Why Sex Evolved: The Evidence

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes but you are alive for max a hundred years more to look at your pond and see the population increase.

The insect I linked you has been reproducing asexually for one and a half million years and NOW genetic mutation are increasing within their population, which may be a cause to their extinction.

double post

Ok.

So, Juran.. What makes you so positive that your theories are superior to those mentioned in the OP's article? I'm assuming you are in fact a creationist. I'm asking because I find myself in a hard spot trying to find the truth. All I see is hate spewed forth by the "creationists" and a constant barrage of "prove it" statements being thrown at evolutionists. I'm pretty sure that neither party has definitive proof of their theories yet, and if it came down to it the studies that have been done do seem to throw the evolutionists a small bone. Now as I said, I find myself struggling to find the real truth, I have faith that there is some supreme being or omnipotent power that has brought the universe as we know it into existence. Are we divine beings? Eh.. Maybe, but not likely. I don't know that we are special as beings.. But I do know that every living organism as well as non-living was created by the same force. Therefore we are all bound together at some level. When you break everything down to its smallest particle.. It is exactly the same.. Whether it is Yogurt or a three toed sloth.

I think you are doing your cause more harm than good in this thread though. It seems awfully jumpy, and almost defensive to comment the way you have. The two biggest things that drive me nuts about creationism and the "religions" that fall within it: 1. The creationists seem to base their claims on an idea created by man. Lets not forget that the books were written by man, all of them. No matter how pure, or good man says he is.. There was an underlying reason for writing the books. Most likely one of personal benefit or gain, which is exactly the case with the old and new testaments. I'm not as certain about Islam. 2. Creationists cannot agree within their own belief who is right.. Is it the Catholics, the Muslims, the Jews, the Christians.. Or any sub division or denomination of the above?

I understand faith. That no evidence is needed. That faith is a belief in something true beyond reason or comprehension. But, it also sounds like a way to trap people within a limited way of thinking. As I said, I believe in an omnipotent being or power that has had some hand in all of this. I cannot however disregard science as a crock, when there are some tried and true methods.. And of course, science is a child of our creator. What is wrong with the theory that our cells and genetic makeups were cultivated and perfected and given a very precise set of instructions on which we naturally grow into more advanced and complete beings? I dunno.. Maybe this is the wrong place to really question these things as this topic is pertaining to a specific subject within this theory vs theory realm.

reply to post by Astyanax


Some interesting thoughts,but...
God created this universe, mankind and sex.

reply to post by mamabeth


Go hug Israel and your baloney 2 cent faith.

And leave the rest of us to research and read up. You already have all the answers don't you; "God did it" You religious nut jobs keep cracking me up

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


Ziggi Mojo,
I don't have any theories superior or otherwise, I only know what I know. For example I know that there is a creator, its not a belief, I know for a fact. How? Because I have been shown irrefutable proof. I know that this is an outrageous statement to make and nobody is going to believe me yet I speak the truth and it is because it is the truth that I have the right to speak it.

I do not consider myself a religious person. I certainly believe in spiritual transcendence but that is very much an individual pursuit and I would never try to shove it down anyone's throat. But what I would exhort others who want to know God to do is to take your life in your own hands and confront God fearlessly and openly, step on his toes if you must, anything to get him (I use the masculine vernacular for simplicity only) to notice you. Get him to to actually turn his attention upon you. I strongly believe that every individual has the capacity to do this if only they will cast all concerns to the wind.

God is God and Jesus is Jesus. Jesus, if you call upon him will come to you as spirit whereas God, if you can draw his focus, will reveal himself to you as God.

I shan't go on because this is not the place but I am planning a thread at some time to open this subject out more to those who might care to know more. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Some interesting thoughts,but...
God created this universe, mankind and sex.

You do have a way with words mamabeth, I sure like your style.

reply to post by Juran


I look forward to your thread, I'd like to be able to discuss these things in a venue that isn't completely tattered by party to party attacks that take away from the relevant and important discussion points.

reply to post by Juran

Why should god turn his attention to a delusional bipedal primate whose reproductive organ and waste organ are one in the same? If I had the power to create the universe, I would spend my time having as much sex as possible in order to propagate my genes and to equip my progeny with the power to resist parasites for long enough to create universes.

