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.

 

How did sexual reproduction come to be (from an evolutionary standpoint)?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
How did EVERYTHING come to be from evolution.I think that people who believe in evolution are ignoring a lot.If only evolution created life on earth, there wouldn't be such a variety of creatures.The laws of the universe do not allow a natural variety of species.If evolution was present it would create only ONE creature from a bacteria.

People really need to think a little bit more generally speaking when it comes to evolution.Once a species is created, it then evolves but minorly.Not into different beings.




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyed
How did EVERYTHING come to be from evolution.I think that people who believe in evolution are ignoring a lot.If only evolution created life on earth, there wouldn't be such a variety of creatures.The laws of the universe do not allow a natural variety of species.If evolution was present it would create only ONE creature from a bacteria.

People really need to think a little bit more generally speaking when it comes to evolution.Once a species is created, it then evolves but minorly.Not into different beings.


First of all, evolution doesn't make any statements about how life started...it talks about biodiversity and how it came to be. And you're wrong if you believe it doesn't explain the large variety of species we have today, it explains it perfectly


We actually KNOW species can turn into new species as we've observed it in nature, and the fossil/DNA record also backs it up.

In short, you are WRONG and should read up on the subject...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyed
 
Many grand assumptions in this paragraph. Do a wikipedia search for evolution. Based on your post you will be infinitely more knowledgeable after having read the wiki page.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyed
How did EVERYTHING come to be from evolution.

How are you defining “everything”?


I think that people who believe in evolution are ignoring a lot.

Such as?


If only evolution created life on earth, there wouldn't be such a variety of creatures.

Evolution doesn’t touch on how life originated, only on biodiversity… which is what happens after life initially occurs.


The laws of the universe do not allow a natural variety of species.If evolution was present it would create only ONE creature from a bacteria.

Care to explain how this is so? Because if you start with populations of the same species separate them into environments that differ in some way, you’ll eventually get two different species as each adapts to its environment. How is this against the laws of the universe?


People really need to think a little bit more generally speaking when it comes to evolution.

People really need to read and comprehend a lot more about the theory of evolution and what it actually says before speaking of it.


Once a species is created, it then evolves but minorly.Not into different beings.

How are you defining “species” and “being” in this sentence? Enough small changes accumulated over enough time will yield a new species. Not sure why that’s so hard to grasp.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Hello iterationzero. Nice of you to post here. It finally appears there is someone who knows a lot about evolution.
Now perhaps you can start explaining with some irrefutable evidence how sexual reproduction came to be, as the OP asked.

Surely, you can do better than the others who merely posted links to various speculations.
Go for it, !! Im waiting for your answer, which Im assuming is 100% confirmed and accepted as FACT.


I hope you dont disappoint me and the rest of the people following this thread by posting yet another unconfirmed speculation on as to how sexual reproduction evolved. Remember its "how".. not "why it may have" evolved, as the rest of the posts here talk about..




*grabs the popcorn*


edit on 25-3-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Evolution is simply people playing "puzzle" with animals and fossils. They mix this, add this, swap this over here, swap that over there and try to make it all line up.

Sure, it's easy to say "I think a fox and a dog had similar ancestors".

It's much more difficult to say "I wonder how flight started" or in this case "how did sex evolve".

The reason a discussion like this will never accomplish good is simple: A person that believes in evolution is convinced that evolution actually occurred. So they will take all evidence and try and fit it in that theory. When blanks are drawn, they can merely say "well this happened billions of years ago".

On the other hand, there is no reason God couldn't have created the earth billions of years ago, and slowly introduced animals to the earth. It might help to explain certain "explosions" that seem to have occurred.

What usually causes problems is when creationists try to show that the entire earth is really only 6,000 years old. That leads to a divide that is so large, that further discussion is pointless.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Hello iterationzero. Nice of you to post here. It finally appears there is someone who knows a lot about evolution.

Not really. Everything I’ve posted on the subject can easily be found with a minimum of work. It just seems that people don’t do much in the way of fact-checking their assumptions about what constitutes evolution.


Now perhaps you can start explaining with some irrefutable evidence how sexual reproduction came to be, as the OP asked.

Irrefutable? If I were a more suspicious person, I’d think that you were laying the groundwork to drag the conversation into the area of epistemology. Any evidence for anything can be “refuted”, depending on what one’s personal threshold for “irrefutability” is.


Surely, you can do better than the others who merely posted links to various speculations.

Speculations? If I were a more suspicious person, I’d think that you were laying the groundwork to assert the colloquial definition of a hypothesis or theory in the place of the scientific one, even though we’re supposedly talking about science.

