Why male and female?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Problematic is right. There are two different ways 'evolution' is defined. One is natural selection, and the other is selection of something entirely new that comes about due to very small (randomly occurring) changes. Selection of genes which already exist is no big trick. But changes leading to new species and more complex organisms IS tricky. Division ...[text shortened]... n told I don't need to worry about this, because evolution is a fact and not just a theory.

So what are those odds precisely?

(by the way, as mentioned, you don't need "two kinds" for sexual reproduction)

Originally posted by lemon lime
Division into two different but compatible genders would mean evolution had to create two different critters of the same species at nearly the same time. And this would need to happen very early in the evolution timeline, because the odds of it happening at all are mind boggling.

I think you will have to get a lot more specific. Are you actually willing to discuss this in detail, or are you, like Kelly, only interested in criticizing something then running away?
If you are interested in the details, sexual reproduction with no differentiation is common place. For differentiation to occur, is actually a lot easier than you realize. Also the differentiation started at the cellular level with 'egg' cells and 'sperm' cells differentiating. So even in plants, where the whole plant itself is usually not 'male' or 'female', the flower contains clearly differentiated cells for the male and female parts. Normally what we call the 'female' part is the one that stays put and stores lots of food, and the 'male' part is the one that travels from one plant to another to 'fertilize' the female.
I do not know whether plants have the equivalent of X and Y chromosomes or whether the differentiation works by some other method. Any biologists here?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you will have to get a lot more specific. Are you actually willing to discuss this in detail, or are you, like Kelly, only interested in criticizing something then running away?
If you are interested in the details, sexual reproduction with no differentiation is common place. For differentiation to occur, is actually a lot easier than you realize ...[text shortened]... es or whether the differentiation works by some other method. Any biologists here?

The method is pretty much the same in principle, but not all plants are both male and female.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction_of_plants

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The method is pretty much the same in principle, but not all plants are both male and female.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction_of_plants

I think you are getting off topic. Why male and female? is the question. We are not concerned with asexual reproduction. We are concerned with bisexual reproduction. That is, what is the reason for it?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you are getting off topic. Why male and female? is the question. We are not concerned with asexual reproduction. We are concerned with bisexual reproduction. That is, what is the reason for it?

The Instructor

The reason for it is enhanced survival. This has been extensively covered in this thread, and my post and the link therein were exclusively about sexual reproduction, not asexual reproduction. Do you have some difficulty understanding the English language?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you will have to get a lot more specific. Are you actually willing to discuss this in detail, or are you, like Kelly, only interested in criticizing something then running away?
If you are interested in the details, sexual reproduction with no differentiation is common place. For differentiation to occur, is actually a lot easier than you realize ...[text shortened]... es or whether the differentiation works by some other method. Any biologists here?

My point goes back to the question "Why male and female?" I think it's obvious the advantage this gives to any species for a relatively speedy adaptation. But my point has to do with how this could have come about in the first place. If someone can paint a realistic picture of how this could have happened through strictly evolutionary pathways, I would be happy to see that.

And no, I don't have statistics or probabilities at my fingertips to show how improbable it would be for a species to split into to two parts that could interact with each other to produce other males and females. I don't think anyone can accurately come up with figures to show that. It just seems improbable to me in the same way if I shot a bullet into space after aiming at where I think Pluto is, and actually believe the odds are in my favor of hitting a particular one spuare inch target on that planet.

I can't see Pluto and I obviously can't see that imagined one square inch target, so I have to take it on faith that the bullet reached Pluto. And I would also have to take it on faith that the imagined one square inch target is there and was hit by that bullet. So in the same way, I would have to take it on faith that evolution was able to accomplish something that appears to be highly improbable. Unless... someone actually has solid irrefutable evidence showing how this happened, or how it could have happened.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you will have to get a lot more specific. Are you actually willing to discuss this in detail, or are you, like Kelly, only interested in criticizing something then running away?
If you are interested in the details, sexual reproduction with no differentiation is common place. For differentiation to occur, is actually a lot easier than you realize ...[text shortened]... es or whether the differentiation works by some other method. Any biologists here?

IMO the chance of a real bullet shot from a real gun (not an imaginary gun) reaching escape velocity and beginning its journey to where I think Pluto might be (when the bullet gets there) is just as good as a real mutation (or series of mutations) creating a viable and beneficial evolutionary change.

Originally posted by lemon lime
My point goes back to the question "Why male and female?" I think it's obvious the advantage this gives to any species for a relatively speedy adaptation. But my point has to do with how this could have come about in the first place. If someone can paint a realistic picture of how this could have happened through strictly evolutionary pathways, I would be ...[text shortened]... has solid irrefutable evidence showing how this happened, or how it could have happened.

