Question for Evolutionists: Where the difference from a female and male came from?

Question

How did that evolved? How there is a female or a male in every animal including humans excepts hermaphrodites animals and plants.

In the Bible God created a Woman and a Man for the purpose of procreation to expand the human race. God gave them special characteristics including different sexual organs to fulfill that purpose.

Tell me the theory that contradicts this. Long and Elaborated. Go crazy.

What? FIND that damn BIOLOGY book and TELL me NOW.

Why my question is dumb?

You are the ones looking dumb. You think you know it all.

If we supposedly evolved from like amoebas or some kind of species that supposedly didn't had the sex defined, how did the difference from a female and a male came from?

Correction how does*

Correction how does*

I am sorry but I am not as stupid as you think. I study science and I am familiar with DNA, The Cell Cycle, Mitosis, Meiosis, XX and XY Chromosomes and all that, and the majority of you said things that didn't made sense to me. I had to give thumbs down to the majority because they weren't able to give me a logical answer and decided to criticize my question and my grammar. I make grammatical errors once in a while because I am more fluent in spanish than with english, but that doesn't make me inferior than you. There were others who took the time to explain to me the reasons of the cause of the difference of the two sexes. Thanks for taking the time. Because I am a christian that doesn't mean I am a closed minded moron, there are things in science that are obviously correct and I believe they are the reason of the existense of our lives and nature.

Someone here said "So the men evolved from male form of those species and women from female form of those species." Ok but were that female and male species were the man and woman specifically evolved came from? Some of you said plants that reproduce asexually, (I know what asexual means by the way, is nothing new to me).

Someone here said "Now, these plants often would send out seeds beside another plant that sent out a seed. These cells may have touched each ohter and stuck, thus providing slightly different DNA to do slightly different things. Of course, the changes would be slight, but the new organism would have two sets of cells." "So, some plants eventually turn into animals, who share their dual sexual organs. However, it's still beneficial to breed with other life forms."

That's the part that I can't find logical, that some plants changed into animals, and then these animals evolved into other different animals until humans were formed. Why can't we see this happening at the present moment? What stopped that evolution cycle that was responsible of our origin? That's the part that makes me discard the evolution theory immediately.

Answer 1

Actually, the theory of evolution does provide for the evolution for male and female.

You see, the theory states that life started from one single cell. Replicating, it became many.

Some cells harnessed the power of the sun, thus turning into plankton, one of the worlds' first plants. As cells evolved, so did the numerious colonies of plankton, creating different types of plants. (The plankton that exists today simply didn't evolve, or evolved very little).

As they evolved, cells of the same type began to cluster around one another. For protection from micro-organisms that eat single cells. These became the first multi celled organisims.

From there, the cells became specialized. One might help with movement, while others might store protein for enzymes. Eventually, small plants came into existance. (Like, 10,000 cells for example).

Until then, cells could simply break off and become a new group. However, now, they couldn't because the structure was too big. The only ones that survived were ones that sent batches of cells off. The first "seeds" if you will.

Now, these plants often would send out seeds beside another plant that sent out a seed. These cells may have touched each ohter and stuck, thus providing slightly different DNA to do slightly different things. Of course, the changes would be slight, but the new organism would have two sets of cells.

As this is beneficial to the lifeform, the new plants thrived, while the others died out. As thousands of years passed, they developed complex ways of getting alternate DNA. Eventually relying on the systems they have now (Flowers for example).

Flowers are Asexual. This means they have "male" and "female" organs and can reproduce on their own.

In some cases, the male organs of the plant would somehow touch the organs of another flower. Thus spreading it's "male" DNA to it's "female" egg.

So, some plants eventually turn into animals, who share their dual sexual organs. However, it's still beneficial to breed with other life forms.

As time goes on, it's reasponable to assume that sometimes an animal would have a malfuctioning female organ (or male organ), while the other would be fine. As such, it was still able to breed, however the lack of being able to use one set is passed on.

Thus, males and females are created.

Make sense?

Answer 2

Frogs that change sex

Question: Why can frogs (some species) change sex?
Mike A Smola

Answer:
This is a complex subject. Several studies have exposed some of
the answers to this question, but a definitive answer is yet to be
made.

It all boils down to the level of which genes are activated.
Studies have shown that the sex chromosomes are not necessarily the
determining factor. The traditional display of a female is when
an individual has two X chromosomes present. When one of these
genes is a Y, it is a male. This tends to be the case for most
organisms that sport individuals that are different sexes.
However, the Y chromosomes has been almost always a male determining
chromosome, but with molecular biology and genetic engineering
techniques, a male can be made from a XX combination and females
have developed from XY combinations. These are extremely rare, but
they have given insight to the fact that there are other factors
beside X and Y chromosomes that determine sex, probably a gene
found in both chromosomes.

