that could be used for breathing air (i.e., as lungs) or for buoyancy control. The air bladders of many ray-fins no longer connect to their throats, and so they are not able to breathe air. In these ray-fins, the air bladder is used mainly for buoyancy control and is known as a swim bladder. By contrast, tetrapods have taken an alternative route: they have lost the buoyancy control function of their air bladders, and instead this organ been elaborated to form the lungs that we all use to get around on land.

When we get past coelacanths and lungfishes on the evogram, we find a series of fossil forms that lived between about 390 and 360 million years ago during the Devonian Period. During this interval, this lineage of fleshy-finned organisms moved from the water to the land. Many parts of the skeleton changed as new innovations that permitted life on land evolved.

a reply to: TheSkunk

OP -- You need this evolution primer called "There was no First Human." There are two main take-aways from this video:

1. You can never pinpoint when a species came to be, because there wasn't a specific instant when it "came to be." There is never one specific organism that can be said to be the first of its species.

2. Every generation is the same species as its parents and the same species as its children.

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: TheSkunk
I always found it odd that life depends on another to propagate. Every thing from flowers to insects to mammals.
When did this sex thing appear? Very odd for mother nature to of come up with this system.

Except that isn't true. Most single celled organisms like bacteria, amoeba, paramecium, algae, etc. reproduce asexually. That is, there only needs to be one organism to propagate. Just going by the numbers of organisms, asexual reproduction is by far the more common method.

Asexual reproduction probably came first, with sexual reproduction being something that evolved.

There are advantages to asexual reproduction, such as less energy expended in reproduction, but there are also disadvantages. Some disadvantages are lack of diversity and the inability to adapt as quickly as when the parents are contributing their genome.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Vroomfondel

he goal is ultimately survival of the species, even if it means evolving into completely different species. Its still survival.

No it isn't, it's the end of the species from which the change occurred.

What was the goal again?

Except that a speciation doesn’t necessitate the extinction of the progenitors. Look at Chimpanzee and Bonobo for example. There were yes Bonobos prior to the Congo River which pushed its way across about 1 Ma. The Chimps stuck on the southern side became isolated and evolved into Bonobos while the original Xhinp population still persists today.

a reply to: cooperton


Again with the same BS straw man you trot out in every thread... For the 1000th time, Lucy is NOT the only exemplar of Australopithecus Afarensis. There are multiple examples and you rely on a single set of fossils to negate a century of work. It’s ludicrous and dishonest to repeat a lie.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was asking how 2 sexes arise everytime speciation occurs.

And when it actually changes species. Like a fish to animal. Or however it went.

Some things are explainable with being able to lay multiple eggs.

Animals that only carry one offspring are harder to belive ir imagine that a genetic change so cast happened in 2 different offspring. One Male and One female and at the exact same time. And also that it happened in the exact same spot and that both species still survived. If it were survival I would have thought that evolution would have taken a more singular path.

I think perhaps the main mechanism of Evolution would be that life expanded. And changed to suit environments it moved into.
If it were for survival there would be one ultimate organism and it would be in the same spot it always was. But that is off topic.

These sex people. Lets talk about Sex.

I feel once you get to animals with one offspring evolution starts to become hard to explain.

I reconsidered my Egg and Chicken because I guess that animal could have laid multiple eggs. And had a female and male genetically different offspring. Seems a bit far fetched but plausible.

Still makes that chicken incestial I guess.

Dogs have litters so Ok that could happen too.

Singular Offspring animals. This is where I get confused how they change species here. And come up with a Male and Female at again after that occurs.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That video one has no mention of sex.

Secondly I understand that is how some think Evolution worked.

I find it a little hard as it is such a massive scale I guess and not instant. I guess group change can explain the female and male issue even though I don't exactly agree. I will think more on it.

My problem is not with evolution. My problem was how a Mum and Dad surfaced each time over and over again from the change.

originally posted by: TheSkunk
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

That video one has no mention of sex.

Secondly I understand that is how some think Evolution worked.

I find it a little hard as it is such a massive scale I guess and not instant.

Your reasoning seems backwards.

You find the video hard to comprehend because it's not instant.

But you're contradicting your own opening post because your question is about how can it happen instantly.

So you yourself identified the problem with instant change, and now that you see in the video it's not instant you should see that resolves the issue you were asking about in your opening post.

Sex is certainly inferred in the video when he talks about his ancestry related to sexual reproduction, his line of ancestral fathers which only exists because they had sex. But if you're still hung up on sex as an issue, I don't think you understand the message in the video that the offspring is never a new species as you seem to think the offspring infers.