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by Juran

 

Why should god turn his attention to a delusional bipedal primate whose reproductive organ and waste organ are one in the same? If I had the power to create the universe, I would spend my time having as much sex as possible in order to propagate my genes and to equip my progeny with the power to resist parasites for long enough to create universes.

That is a weird Q. No I am not a primate and no I am not delusional, yes I am bipedal, no my productive organ, whilst within proximity of my waste organ, is not one in the same. You don't need the power of the universe to have as much sex as possible. Finally, God is not perfect, at least not in the way that we would like to imagine him being. Nothing in our existence happens that God doesn't allow to happen therefore we have no way of knowing what doesn't happen or what could happen were God to totally abandon us to our ignorant ways. None of us really appreciate the blessings that are perpetually bestowed upon us by God but we would quickly become aware if they were taken away. Everything has an opposite, even God's power. Who can comprehend the magnitude of the negativity that God has to continually overcome to protect his creation from the anti-life that would otherwise destroy it.
Science, which so rigorously denies God, is in fact attempting to take over from God's role. It is the scientists who hold grand delusions as your above posts clearly show even though I suspect you are only a wannabe scientist.

ZiggyMojo and uva3021

Please don’t feed the trolls any more; unless they bring specific evidence against this specific hypothesis or the experiments that validate it, ignore them. If we stick to the topic, all they can do is spam the thread with hate until some moderator notices and removes their posts.

Juran and Mamabeth

Can either of you offer any evidence that the Red Queen hypothesis is wrong? Because if you can’t, your opinions on this thread aren’t worth two cents.

Sexy Critters Evolve Faster

Sex reshuffles genes. That’s the only point of it, though you might not think so down the club on a Friday night.

By increasing the variety of genomes in a gene pool, sex increases that chances that some combination of genes will survive times of extreme environmental change, living to reproduce and multiply when conditions become more favourable.

The parasite case is really a paradigm. Parasites are part of a host organism’s environment, and because they tend to be short-lived they evolve fast, which is equivalent to saying the host’s environment changes fast.

This suggests that sex was probably invented in response to parasite infestation, but other factors causing rapid environmental change may also have been the cause. This article describes a study of the monogonont rotifer, a species of small multicellular animal, which switches between sexual and asexual reproduction depending on the amount of change in its environment.

reply to post by Astyanax


I found this article and thought that you would find
it of some interest...

findarticles.com...

reply to post by mamabeth

Thank you. Yes, this sort of thing is quite common in nature.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I once had a pond full of female swordtails and the population kept increasing. They did fine, except for the ones that got eaten by the kingfisher.

My parthenogenic swordtails are different from your transsexual frogs, but both serve equally well to illustrate that reproductive function can be quite labile in some animals. They have no implications for the argument of this thread, though.

I think just by reading Juran's comments alone I have been convinced to not come back to this site, seeing as how that's the intelligence level of most people on here. Although he's probably just trolling, one can never be sure. After all some people really are that simple.

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
So, Juran.. What makes you so positive that your theories are superior to those mentioned in the OP's article? I'm assuming you are in fact a creationist. I'm asking because I find myself in a hard spot trying to find the truth. All I see is hate spewed forth by the "creationists" and a constant barrage of "prove it" statements being thrown at evolutionists. I'm pretty sure that neither party has definitive proof of their theories yet, and if it came down to it the studies that have been done do seem to throw the evolutionists a small bone. Now as I said, I find myself struggling to find the real truth, I have faith that there is some supreme being or omnipotent power that has brought the universe as we know it into existence. Are we divine beings? Eh.. Maybe, but not likely. I don't know that we are special as beings.. But I do know that every living organism as well as non-living was created by the same force. Therefore we are all bound together at some level. When you break everything down to its smallest particle.. It is exactly the same.. Whether it is Yogurt or a three toed sloth.

I don't think that the Creationists can comprehend the idea because they are stuck on the idea of "man coming before female". And if anyone suggests that female came first...they'll automatically reject it no matter how many scientific ways it's proven.

On the Red Queen issue....wouldn't it be more beneficial to the female gender than the male gender? Seems to me that the male gender got the short end of the straw...all the genetic diseases.

