Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Primordial ooze and mating

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
If humans, or all life for that matter, was to come from one life form, how did mating come to be? If the first creature to crawl out was male, there were no females to reproduce with, and vice-versa. And I doubt the ooze produced both a male and female simultaneously, knowing it would need to mate.

And if we came from a single cell, why would that cell change its habits from self replicating, to mating over the course of evolution? Surely self replicating is more efficient, mating would seem to be a step backwards. Why don't animals just self replicate?




posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
If humans, or all life for that matter, was to come from one life form, how did mating come to be? If the first creature to crawl out was male, there were no females to reproduce with, and vice-versa. And I doubt the ooze produced both a male and female simultaneously, knowing it would need to mate.

And if we came from a single cell, why would that cell change its habits from self replicating, to mating over the course of evolution? Surely self replicating is more efficient, mating would seem to be a step backwards. Why don't animals just self replicate?


Actually, it is the exact opposite. Sexual reproduction and its evolution has led to greater diversity and fitness of offspring. It was the evolution of sexual reproduction, in plants and animal life, that allowed for mutations to effect fitness in greater scale and allow for greater variation/choice in natural selection. Sexual reproduction also is of greater benefit to eliminating harmful mutations by breeding them out.

Most likely, the first instances of sexual reproduction happened by organisms that had the ability to act as both male/female or even change their sex to whatever was beneficial to that organisms survival. We even see that method used today by both plants and several animal species, such as flatworms, water fleas, and clown fish. Whatever is needed to survive will come out . . .

Sexual reproduction is a definite step forward, not backward.

Here . . . read up on wiki and if you want more detailed info and don't have the ability to use a search engine . . . I'll provide more.

Evolution of Sexual Reproduction



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
We didn't come from primordial "ooze". It's as simple as that.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


So why then would they need to mate? If they're already self reproductingas cells, how would they even have such a dramatic mutation, to create genetals and the ability to mate. Why not just continue evolving with what they have? Self reproduction.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
reply to post by solomons path
 


So why then would they need to mate? If they're already self reproductingas cells, how would they even have such a dramatic mutation, to create genetals and the ability to mate. Why not just continue evolving with what they have? Self reproduction.


That's exactly what I already explained in the first response to you.

Diversity. Fitness. Removal of deleterious mutations. Did you read anything at the link?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Surely they could've continued becoming diverse through self reproduction. Look at bacteria, viruses, etc. Millions of different forms exist. The world was mostly water they could thrive, even become bigger in size. If it got rid of harmful mutations, why are they still there?
And no I did not. I opened the link, saw the words "competing scientific hypothesis" in the first sentence, and decided against it.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
reply to post by solomons path
 


Surely they could've continued becoming diverse through self reproduction. Look at bacteria, viruses, etc. Millions of different forms exist. The world was mostly water they could thrive, even become bigger in size. If it got rid of harmful mutations, why are they still there?
And no I did not. I opened the link, saw the words "competing scientific hypothesis" in the first sentence, and decided against it.


So what you are saying is you are not really interested in educating yourself on the subject. So what is your point? Is this another psuedo-criticism of evolution or are you honestly asking the question you posed in the OP?

Genetic material from two sources is more benefitial to survival than from self-replication. The proponderence of bacteria and virus isn't evidence of diversity. They are still essentially the same and relegated to the microscopic level and short lived. Asexual reproduction also limits the organisms ability to survive changes to their environment. Recombination allows species to elimimate many deleterious mutations in a single genetic death by bunching them together, as stated previously, while asexual replication can only delete harmful mutuations within the same genotype they occur.
edit on 4/1/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Educate myself with theories? How do I educate myself with things that aren't facts?

So you're saying after millions if not billions of years of evolution, bacteria and viruses haven't evolved past thier weakest and simplest form? Interesting..



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthBlizzard
 


You can't be diverse thru copying yourself, which what bacteria does, its the same again and again.. how does that fight environmental change?

2 different types of sourced needed to filter the good genes, which would give the offspring higher chance to survive.

The parent bacteria is the same as daughters, but it can however mutate during binary fission to obtain something that might help survive, but offspring produced from 2 sex cells is much more complex, where it can weed out bad genes and perfect good ones, while the bacteria just copy pastes same stuff over and over..



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthBlizzard
 





Educate myself with theories? How do I educate myself with things that aren't facts?


Facts are events or phenomenon.

Hypothesis is a proposed explanation of facts.

Law is a repeatable observation that describes an aspect of the natural world.

Theory is general umbrella that explains a wide range of hypotheses and law that may span multiple fields of study.

I've listed them in that order for a reason . . . One leads to another and gets stronger has you go down. Theory is the strongest explanation in science.


In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions


Let me repeat this sentence:

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').


So then by your reasoning . . . you also don't believe or are willing to educate yourself about Gravity, Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, etc, etc . . . ?