As far as frogs are concerned (and other organisms that display this
Phenomenon), apparently there are chemical triggers that respond to the
number of members in a population that will activate the gene(s)
that will allow for the disintegration of one set of sex organs and
the development of the other. This is an advantage to a species
whereby they have evolved the ability to assure their reproductive
success.
Steven D Sample

Answer 3

Tough one. It could have started long ago when we were still bacteria. Instead of one bacterium splitting in two, perhaps a mutation formed so that bacteria split their DNA as well as themselves. This would mean that another bacterium would have to come along and split ITS DNA, so that the two parts could join together and make a single living being that would continue this mutation. Over millions of years (this is a huge time scale we are considering, evolution does not happen instantly) differences would form between the two sides of the DNA until two genders started to appear.
Or consider this theory: Much like plants, early animals were both male and female and they had to fertilize themselves. This lead to problems if the situation that animal was in suddenly changed because it could take hundreds of years for the species to adapt and by that time the species would be extinct. BUT if an animal mutated so that it was only one gender the opposite would have to happen. There appearing the two genders. This would mean that the species could adapt quickly to changes through the survival of the fittest process. Over time the species without gender would die out because the speedily evolving two gendered species would be able to access food more efficiently e.t.c.
I can easily contradict the genesis theory because there is fossilized remains that show the gradual evolution from ape to human.

Answer 4

Reproduction by mating two different sets of genes is the key to Evolution. The "differences" between men and women are mostly physical, and these differences serve a purpose. If you have a lock, you need a key. That is Nature at its finest. Nature even figures out how to cope if there are only locks or only keys (asexual reproduction). Other organisms even change their sex based on their surroundings. This is strong evidence that sex is an evolutionary product.

Heck, science has shown that giving hormones to the opposite sex (in humans and other animals) can cause changes that can lead to the migration of that animal towards the other sex.

There is physical evidence that Evolution is a plausible theory, however I see no physical evidence of creationism. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't count as it was a construct of men over centuries (which can be proven).

Answer 5

omg--- first of all the human species start out female anyway--- because a female's eggs are ALL FEMALE, XX chromosomes.
the male's sperm has the XX and the XY, so whichever one gets to that egg first decides what egg will STAY female or become a male.
it's the same in the animal kingdom.
by the way, there are human hermaphrodites, too.
so since we all start out female, that means the FEMALE was here first, silly.
not ADAM from the bible. it doesn't make sense. Some man probably wrote that bible anyway, cause we all know that men are LIARS.
also, there isn't a male OR a female in every animal-- some species have been known to switch their gender when the population has too few of either males or females.
also if there is a physical GOD, SHE is FEMALE, so stop talking about the bible when u don't even understand what u read.

Answer 6

When you look back at the fossil records, you see that the first animals DID reproduce asexually; sexual reproduction came later because it increased the amount of genetic variation in subsequent generations, thus increasing the rate of mutation and speeding up the process of evolution. It was probably a fluke at first; but it's a fluke that improves the survival of the species, allowing faster adaptation to the environment.

Answer 7

The reason for "male" and "female" is really just a genetic way of
having meiosis.

That is, without a concept of exchanging genes, the only variation from
generation to generation would be mutation. With sex, etc, genetic
information gets moved around the gene pool far faster - and the genes
that are moved around are far more likely to be non destructive than
something that happens via mutation (the vast majority of mutations
are either bad or irrelevant).

Now, I suppose one could have meiosis take place without genders.
However, it turns out to be far simpler to deliver packets of genes than
it is to rely on proximity. That is, creating a delivery and reception system
reduces the probability of mistakes (the wrong animals inseminating).

Yes, there are animals out there that are capable of both delivering
and receiving gene packets (aka sperm), but not all. We are descended
from those that cannot.

Vive la difference!

Answer 8

These previous answers that are about amphibians that can change sex as needed are a start.

The reason for the sexual adaptation is specialization. Asexual reproduction is not efficient, it leaves one member of the species to care for all of its young. Sexual reproduction, however, means there are two members of the species that are responsible for their progeny. This increases the survival chances, among other things.

And to those Creationists/Intelligent Design followers that ask for evolution to disprove creationism: THERE IS NO WAY TO DISPROVE GOD. Just as there is no way to prove God. This doesn't make it right. This just means there is no scientific way to prove or disprove it, thus it is not a scientific theory. All scientific theories (gravity, atomic, etc.) have ways to be proven or disproven. Just because there are still questions about exactly how a theory works does not mean it is false.

Answer 9

This is just another Evolution vs Creationism argument.
Evolution is a theory.
Creationism is a belief.
There is no proof of evolution, but there is a lot of evidence.
Creationism is still a belief. It's evidence is a belief.
Then there's the "why do men have nipples" argument.
Creationists say, "for sexual stimulation."
Creationists say things like "Sexual characteristics (or fill in the blank) are much to complicated to be explained by evolution."
Verdict? You can't debate evolution with a creationist.
Or vice versa.
I wish everyone would just stop.
Or, for that matter, if Eve was created from Adam's rib, why do men still have 12 pairs of ribs? I know people who actually believe that men only have 23 ribs.

Answer 10

Another "God is the only possible answer" question.

In reality humans are all females for a short amount of time in the mother's uterus. The males go through a hormonal change which give them the sexual organs they need in order to procreate later in life.

In nature, all animals need to have males and females, it's just how it has to be in order to continue with life. The human body changes to accomidate the need for procreation. If, infact, we did evolve from apes, and everyone evolved from one cell, then it's just simply animalistic nature to have to procreate with those sexual organs that are given to us by the hormonal change or lack there of hormonal change.

Unfortunatly, I'm one who likes to keep it short and sweet, so there's no long and elabortated theory here. Just some simple facts.