Why male and female?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Did you read the Wikipedia entry that I posted?

Since the answer to that question is no, perhaps you should.

I didn't read the whole thing, but I did not see anything that touched upon
the concerns I voiced here, do you have thoughts on the matter?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't read the whole thing, but I did not see anything that touched upon
the concerns I voiced here, do you have thoughts on the matter?
Kelly

Perhaps you should read the whole thing, because it addresses your concerns perfectly.

Getting a rudimentary grasp of what evolution theory entails would probably also help.

Originally posted by Phranny
Read pulitzer prize winning book, "The Beak of the Finch". Evolution can happen rather rapidly, within a few decades or less. Individuals within a specie have small differences. We tend to notice differences in our own species and in domesticated animals with whom we live rather than in a finch. These tiny differences can become crucial for survival when ...[text shortened]... lows those with half a brain to remain religious while embracing science and rational thought.

I am talking about the orignal so-called macro-evolution or evil-lution and not the so-called micro-evolution or variations in species.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
If there was no sexual reproduction with male and female, evolution would proceed at even more of a snails pace than it is now. The whole idea is to reshuffle the deck, like in cards you reshuffle and maybe you end up with a better hand.

It is a lot deeper than that but that is the general idea. It's amazing to me how some plants and trees have extremel ...[text shortened]... ated, the answer to the stress already there from that plant having dealt with stresses before.

You do a lot of thinking, but know very little. You must look to the source of all knowledge to gain wisdom, otherwise you will at best, remain ignorant and at worst, become as a fool.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do a lot of thinking, but know very little. You must look to the source of all knowledge to gain wisdom, otherwise you will at best, remain ignorant and at worst, become as a fool.

The Instructor

"you should be silent and thought a fool rather than speak up and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps you should read the whole thing, because it addresses your concerns perfectly.

Getting a rudimentary grasp of what evolution theory entails would probably also help.

So you cannot or will not address the questions. That is fine, I suppose
it is easier to tell someone to go else where and read than give your
own thoughts on the matter. No much of a discussion forum here if all you
will do is point to a link.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am talking about the orignal so-called macro-evolution or evil-lution and not the so-called micro-evolution or variations in species.

The Instructor

You are making absolutly no sense. Evolution involves many small steps over a long period of time before a new specie emerges that is separate from all others.

Originally posted by Phranny
You are making absolutly no sense. Evolution involves many small steps over a long period of time before a new specie emerges that is separate from all others.

What, you are surprised?

Originally posted by sonhouse
If there was no sexual reproduction with male and female, evolution would proceed at even more of a snails pace than it is now. The whole idea is to reshuffle the deck, like in cards you reshuffle and maybe you end up with a better hand.

It is a lot deeper than that but that is the general idea. It's amazing to me how some plants and trees have extremel ...[text shortened]... ated, the answer to the stress already there from that plant having dealt with stresses before.

it is a mystery to me too why some plants can have more complex dna then animals...

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you cannot or will not address the questions. That is fine, I suppose
it is easier to tell someone to go else where and read than give your
own thoughts on the matter. No much of a discussion forum here if all you
will do is point to a link.
Kelly

The answer to your question is simple and is explained in the link. Multiple sexes exist because in certain circumstances (the link explains more about under which circumstances this is the case), reproductive success is enhanced when reproducing sexually. The reason for this is that offspring has a higher chance of survival and reproduction. Asexual reproduction might be "easier", but if your offspring have a poor chance of survival it might not be the smartest thing in an evolutionary sense.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The answer to your question is simple and is explained in the link. Multiple sexes exist because in certain circumstances (the link explains more about under which circumstances this is the case), reproductive success is enhanced when reproducing sexually. The reason for this is that offspring has a higher chance of survival and reproduction. Asexual re ...[text shortened]... ng have a poor chance of survival it might not be the smartest thing in an evolutionary sense.

You read my complaints correct? It has nothing to do with what is better, since it would take a very slow process to move from one to the other.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You read my complaints correct? It has nothing to do with what is better, since it would take a very slow process to move from one to the other.
Kelly

I don't understand your "complaint". It is a "very slow process", hence we find the first known sexually reproducing lifeforms much later than the first lifeforms:

In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[49]

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't understand your "complaint". It is a "very slow process", hence we find the first known sexually reproducing lifeforms much later than the first lifeforms:

In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[49]

You assume a great deal.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You assume a great deal.
Kelly

What do you mean?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't understand your "complaint". It is a "very slow process", hence we find the first known sexually reproducing lifeforms much later than the first lifeforms:

In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[49]

Would you say in the last 1200 million years that life has evolved to having sex with same sex for purposes other than reproduction? Or is that just some of humanity doing it for the fun of it?