How can evolution create BOTH man and woman?

[aldon]

I would like some of your opinions on this topic. If we did evolve from an evolutionist standpoint, how were two different beings, man and woman formed. I understand the whole evolutionist concept in how humans were created, but what confuses me is how would evolution develop both, man and woman, the objective being reproduction of humans. I can see atoms in the beginning developing a living being of one kind, without the capabilities of reproducing, but to form male and female is a little baffling. I am not advocating evolution or creationism herem just would to hear some input. Thank You.

[Tim_Lou]

maybe a mutation of x gene to y gene???

...but some organisms are just the opposite, xx=male, xy=female...

[Veritas]

mutations usually don't form useful, working parts. mutations are usually described as defects.

[Veritas]

So, what you're saying is that either men or women are mutations. or were

[TeleMad]

As far as HUMAN male and female, they each evolved from PREHUMAN male and female. It's not like what humans evolved from were all males, and then one day was born two humans - one male and one female.

 

As far as the simplest example of sexual reproduction, I think it is found in bacteria that undergo conjugation (it;s been a while so I may be wrong, and I'm too laze to look it up right now. But anyone interested could at least start by looking at a bit of info on it).

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Veritas

mutations usually don't form useful, working parts. mutations are usually described as defects.

 

This is a Creationist LIE.

 

EVERY new life is a MUTATION of the previous, unless it is a PERFECT CLONE.

 

However if you wish to classify YOUR mutations from your parents as DEFECTIVE...

[Freethinker]

Now as to reproduction.

 

On a basic level, (contrary to the LIE I responded to earlier) mutations increase the possibility of continuation of the species. The greater the variety, the greater the chance of a particular species being able to suvive a changing environment.

 

One method of genetic mutation is bi-sexual reporduction.

 

Remember, not all species reproduce bisexually.

 

Organisms that reproduce by the merger of two DIFFERENT source genes can have a wider range of mutations in a smaller number of generations. This provides a greater assurance of diversity to survive changing environmental conditions.

[Veritas]

Note "usually." Some mutations in humans are anything but useful to "survival," such as being born with too many or too few fingers. Too many crowds the hand. Too few makes the person unable to grasp certain objects.

[Freethinker]

Three makes for a good cartoon.

[Tim_Lou]

Originally posted by: Veritas

mutations usually don't form useful, working parts. mutations are usually described as defects.

 

 

yeah, most of the time, but harmful mutations are not selected by natural selection. only useful ones (or netural ones) are inherited to the offspring.

 

organisms w/ harmful mutations are less likely to survive, thus producing less or no offspring.

[Tim_Lou]

...i wonder,

 

y didnt males and females go separate ways, forming 2 species...

 

if a mutation occurs, forming males (or female) forms, y would this organism suddenly mates only w/ the opposite sex???... (if they dont mate w/ the opposite sex, they would just go separate ways and evolve into 2 different species...)

im confused.

[Freethinker]

In a few more years, after a few "lucky" Saturday nights, you'll understand! :-)

[Tim_Lou]

...........

 

 

what about homosexuality?

evolution of humans????!?!?!?!?

 

if some how they are able to reproduce...

[Freethinker]

1) they can reproduce, but not by sticking to their inherent sexual preferences.

 

2) homosexuality, since it is observed in much of mamillian species, is a common mutation.

[Veritas]

organisms w/ harmful mutations are less likely to survive, thus producing less or no offspring.

 

I must agree with that.

[TeleMad]

We can speculate about how male and female came to be.

 

Certain type of worms are considered to be some of the earliest animals, and some worms can self-fertilize: they have both male and female primary sex organs and so can produce both sperm and ova, with the former fertilizing the latter. It is also possible for some of these worms to mate with other worms of their species: one member fertilizing the other (and the act may be reciprocal).

 

From this starting point it is possible that some mutation prevented one "lineage" from producing one of the sex cells - say sperm - and thus requiring a separate member of the species to provide the sperm needed to reproduce. If the conditions were right - such as self-fertilization being less important - then those organisms that didn't have to produce both of the primary sex organs and their sex cells would expend less energy and less "materials" to construct themselves, thus being at a selective advantage. This could lead to their being two separate sexes. And from there, the distinction between male and female could propagate, all the way up to humans.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad

If the conditions were right - such as self-fertilization being less important - then those organisms that didn't have to produce both of the primary sex organs and their sex cells would expend less energy and less "materials" to construct themselves, thus being at a selective advantage. This could lead to their being two separate sexes. And from there, the distinction between male and female could propagate, all the way up to humans.

Vey nice explanation. Conservation of energy. Efficiency is an evolutionary advantage.

 

Add to this the advantage of a wider genetic variation by combining genetics from two sources rather than asexual replication.

 

These provide a good reason for evolutionary advantage to promote a bisexual reproduction model.