As far as I know, there is no single overarching theory of the origin of sexual reproduction at this point that is accepted by 99% of the scientific community. There are several competing models and only time will tell which one will eventually have the overwhelming burden of evidence. It may not even be that a single one of the current models are eventually shown to be correct, but that several of them are found to be facets of the same overarching theory. You could do some reading on this topic yourself and draw your own conclusions rather than insisting the truth be brought to you.


Go for it, !! Im waiting for your answer, which Im assuming is 100% confirmed and accepted as FACT.

See above. The facetious tone of your post is becoming increasingly obvious. If you’d like to have a straightforward discussion about it, I’d be happy to. But if you’re looking to argue semantics or misrepresent concepts in an effort to construct a strawman, I have better uses for my time.


I hope you dont disappoint me and the rest of the people following this thread by posting yet another unconfirmed speculation on as to how sexual reproduction evolved. Remember its "how".. not "why it may have" evolved, as the rest of the posts here talk about.

By using the word “unconfirmed”, it seems like you’re suggesting that none of the current models have any evidence supporting them. This is not the case and I’d argue that the origins of sexual reproduction is one of the current areas of significant research within the broader framework of the theory of evolution. I find this somewhat ironic since when people arguing against evolution talk about the “big unanswered questions of evolution”, they’re usually talking about things that have been sufficiently researched but that they never bothered to personally learn about. This is a case where there’s a legitimate question of how a major facet of life on Earth came into being and I’m sure research will continue for quite some time.

Hope you're enjoying that popcorn.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimsonhead
Evolution is simply people playing "puzzle" with animals and fossils. They mix this, add this, swap this over here, swap that over there and try to make it all line up.

You’re completely ignoring the fact that genetics is part of modern evolutionary synthesis. If paleontology were the sole evidence for evolution, I’d probably agree with you. But it involves much more than just the examination of fossils.


Sure, it's easy to say "I think a fox and a dog had similar ancestors".

It is. But it requires much more work to prove it.


It's much more difficult to say "I wonder how flight started" or in this case "how did sex evolve".

And these are not questions that scientists working in the area of evolution are shying away from. Quite the opposite – there’s a significant amount of research in the areas of morphology and sexual reproduction. Science isn’t static.


The reason a discussion like this will never accomplish good is simple: A person that believes in evolution is convinced that evolution actually occurred.

You’re using the past tense – evolution didn’t just occur previously, it continues to occur and it is observable. Further, the theory of evolution makes predictions that are testable, that’s why it’s the theory of evolution.


So they will take all evidence and try and fit it in that theory. When blanks are drawn, they can merely say "well this happened billions of years ago".

Because all of the available evidence supports and strengthens the theory. By “blanks”, I assume that you’re talking about gaps in the fossil record. Again, the theory of evolution isn’t founded solely on paleontological evidence.


On the other hand, there is no reason God couldn't have created the earth billions of years ago, and slowly introduced animals to the earth. It might help to explain certain "explosions" that seem to have occurred.

Interesting. Where’s your supporting evidence for this? And then the big question – why?


What usually causes problems is when creationists try to show that the entire earth is really only 6,000 years old. That leads to a divide that is so large, that further discussion is pointless.

I don’t really see how this is fundamentally different than suggesting that God placed progressive species of animals on Earth gradually. Either way, you’re talking about something that is untestable and unverifiable. I could make the assertion that God miracled the world and everything on it into existence five minutes ago and, by your reasoning, it would carry the same weight since it’s equally unverifiable and untestable. That is, ultimately, a philosophical argument and not a scientific one.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   


How did sexual reproduction come to be (from an evolutionary standpoint)?


Convenience, need, and pressure from other organisms and the environment, and off course a form of Symbiosis. The way i see it some single cell organisms decided to form a symbioses relationship instead of just killing each other every time they bumped into each other. The old adage of it's better to make love then war, seems to apply to these single cell organisms.

And the different sexes seems to be derived from different natures and purposes of that symbiosis process. One cell or organism, formed a symbiosis with a second organism or cell, most likely as a way to fight or surpass other organisms, and everything seems to have stemmed from that, and they say that even our DNA as far as they know 8% of it was inserted by viruses, which is a subversive organism, so we also are part virus and subversive in our natures. Even today many billions of years later, we still have two basic nature's and purposes to the sexes, and in all creatures that have two sexes such as animals and insects etc, and including humans, and it's still a form of symbiosis for survival and surpassing in a environment, and its an ongoing and evolving process then, and as well as now.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Reply to post by crimsonhead
 


Very true. Biggest truth ever.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





Now perhaps you can start explaining with some irrefutable evidence how sexual reproduction came to be


You might wanna look up "evolution of sexual reproduction" on Wikipedia, the link's been posted numerous times by now. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume you've overlooked it...because it clearly explains that science doesn't have a definite answer. There's multiple hypotheses, and a lot of them aren't mutually exclusive.