So in answer to your opening post, instant change that you asked about is hard to understand, and now you see in the video it's not instant which seems to solve the problem and should be easier to understand. It makes no sense at all that you say the video is hard to understand because it's not instant when that exactly solves what you were asking about in the OP. I think the video gives a good explanation and you haven't really explained any logical problem with the explanation it gives.

I agree it's a massive scale, and I think that people who have problems with understanding evolution may be faltering on this point, because the limitations of our brains make it hard to wrap our heads around the "deep time" and the huge number of generations involved. This limitation is even more pronounced with people who seem to think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, but it's not easy to wrap our heads around what can happen in hundreds of millions of years. But that limitation of our brain is not a limitation in the theory of evolution, we just need to give more thought to how much can happen very slowly in "deep time".

a reply to: peter vlar

So I merely called semantics? Okay

Except that a speciation doesn’t necessitate the extinction of the progenitors. Look at Chimpanzee and Bonobo for example. There were yes Bonobos prior to the Congo River which pushed its way across about 1 Ma. The Chimps stuck on the southern side became isolated and evolved into Bonobos while the original Xhinp population still persists today.

Okay I can grasp that much but if it isn't to much to go into
for my little pea brain. lol Does evolution suggest then that
this is the model used to explain the difference we see in the
human being regarding races? I hope that's a good question.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's not part of the theory that everything has to leave a fossil

Sure, but the transitional period from an ape-like creature to contemporary humans was supposedly 25 million years. From those 25 million years we do not have one complete fossil of any of these transitional species? They are all fragmented findings that rely on extrapolations to identify them. We find complete fossils of all real organisms, but we can't find any fossils of these missing links.

they only are preserved under specific conditions which do not always occur

We have countless remains of dinosaurs, which are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, why can't we find any complete missing link fossils? I beg you to see the forest among the trees here.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton


Again with the same BS straw man you trot out in every thread... For the 1000th time, Lucy is NOT the only exemplar of Australopithecus Afarensis. There are multiple examples and you rely on a single set of fossils to negate a century of work. It’s ludicrous and dishonest to repeat a lie.

Show me pictures of the other fossils of Australopithecus Afarensis. No artist renditions or extrapolations. Just real pictures of real archaeological evidence. There are no complete fossils, they all rely on biased extrapolation.

originally posted by: cooperton
We have countless remains of dinosaurs, which are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old, why can't we find any complete missing link fossils? I beg you to see the forest among the trees here.

I think it is you who are not seeing the big picture. You're comparing human ancestors to dinosaurs but the populations were likely not comparable, so a larger population of course gives a greater chance of a rare event occurring (like a complete fossil) than a smaller population.

Estimates of human ancestors in Africa 4 million years ago are only about 50,000 alive, varying from 10,000 to 100,000 depending on various factors.

That's a relatively small population, compared to say the Bison population in America in the 18th century being over 60 million. Why look at Bison populations? Because they were a dominant animal in recent times which can give us some idea of what kind of populations land might have supported in the time of the dinosaurs. There could have been tens of millions of dinosaurs alive at any give time, like the Bison. So if fossils are left at a certain rate, we will find a lot more of them from populations of tens of millions of animals, than from populations of only 0.05 million animals like the human population 4 million years ago. The difference becomes even more dramatic when you consider not just the living animals at any point in time, but the total number of creatures that lived, with dinosaurs dominating the planet for a very long time, compared to human ancestors which didn't dominate the planet in prehistoric times but originated in Africa.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

i didnt say that

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I just basically said I understand but don't exactly agree.

Everything you just schooled me on, I already understood.

I still find it odd.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Estimates of human ancestors in Africa 4 million years ago are only about 50,000 alive, varying from 10,000 to 100,000 depending on various factors.

How do they even get that estimate if there has never been a complete unambiguous fossil found?

But for argument sake lets say that 50,000 was the average population size over the theorized time of the transition from an ape-like creature to the human. if you span that across the theorized 25 million transition period for the missing links then there were countless generations of the estimated 50,000 people. over 25 million years, given a 40 year generation span, there were 625,000 generations of the transition hominids. Given an average population of 50,000 that means there should be around 31,250,000,000 fossilized remains of these transitional species. Yet, we can't find any of these complete fossilized remains?

Face it, evolution is a lie.

Sex is part of The Devil's great deception.