Evolution theory doesn't predict sexual reproduction, although it does explain why it has happened. If you want "solid irrefutable evidence" for anything I suggest you stop looking. But here's a plausible scenario:

Multicellular asexual organism -> bisexual organism capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction -> bisexual organism only capable of sexual reproduction -> sexually reproducing organism with male and female individuals.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Evolution theory doesn't predict sexual reproduction, although it does explain why it has happened. If you want "solid irrefutable evidence" for anything I suggest you stop looking. But here's a plausible scenario:

Multicellular asexual organism -> bisexual organism capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction -> bisexual organism only capable of sexual reproduction -> sexually reproducing organism with male and female individuals.

It's also plausible to say if this is how it happened, then it must have happened very early on in the evolutionary timeline. I'm not looking for "solid irrefutable evidence" because I know it's not out there. Whenever I've pointed to the fossil record or the Cretaceous period what I hear are the usual supporting quick fix theories. Among my favorite supporting theories are punctuated equibrium, and aliens seeding our planet with stuff from their planet.

I especially like the alien approach. Apparently any questions about evolution should be directed to them, because no one on this planet seems to have a clue. But if their planet was seeded by a civilization before them, then I guess we are out of luck... we have enough trouble contacting the aliens who seeded our planet, so what are the odds of contacting the aliens who seeded theirs? Personally, I think evolutionists who choose to go down this road are just passing the buck... they don't want to explain anything.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The reason for it is enhanced survival. This has been extensively covered in this thread, and my post and the link therein were exclusively about sexual reproduction, not asexual reproduction. Do you have some difficulty understanding the English language?

Excuse me, but you were making reference to plants.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Excuse me, but you were making reference to plants.

The Instructor

The results of sexual reproduction is exactly the same for plants as it is for animals, humans included. It reshuffles the DNA deck thus making the next generation harder for bacteria and viruses to attack. There is no mystery here.

It is just one aspect of the continual battle between bacteria, germs, viruses, prions against multicellular life forms.

For instance, genetically modified plants that have been bred to have some enhanced quality, resistance to some blight, resilience to drought and heat and so forth, all those changes come about by selection but the bad news for those plants is they are pretty much one giant clone, and thousands of acres of those plants are grown where the DNA is pretty much the same. The problem there is if some blight hits the plants, it spreads like wildfire throughout the entire planting because of the lack of genetic diversity. Plants in the wild will have varying responses to blight and it might kill some of the plants but others have built in protection and so they live and reproduce and the offspring are thus more protected than before. That doesn't happen with genetically modified grains for instance. That makes the onus of protection go to the farmers instead, recognizing problems early and taking steps to ensure the survival of the crop. That is not a natural way of life because an outside agent has to ensure the survival of the crop instead of the agents of survival being already present in the plant's DNA. That is one reason why plant DNA is more complex than humans, they don't have the ability to move and so have to take on the world in one place and live or die by the capabilities of its own internal protections and sexual reproduction ensures a changing of the code each generation so blights and so forth have to start an attack from scratch on the new generation of plants.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Excuse me, but you were making reference to plants.

The Instructor

Perhaps you should read the link. You seem to lack rudimentary knowledge about every topic you engage on in this forum.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's also plausible to say if this is how it happened, then it must have happened very early on in the evolutionary timeline. I'm not looking for "solid irrefutable evidence" because I know it's not out there. Whenever I've pointed to the fossil record or the Cretaceous period what I hear are the usual supporting quick fix theories. Among my favorite sup ...[text shortened]... se to go down this road are just passing the buck... they don't want to explain anything.

As mentioned, the first step happened around 1200 million years ago.

Again, evolution theory doesn't prescribe a mechanism by which one can retroactively reconstruct how some species evolved - it prescribes a mechanism as to how "gene carriers" evolve. If you see a bullet lying somewhere, Newton's laws of motion give a pretty good description of its movement, but that still won't tell you how the bullet got there unless you have some other historical information. In the case of evolution, such historical information often comes from the fossil record, in which only a tiny fraction of species have been preserved (and then not even their DNA).

Originally posted by lemon lime
IMO the chance of a real bullet shot from a real gun (not an imaginary gun) reaching escape velocity and beginning its journey to where I think Pluto might be (when the bullet gets there) is just as good as a real mutation (or series of mutations) creating a viable and beneficial evolutionary change.

OK, can you estimate how many plutos it would take to fill the sky. Then tell me how many cells in your body. This could get interesting.

Also from Wikipedia:
"..... a litre of seawater may hold more than 20 000 species."

How many living cells do you think are in a liter of sea water?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps you should read the link. You seem to lack rudimentary knowledge about every topic you engage on in this forum.

It is true that I only had grade school biology, because I was not required to take it in college for a degree in Electrical Engineering. But I am almost certain that I was told there were no male and female plants. Perhaps my memory fails me.

It is said that bisexual reproduction provides a better mechanism to weed out harmful mutations and provide the ability to adapt quickly to a changing environment than does asexual reproduction.

The Instructor