Darwin only talks about one gender (male or female) in his theory. If he was right, there would be only men or only women on this planet but not both of them!
2007-04-05 18:45:28 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Forget about Darwin! I mean, does a man come from a male ape and a woman from a female ape? if not, then when during evolution did we start to get male and female?
Sorry for my ignorance!
2007-04-06 04:17:37 · update #1
you may direct all of your silly attempts at attacking evolution towards the link below.
2007-04-05 19:29:18 · answer #1 · answered by tom huxley 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed.
Could you please tell me where Darwin talks about gender so that you and I could better understand each other? You see, I've read Darwin's works, and I recall extensive discussion of gender but not as you describe that discussion.
Worse (for your point of view), the division into merely two genders supports the idea of natural selection. If we all were made in two genders, we would not have simple organisms (and some complex plants) that only had one, and if we evolved from separate "starter beings" we could assume that we'd see much more variation in gender amongst animals.
If you could just give a Darwin quote to show what you are refuting, I'd be perfectly willing to discuss this, but it sounds like you're just making things up.
Why would you make things up?
2007-04-06 09:36:56 · answer #2 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Evolution involves more than just natural selection. Darwin also proposed the theory of sexual selection. This is the driving force behind such impractical but beautiful characteristics as peacock tails, colourful markings, Bower bird collections, etc. If Darwin did not consider the different genders, how could he formulate this theory.
Evolution exists, whether you deny its existence or not - it is a reality. All it requires is for you to pull your fingers out of your ears and listen to the evidence without dismissing it beforehand.
2007-04-06 03:25:00 · answer #3 · answered by Labsci 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
?? Where on earth did you get that idea? Of course Darwin talked about gender!
What I don't understand is how creationists just assume that Darwin was an idiot ... or that tens of thousands of scientists (some of whom are some pretty brilliant people) for over 150 years are all idiots ... that they would all spend their lives working in a scientific framework that overlooked something so utterly obvious that a second-grader ... or some bozo on a web site ... would think of it!
You have to do better than that.
2007-04-06 05:15:13 · answer #4 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
common ancester started out to be asexual and self-reproducing. There are still a few animals, like some snails, that have that ability to fertilize themselves; but most if not all only revert to that when there is no mate to be had. Organisms must have at some point began to **** each other and by natural selection over time the genders began to seperate. Had to have been plenty of mates around for the "self-love" to die out! Everything in evolution has much to do with adaptation to environment.
2007-04-06 01:58:44 · answer #5 · answered by Helen the Hellion 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Whether or not Darwin talks about one gender is irrelevant. Your question is how two different sexes arose, I believe.
I suggest you do some digging around the internet on the issue of evolution of the sexes.
This article might be insightful to start with
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-10/UoCM-Teot-281099.php
2007-04-08 03:46:32 · answer #6 · answered by minuteblue 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What???? Where did you get that from??? Not even way back in Darwins day did he only "talk about one gender". Today 'gender' and sex are a massive part of Evolutionary Theory.
2007-04-06 02:09:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
evolution could not occur without sexual difference. breeding is needed in order for evolution to occur. evolving isnt a generational thing, but a multi-generational thing. if generations do not happen, then evolution does not happen. we are billions of generations away from a prehistoric rat. sex is needed for our ancestors to create the next eventual stage. Darwin's theory assumes that sexual reproduction occurs. When one creates a (at that time) scientific theory, scientific fact does not need to be mentioned.
2007-04-06 02:29:42 · answer #8 · answered by joseph w 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How can you propose that Darwin only talked about one gender in his theory? He talks about passing on characteristics to the offspring and about species producing more offspring than can possibly survive. He discusses selection involving mating behaviors and he suggests speciation due to reproductive isolation as well as geographic isolation.
He certainly knew what reproduction was about as he and Emma had in the neighborhood of 10 kids of their own.
???????????????
2007-04-06 01:52:17 · answer #9 · answered by ecolink 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about? In no way has any evolutionary scientist ever said anything that would imply that only one sex can be present for evolution to be true. Where did you get this from?
2007-04-06 11:19:37 · answer #10 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When Darwin was writing, if the gender was unknown the masculine version of a word was used, not junk like he/she.
2007-04-06 01:50:10 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