Jump to content
Science Forums

How can evolution create BOTH man and woman?


aldon
 Share

Recommended Posts

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...

I agree FT; each and every human being is born into a slight variation on the original theme. If we were not, there would be no diversity, as you say, just a bunch of clones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

aldon,

 

Think of adam/eve story as a fairy tale if you wish. Then make of it what you wish. If

you wish to make of it as some literal text. I would call taking from adams rib to make a

woman "cloning". Be careful what you make of it.

 

Bacteria reproduces asexually. Virus raid hosts to replicate. Elsewhere in this thread

(months ago) both Telemad/FT was a development that promoted genetic diversity. Not

being an expert in the either the subject of genetics or biology and only drawing from

a college course and what I read, I wholeheartedly agree with that theory. Darwin's

statement in Origin of the Species says when ther is a need and there is method to fill it,

this will get done (I am paraphrasing).

 

Of course, I don't think it ends there. Symbiosis is another way that multiple species can

cooperate (you could consider that this is what male/female do) to propagate. An actual

example told to me by a microbiology grad student was that Mitochondria having their

own RNA are thought to an earlier simpler life form. Mitochondria produce ATP which is

the energy producer in a body. He said the prevailing theory is that about a billion and a

half or so years ago only prokaroteof microbes of all types competed for position with

the environment. A symbiosis was formed where the Mitochondria to survive became

symbiotic with the complex eukarotic type microbes. This development was and advance

brought on by cooporation. This was told to me while I was back in college. What I am

suprised about is that I still remember it. Must be those brains cell didn't die of too much

alcohol or whatever. :hihi:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another form of sex determination not mentioned in the link (because it isn't based on the same mechanisms) is temperature. The sex of alligator offspring, for example, is determined by the temperature their eggs were maintained at.

 

I read one in a british journal (maybe about 5 years ago) where it was speculated that

hermaphroditism in humans seems to happen when fertilization was a certain temperature.

This means that like the alligator that below the range is XX (female) and above is XY

(male) and a very small band in the middle produces XXY (intersex - hermaphrodism) or

XYY (anoter intersex variety thought enhance criminal devience). Somewhere else in this

thread said odd of 1:1000 for Hermaphrodism. The article and some websites I found

that said more stated 1:1,000,000. So maybe that is why no one meets them.

 

Now I understand that many varieties of plants can be hermaphroditic. Who is to say that

hermaphroditism is not the next genetic mutation for the human species. :hihi:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The clitoris no more evolved purely for pleasure than the penis did. they are homologous tissues, present in all, or virtually all, mammals, and all primates. they attach to the same nerves, use the same neural machinery, and are produced by the same stimulation. i went to Google and typed in "chimpanzee clitoris" and found a wealth of information about bonobos (Pan paniscus, closer to us phylogenetically than troglodytes) and their promiscuous behaviors and the prominence of pleasure in their social structure. i did not find anything specific about the measurement of female orgasms in bonobos or other primates, which makes me curious about any research in that area.

 

I would think that for females of most mammalian species (except maybe all marsupials),

have clitorises. I don't know for a fact. I do remember from a book by the Desmond

Morris, the anthropologist, "Naked Ape" that he mentions in essence the penis in males

and clitoris in females are the same organ. The gene combination XX, XY decide what

to do with the cells as the develop.

 

2. Aquagem said this better so no comment. Except to say it would seem to me that the

notion of "pleasure of an orgasm" needs to happen when a species is self aware which

may only happen to humans, cetaceans and some high order primates. I can see where

and orgasm can be simply a biological response in order to propagate the species.

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Mutations are common. All the diversity you see in human beings is the result of mutation. It's the ultimate source of where diversity comes from. Blond hair? Blue eyes?

 

There are also two types of mutations. Chromosomal and point. Think of them this way. You have DNA code. DNA code is, simply put, long strands of proteins and amino acids that direct who and what we are. These strands can be looked upon as sentences. So let's say a regular DNA strand is represented by the sentence:

 

The cat ran through the forest.

 

A chromosomal mutation would be, for example:

 

The cat ran forest through the.

 

Basically, large chunks of the DNA code are either misplaced or completely missing. Generally these types of mutations don't even live. If they do, it's usually well before reproduction age. Alternatively, point mutations change slight little points within the code. They're generally very small:

 

The rat ran through the forest.

 

A very slight difference. Most of the code is untouched with the exception of C becoming an R. Granted, this is an extreme oversimplification and the reality is much more complex. Similarly, there are four levels of mutations. Again, this is usually in point mutations:

 

Lethal: The mutation is lethal to the individual. This kills the organism before the mutation has a chance to be passed on to the next generation.

Deleterious: Deleterious traits lower an individual's fitness and/or viability. Fitness is simply the number of offspring an organism contributes to the next generation.

Neutral: The trait Has no effect on fitness or viability.

Beneficial: The reason animals are the way they are and the most important of the four. Natural selection will favour traits that give an organism a higher fitness than its competition. Again, this is a simplification. But it provides the basics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Yep.

 

Just to add on to that. In mainly static conditions, asexual reproduction is favoured. In constantly changing conditions, the ability to adapt to an environment favours a greater degree of genetic material to draw upon. An example would be water hyacinth, a water plant. Reproduces clonally when there is plenty of water. When it's hanging roots tough ground, it's being told "Hey, the water levels are getting lower, so I need to start reproducing sexually to get a little bit more genetic variation" and starts to reproduce sexually. If you ever see it in the wild, you'll notice is reproduces at an incredible rate. When you see it in a river, for example, you'll notice the shores are very colourful, while the plants in the actual water all look the same. That's why.

 

I don't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but from what I understand asexualism evolved into organisms that could reproduce both sexually and asexually. Very much like the water hyacinth. From there, those organisms evolved into sexual organisms. The concept of frequency dependance would be the reason why we generally see a 1:1 ratio of these organisms in nature (ie. why the world human popular is roughly 50/50 male and female).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. I don't remember the exact details off the top of my head, but from what I understand asexualism evolved into organisms that could reproduce both sexually and asexually.

I have a picture in an older biology text of a freshwater hydra, which has tissue for creating sperm and other tissue for creating eggs, both located on the same animal. It can "self-pollinate", and also cast seed to the current to fertilize others. This is much like plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a picture in an older biology text of a freshwater hydra, which has tissue for creating sperm and other tissue for creating eggs, both located on the same animal. It can "self-pollinate", and also cast seed to the current to fertilize others. This is much like plants.

 

Yep. I remember learning about the hydra. Waterfleas reproduce both ways as well depending on the temperature of the water environment they live in.

 

Interestingly, my professor last semester mentioned that about 90% of plants are asexual, 10% are sexual. The exact opposite is found in the animal kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why they just sit around, while we had to invent alcohol, automobiles, and sweet talk. :hihi:

And then we invented things like divorce and child support, just kiddin. I don't think we invented these, they must be laws of nature, and you can't invent a law of nature, you can only discover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...