ok ok if evolution was true where are all the half and 3rd and fourth links dont say something gay like lucy?

Question

why would evolution have male and female and not stay in the asexual range because it takes two and evolution is all about surviving so why is it set up were u depend on others... ok 99.9 percent of our dna is linked to monkeys correct so if we have 4 billion genes wouldnt then 20 million or something like that be completely different... im not saying that their is no such thing as microevolution but macro comon... ok some guys i do know look like a potential sasquatch but give them the benefit of the doubt lol

Answer 1

Though, I suspect you're probably just trying to bait folks into a debate, I will actually answer your question.

Asexual reproduction does not bring in-breeding or result in more recessive traits being shown. Those are problems of sexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction results in offspring that are genetically identical to the parent, unless a mutation occurs. While sexual reproduction requires a lot more energy from the organism, the advantage is that it results in far more diversity than can be achieved through asexual reproduction.

Each time organisms reproduce through sex, the DNA of the parents is combined in a unique way. The number of combinations possible between any 2 individuals far surpasses the possibility of a random mutation.

There are a few animals and plants that reproduce asexually (for ex: sponges), but most use sexual reproduction--even the slow-moving or non-moving ones like trees. Organisms that reproduce asexually tend to produce incredibly large numbers of offspring. Because they are genetically similar, they would be susceptible to the same environmental pressures. A good example of this can be seen in animals that have been "brought back from extinction." Cheetahs in the wild are genetically similar due to captive breeding programs starting with a small number of animals. Genetically, the parents' vulnerabilities are passed on to the offspring.

To answer the other part of your question: the "missing links" aren't missing at all. We actually have a rather good history of human evolution. I won't be "gay" and mention Lucy since you singled 'her' out. I'll give a couple of examples and refer you to do your own reading. 1) KNM-WT 15000 "Turkana boy", Homo erectus. 2) KNM-ER 1470, Homo habilis. 3) D 2700, Homo georgicus. 4) Homo floresiensis, the "Hobbit."

And here's a good place to start reading if you actually care to know something about evolutionary science: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Answer 2

My personal opinion on why we don't find any missing links to our ancestors is that when macro-evolution (one species evolving into a completely new one) happens very quickly (in geological terms), and in response to a large environmental change. I've heard the threory that modern humans evolved in response to the climactic change in east Africa that caused the jungle/forest environment that existed there to turn into the savannah environment that it has today. The change in environment occured relatively quickly. The ancestors of modern man had to evolve quickly from a forest dwelling creature to adapt to this new environment, or they would not survive.
Since evolution occurs quickly, the chances of finding the remains of the intermediate individuals is pretty low.

As for sexual reproduction, it's widely accepted that individuals with diverse genetic makeup are much stronger than those with no variation in their genetic makeup. So it's not much of a stretch to imagine that the organisms that found ways of creating genetic diversity in their offspring had a much better chance of having those offspring survive and have their own offspring, and so on and so on. Sexual reproduction is the result of that advantage. Sure an asexual organism can create many more offspring, but a simple germ can eliminate all of them, whereas the sexually reproduced organism will have a much better chance of surviving.

Answer 3

Asexualism only happens (if you notice) to oragnisms which can't move, moves really slowly, or are not sociable.

So unless you plan to stay in a place(like a tree) for a hundred or so years, don't start on asexualism in other organisms.

And anyway Asexualism brings in in-breeding where the recessive traits show more (e.g bad temper)

I'm not sure about Genetic breakdown but i know we come from the same ancestors as monkeys, not from monkeys.

Answer 4

1. We dont have 4 billion genes. Our DNA is 4 billion nucleotides long, which is not the same as gene. Humans have 20-30k genes.

2. When you say 20 million totally different, they're not totally different. They are different from 1 out of 4 possible choices (adenine, guanine, thymine, or cytosine)

3. If you look at mutation rates from many factors, the fact that we have only 0.01% difference is amazing.

Answer 5

I agree with you completely, like if apes are like humans than why can they only do the same repetitive tasks over and over and through generations, their civilization does not advance at all. In reality, there is barely any real connection