If you look at the last pair of chromosomes...the gender chromosomes...the female X chromosome is a long chromosome with all sorts of genetic information. But the Y chromosome is only about 1/4 the size of the X chromosome with very little genetic information. This means that all men are subject to the genetic information on the X chromosome, which has things like blood-clotting gene, color-eye sight gene, etc.

Since men only have one X chromosome...they are dependent on the one X for genetic code...and if they don't get the bloodclotting gene, nor colored eyesight nor any other of the beneficial genes...then men get the genetic diseases like hemophilia and color-blindness.

But women...they have two X chromosomes....so it would take 2 recessive bad genes on the X chromosome for a woman to get something like hemophilia (very very rare for women) or colorblindness. If a woman has one bad gene on the X chromosome...as long as she has a good gene on the second chromosome...she's just fine (only her male offspring have to worry about inheriting the bad genes on the one X).

So wouldn't it be more beneficial to really only the female species??...but yet containing higher risk for genetic diseases for the male species...since they get stuck with only one X and a lack of genetic code on their 1/4 the size Y chromosome? (at least when it comes to the last pair of chromosomes---the gender chromosomes)

Oh before I forget to mention...The X chromosome is female. There is in existence 45-chromosome human beings born with only one X chromosome. It's called Turner's Syndrome. And with only one X-chromosome...they are female..born with one or two ovaries. Sometimes Turner's Syndrome females have underdeveloped ovaries and can't reproduce...but an ovary is an ovary..and ovaries by definition are female.

So...all men are a Turner Syndrome female with a Y-chromosome. The Y-chromosome morphs the ovaries into testes...and so forth. There is no man born into existence without an X chromosome. Sorry guys. Blood clotting and other necessary genetic structures for existence are all on the female X-chromosome. It's also how gender reassignment surgery is so easy to do between male-to-female.

Anyhow...the point in mentioning was that I didn't want someone making the mistake of calling the X-chromosome "asexual" as was done in the past by outdated doctors before the 1950s. Since Turner's Syndrome, single-X chromorome, females exist...and only one X chromosome means female...then the X-chromosome has a gender in and of itself.

So only Turner's Syndrome females (45-chromosomes) have to worry about the same genetic diseases as all men have to worry about who also have only one X chromosome.

reply to post by MapMistress

It is not true that men are more prone to a range of genetic diseases than women.

No vital genes reside only on the Y chromosome, since roughly half of humans (females) do not have Y chromosomes. The only well-defined human disease linked to a defect on the Y chromosome is defective testicular development (due to deletion or deleterious mutation of SRY). However, having two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome has similar effects. On the other hand, having Y chromosome polysomy has other effects than masculinization. Source

Anyway, this doesn’t really affect the present discussion. Sex reshuffles genes. This is necessary to deal with parasites that overcome the body’s evolved defences by evolving new modes of attack faster. The reshuffling creates new combinations of genes, some of which may confer parasite resistance. It also helps beneficial new genes (mutations) spread more rapidly through a population. It does not have any particular effect on the Y chromosome, 95 percent of which is unable to recombine, but then, the Y chromosome is only one of 46 chromosomes we possess. Men and women alike benefit from recombination on 45 out of 46 chromosomes. I don’t believe your arguments hold.

You also have to understand that while organisms evolve, natural selection operates on genes, not organisms. Different alleles at the same location in a genome are in direct competition with each other; the one which helps build the fitter organism prevails. This means that deleterious genes, the ones that cause genetic diseases, tend to be weeded out over time if their carriers die of the disease before they can reproduce. Beneficial genes will by definition tend to displace deleterious ones; recombination, which helps spread genes through populations, is likely to speed up this process for males and females alike.

Apparently the Y-chromosome is particularly vulnerable to damage and does not self-repair, and Y chromosomes have been deteriorating in all sexual species for hundreds of millions of years. It’s a slow process though, and men aren’t likely to be extinct for some while yet.

Originally posted by uva3021
If I had the power to create the universe, I would spend my time having as much sex as possible in order to propagate my genes and to equip my progeny with the power to resist parasites for long enough to create universes.

That got a smile out of me, really. So at least if you were God, we all would know where your mind is....

Why sex evolved? Hmmm... I'm still trying to understand why "sex" has any feeling attached to it at all. Do animals and anything else reproducing sexually "get off" like humans?