There's stuff we don't have an answer for (yet)...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by crimsonhead
 


I really hope you realize there's more than just fossil evidence to back up the theory...so much in fact, it's probably more evidence than what we have for gravity



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
When the question of how sexual reproduction evolved, all we have are various hypotheses and theories... in other words "guesses". Even if scientists managed reached some sort of a consensus on as to which hypothesis explains the evolution of sex, it simply means that they all agreed on one speculation.

Let us all put aside the popular theories and hypotheses put forward by evolutionary scientists (who themselves don't know how it happened) and think about this for OURSELVES...

In order for sex to have evolved perfectly...
1. Compatible male and female cells had to have developed independently to perfection.
2. Then, the mechanism of conception (gene mixing etc) had to have also developed right.
3. Then, the process of gestation also had to have developed right.
4. And then sexual reproduction had to have branched out to both the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom, (or did sexual reproduction arise more than once in the evolutionary path??? Yeah, right.)

I hope you all realize that the implications of an error at any of these given junctions would have been the end of sexual evolution. And since evolution teaches that it all occurred without any overseeing intelligence, we are supposed to believe that sex went through all these vital steps, to develop to perfection. Now that is a grand claim, but has little to nothing to back it up. And no, hypotheses by scientists is simply not the same as "hardcore evidence" such as observing organism undergo mutations in laboratories.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 
Making grand assumptions about necessitating perfection on a trait that can only be realized to be adequate with what is there, and more grand assumptions are made in assuming sex could have only evolved one time at one location over some 2 billion years of evolution

Imagine two cells fuse randomly. Whether the fusion was a mere local response to the environment or occurred by any other means, if there was some genetic variation that is heritable in the tendency to fuse, engulf, or what have you, and at the same time there was a selective advantage for such behavior, then genes for fusing would spread through the population. As a by product of fusing, you not only widen the spectrum of variation, you create genetic alternates to purge deleterious genes from the population and bring advantageous mutations together. These new genetic repair mechanisms, along with the variation needed to resist pathogens, among half a dozen other factors, all contributed to the maintenance of sex. The hypotheses and theories are all probably right to some degree. Not only does the central dogma not apply to genes, it scarcely applies to ecology and behavior.

The "how" is trivial and meaningless, and probably happened similar to what was explained above. The "how" of any form of an organisms behavior or physiology is banal and obvious, and is hardly even worth investigating. The "why" is the interesting question.

Bigger eggs improve offspring survival and produce more pheromones: smaller sperm swim faster in larger numbers. Both incur selective advantages for their own means. As long as there is some heritable genetic variation that can serve as a unit of natural selection, then organisms will diverge. In this case its two types of gametes.

Sex is infinitely more complicated than the "male/female" symmetry common to the mammalian groups. And once again as has been pointed out on more than 3 occasions, the wiki page on the evolution of sex is mighty helpful. This Yale lecture should suffice to resolve your disbelief in the modern studies on the evolution of sex if epistolary efforts fail.

openmedia.yale.edu.../courses/spring09/eeb122/mov/eeb122_09_020209.mov



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimsonhead
Evolution is simply people playing "puzzle" with animals and fossils. They mix this, add this, swap this over here, swap that over there and try to make it all line up.


Yup. Another trick is this :
They'll show you how they've observed one organism turn into a variation of the SAME organism and then hail it as "Undeniable proof of evolution", like as if that is evidence of other claims of evolution... such as evolution of sex, nervous systems, vision etc.




The reason a discussion like this will never accomplish good is simple: A person that believes in evolution is convinced that evolution actually occurred. So they will take all evidence and try and fit it in that theory. When blanks are drawn, they can merely say "well this happened billions of years ago".


True. All facts are interpreted to fit the ToE.
When asked the tough "how" questions, they refer you to a source that speculates on as to "why it may have evolved"... WITHOUT addressing "how". As has been the case in this thread.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 
Asking "how" something occurred is such an absurd question in respects to evolution, again for reasons banal and obvious. If you can't figure it out, type in "evolution" in google, and you'll probably find your answer within seconds.