It seems you have much more to educate yourself in than just sexual reproduction and its evolution. Your arguments are old, tired, and thoroughly debunked. The fact that you would raise the argument that you did in your last post shows you are woefully ignorant of this debate. The fact that you didn't come right out and say what your intentions were from the beginning shows you are intellectually dishonest and given to deceit, just like Satan.



edit on 4/1/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/1/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
reply to post by solomons path
 


Educate myself with theories? How do I educate myself with things that aren't facts?

So you're saying after millions if not billions of years of evolution, bacteria and viruses haven't evolved past thier weakest and simplest form? Interesting..


Organisms evolved based on environmental pressures in order to ensure their survival. Evolution means change. Those organisms have changed plenty in billions of years . . . that is why there is a new flu shot every year.

You seem to think all organisms must grow to more complex forms of life . . . that is not evolution. While that can happen, it doesn't have to. You again show that you don't understand what evolution is, so maybe you should work on that before jumping to ideas like the evolution of sex?

If you are really interested in learning about Evolutionary Theory, I can provide you with links. However, we both know, based on your previous posts, that you have no desire to do that.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
it's been decades since I studied it, but I would think the first reproduction came from simple cellular division

then you get multi cell orgs

then eventually they become bigger and more complex and you get to bactaria and viruses, then probably assuming were talking an oceanic origin, worms, tubes, and the like

you eventually get to a plce where the faser you mutate, the better suited you are to adapt and then a mutation comes along that works better than the others

I know what you mean tho, evolution has a hard time explaining the first working feathered wings,"major leaps forward"

how did wings come about ? a dinosaur that kept leaping off cliffs for food and one develope a nub, and then a shoulder, and then feathers etc etc etc

a giraffes neck getting longer because it eats leaves at the tops of tress I get

the other stuff is hard to visualize



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Yes exactly. I'm not trying to denounce it. It's just so mysterious I thought it would be fun to discuss.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I'm wondering about this too and i think most were hermaphrodite like the clown fish (ocellaris) which all starts as males and the biggest dominant one assume the role of a female and changes sex.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Reply to post by solomons path
 


Personal attacks just make you look silly. Personally, I'd rather not see another post from this username... This is a very interesting topic OP. Its one that I've thought about. Hell, I could make a "hypothesis" (which is nothing more than a neat story with no facts). I'll keep an eye on this thread and see where it goes. Nice job on the thread.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthBlizzard
 


I'd recommend a biology 101 book. It will answer many of your questions. Instantly dismissing member posted articles will do you no good, if your true intention is to learn, but it doesn't seem like that. Nothing ever "crawled out" of primordial ooze, your idea of abiogenesis hypothesis is a bit off. The first organisms were single celled and it took over a billion years just for the first multi cellular creatures to arise. You make it sound like there was a boiling cauldron that got hit by lightning and POOF! a cat walks out. Male and female sexes started in organisms that could reproduce both asexually and sexually. It didn't just magically switch. It changed slowly over time and sexual reproduction became the preferred method to pass down genes and keep the gene pool diverse, probably because the originals died out.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Actually one theory suggests that lightning might have struck a "primordial soup" or ooze as I stated, which sparked the first cells of life. It is just a theory though..
edit on 1-4-2013 by NorthBlizzard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMistro81
 


There were no personal attacks. Ignorance simply means that he is uneducated in the subject. A fact that the OP was admitting to by asking for an explanation in the first post. The fact that he refused to even entertain these explanations or visit the link provided shows the OP's intent was not to educate themselves or seek explanation . . . which is intellectually dishonest.

However, thank you for your desire of censorship.

Also, you seem to be ignorant of what a hypothesis is based on your defintion . . . which is wrong.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a fact. This explanation isn't a random guess. It's based on observed facts and since we are talking about science here, it must also be testable and is so rigorously. It becomes a theory if it holds true under rigorous testing . . . thus proven true. Words have meanings and it helps to understand what they are, if you are to understand what these "theories and hypotheses" are actually saying.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


How was I not seeking explination when I was asking multiple questions?
And while you may not be throwing direct personal attacks, you're showing a very arrogant attitude on an internet forum. Why is that? Do you think you're superior to others?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
reply to post by Barcs
 


Actually one theory suggests that lightning might have struck a "primordial soup" or ooze as I stated, which sparked the first cells of life. It is just a theory though..
edit on 1-4-2013 by NorthBlizzard because: (no reason given)


Again . . . that isn't a "theory", it is a hypothesis. See my posts above for the difference. If you are going to enter a debate that deals in science than it helps to understand the meanings of the words you are using to discount what is being said.

As for the primordial soup hypothesis. Lightning is used as an example, but it didn't have to be. What is required is heat. The Miller-Urey experiment used electrical current for a heat source, which could be considered like lightning providing the heat source. However, the heat in that hypothesis could have as easily come from volcanism or celestial impact.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join