This one is for evolutionists to awnser
Acording to Ridley [2004], the existence of sex is an outstanding, unsolved problem in evolutionary biology. That is so, mainly to sexs fifty per cent genetic cost and due the lack of short term advantage in having sex [BIOLOGICALY SPEAKING there is no short term advantage]. There are two theories that try to solve this problem. I dont know who made neither of the theories but they are NOT satisfatory in explainig sex.
Well, my fellow evolutionists, explain how is it that we still DONT have the awnser to explain the ocurrence of such basic fenomenon in evolution, SEX??
2007-03-27 03:27:16 · 5 answers · asked by Emiliano M. 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sorry, i really wanted to see what people who awnser in the Religion & Spirituality section would awnser to this. Also sorry about my English.
Fellow evolutionists, im surprised to see that my question aimed at creationists got much better awnsers!!!
2007-03-27 09:00:35 · update #1
Advantage of sex in terms of genetic variation and rate of evolution. Consider two loci, A and B and new mutations to alleles a and b which can interact to produce a genotype of high fitness in a novel environment.. Since mutations are rare originally the only new chromosomes in the population will be Ab (from a B -> b mutation ) and aB (from an A -> a mutation). An asexually reproducing stain would have to wait for the second mutation because it has no way of reassembling the existing alleles into new combinations. The sexual strain could produce the high fitness genotype much faster by recombination
2007-03-27 03:38:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I actually remember being taught something about this in high school (and it was a catholic school at that).
You do realise that there's not really that much difference between male and female don't you?
eg: in the womb we are all female up to a point. males go through a further development.
There is a massive benefit to taking two sets of genes and combining them. It allows for more diversity and a better chance of something developing that will have a superior chance of survival.
The earliest examples of sexual behaviour go back a long, long way. Fossilisation is a rare occurrence and we haven't been digging them up for that long. I'm sure one day in the future the appropriate fossils will be found (if they haven't already).
It's obvious and logical.
The idea of a creator is just silly by comparison.
2007-03-27 03:40:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you want a scientific answer, why are you asking this in the Religion & Spirituality section? At least go to the biology section.
Oh, that's right. Because you, like gorgeoustxwoman below, are using any lack of knowledge to push the agenda of religion. You're going to non-experts and asking them to answer an extremely difficult and complex (not to mention misspelled) question.
2007-03-27 03:32:32 · answer #3 · answered by Michael 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Could you rephrase the question in a way that actually is a question?
2007-03-27 03:32:32 · answer #4 · answered by poseidenneptune 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scientifically explain love. Can it be done?
2007-03-27 03:32:36 · answer #5 · answered by Gorgeoustxwoman2013 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