Imagine asking a drummer how to pick up a drum stick. As long as the sticks are there, the drummer can pick up the sticks and start drumming.


edit on 26-3-2011 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





In order for sex to have evolved perfectly...
1. Compatible male and female cells had to have developed independently to perfection.
2. Then, the mechanism of conception (gene mixing etc) had to have also developed right.
3. Then, the process of gestation also had to have developed right.
4. And then sexual reproduction had to have branched out to both the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom, (or did sexual reproduction arise more than once in the evolutionary path??? Yeah, right.)


I don't see how you would qualify the sexes as they are today in any animal or plant as perfect, it's more like what works thrives what does not, does not thrive. Same could be applied to the process of sex or sexual reproduction.

1. No not really just close enough, if you look at what it is today, and you can plainly see its a lot of things but it is nowhere near perfect, and not even close to being decent in lots of cases.

2. Nope its all just a jumble of mix and match till something works.

3. Trial and error I would take, there are failures today and all kinds of things going wrong, I would think in gestation.

4. I would think that it would evolve for sexual reproduction as we see it now all around us, when the organism or organisms reach a certain level. You know being a couple of cells is different, then being a couple of thousands of cells, which is different then being a couple of million to billions of thousands of cells, and so on. And I think it arose along the only path it can take, that which is imposed by the greater organism, which is the petri dish we call earth.

And it is not smart to keep all your eggs in one basket under those circumstances. So they all could of evolved into different things by the same pressures, both the plant and animal kingdoms, like cells seem to be either evolving to counter the other cell or cells, or to adapt or fuse to the other cells, it seems to be so with the other way more complex animals and plants and whatever else, only on a way grander scale then simple cells or amoebas, but no matter what level or scale it is, it still is either evolving to counter the others or to adapt to others.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
The OP is a perfect example of Creationist disingenuousness – pretending to be an open, unbiased request for information, while in fact attempting to cast doubt on evolution as an explanation for biological phenomena. A cynical, dissimulating piece of work.

Three things need to be noted here:

  1. For any X, the question ‘why did X evolve?’ can only be answered by inference after the fact; the evolution of sex is not a special case;

  2. Numerous evolutionary advantages are conferred by sex; some, such as parasite resistance, have already been mentioned in the thread;

  3. Evolution is not debunked until it is shown that sexual reproduction is selectively disadvantageous compared with asexual reproduction, which we know evolved earlier.

Those seeking to explain anything to the OP are wasting their time. All he wants is to be able to say ‘See? Evolutionists don’t know how sex evolved, therefore evolution is bunk.’ Why bother opposing such an obviously futile, worthless argument?


edit on 26/3/11 by Astyanax because: of a comma.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 
Asking "how" something occurred is such an absurd question in respects to evolution, again for reasons banal and obvious. If you can't figure it out, type in "evolution" in google, and you'll probably find your answer within seconds.


If only it were that easy!
Google searches all yield answers on the lines of "X or Y may have evolved because of..." or other similar guesswork passed off as "scientific theories". Same with the wiki page or even a site devoted to teaching evolution... or for that matter your own reply, that posted earlier.


The "how" is trivial and meaningless, and probably happened similar to what was explained above. The "how" of any form of an organisms behavior or physiology is banal and obvious, and is hardly even worth investigating. The "why" is the interesting question.


The "how" is extremely crucial, with regards to the origins of sexual reproduction.
Ignoring the "how" and going after the "why" is a heck of a lot easier, but it basically boils down to saying "even if we are not sure how X happened, we are sure it evolved anyway, so let me speculate on why it happened".
Its equally as unscientific as hearing a bible-thumping creationist tell me "we are not sure how, but we know Goddidit."




Imagine asking a drummer how to pick up a drum stick. As long as the sticks are there, the drummer can pick up the sticks and start drumming.


Except the question raised in this thread was not about something as simple as picking up sticks. Its something that, apparently, even the best minds in evolutionary science haven't figured out.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Those seeking to explain to the OP how sex evolved, or even simply that it did evolve, are wasting their time. It exists, so obviously it did evolve – since the earliest organisms were asexual.



BAM!!


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
it basically boils down to saying "even if we are not sure how X happened, we are sure it evolved anyway, so let me speculate on why it happened".
Its equally as unscientific as hearing a bible-thumping creationist tell me "we are not sure how, but we know Goddidit."


And... just for the record, Im not a creationist.

Edit: good job editing out what you just said.


edit on 26-3-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-3-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: added comment




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join