Evolutionists. How did sex evolve?

Question

This is a serious question. As I understand evolution, life started out as single cell organisms that reproduced by splitting itself. It seems that for sex to evolve, one of these organisms had to mutate male genitalia. And even though life has been on Earth for millions of years, at the same point in time, and at the same place on Earth, another organism had to mutate female genitalia. And they had to meet and know what to do with their mutations. And they also had to mutate the working parts to produce sperm and eggs at the same time they mutated genitalia. The female also had to at the same time that she mutated genitalia and eggs, also had to mutate a womb and mammaries to feed the child. And assuming that all this happened, it seems that "survival of the fittest" would tell the couple to kill the kid because he's slowing them down and taking their food. It just doesn't seem plausible. Does anyone have serious answers to this question? Thank you in advance.

Answer 1

Uh no, the first organisms that didn't reproduce asexuality did not start off having genitalia. Have you actually researched this subject? Have you picked up a biology book?

Your argument is like saying English could never have been created, because you'd need two people who already knew the language to suddenly have a conversation. In reality, English is a language that evolved over time, changing little by little. A Mark Twain essay reads a little strrange, Shakespeare is much harder to grasp, and something like Beowulf is barely readable. Likewise, sexual reproduction was a gradual process.

For over a BILLION years, organisms reproduced asexually. That's a long, long time. But reproducing asexually means that the offspring are just like their parents, except for the inevitable mutation that happens once in a while (because DNA copying doesn't always work perfectly 100% of the time). But when environments change (climate, predators, etc.), organisms that are alike have an equal chance of being killed. So differences are beneficial and most of the time come through with natural selection. Cells that could exchange DNA had an advantage.

Sometimes cells didn't split in two, but four "half-cells' called gametes. Having only half a set of genes, these gametes experienced the chemcial atraction to remerge. This allowed them to reproduce genes and shuffle the DNA simultaneously. With two parent cells, you got even more variation. With more diversity, the possiblities of new features through mutation go up exponentially. Never mind the fact that a sexual being can pass along genes to more than one line.

It would still be a while before this method of sexual reproduction evolved into the "sperms and egg" set-up. A lot can happen in a couple of BILLION years.

Answer 2

I'm actually disappointed by the answers. Human beings are so complex, not to mention the rest of living things on this planet, that it boggles my mind not to believe that a great designer was behind all of this. Nothing happens by accident, there is always a cause for any type of change. What was the cause for the first life to become? It was not accidental. I'm in the medical profession and it is amazing to me to see the human body work. How it reacts to disease or abuse of the systems. How it is capable of healing. How everything works together just perfectly. How would evolution make any sense? Say, for example, a human being evolved but it had many flaws, as some pointed out. Flaws, that would evolve into eventually a perfect human mechanism. How did the body know that it needed a certain change, for example the female and male genitalia? A person can't just will it to happen, right? And if there was no creator, then how, HOW did the human body know just what to do?

Answer 3

Genitalia would not have come until much later in the game, as multiple cell organism develop and became more complex and individual cells became more specialized. While evolution is an established fact, there are still questions about the mechanisms i.e. mutation, survival of the fittest etc.

Answer 4

Here is what you do.

1. Go to www.amazon.com

2. Where it says Search type "Evolution of Sex"

3. Click on Go

4. Read the reviews of the many books on the subect and order the ones that look interesting to you.

5. Read them.

6. Come back and explain what you read.

You will find sex did not happen all at once. There are many many aspects to sex. Sex may have started evolving from a protection mechanism cells had originanally formed to protect them from ultraviolet light. When you read these books you will get an insight to just how many processes are involved in sex and how they gradually evolved, but it is far too complex to explain here.

In the future I suggest reading science books to answer questions about science rather than posting questions on here. Unless of course you really don't want the answer in the first place.

Answer 5

Sex is a way of unification to produce a synthesis. The two hosts of the germ (Male and Female) are biological factories which produce the necessary hormonal traits of the germ. I think that in the early simple organism it was an enclosed phenomenon, as is seen in some amphibians and worms.

Answer 6

It is natural selection. No one being can perfectly reproduce their DNA over and over again (hint, proof is that we age). So the better route to survival is for different DNA to mingle and form new DNA. So by natural selection, organisms that used like organisms to reproduced had a much better chance at propagating the species, hence that trait survived and the asexual reproductive trait did not (as much).

Answer 7

There are a lot of intermediate forms of sexual reproduction still around today. If you would care to look at the evidence you might come to the conclusion that evolution doesn't give a damn about the individual, it is the continuation and adaptation of life that is the aim.

Answer 8

Lets go one step further. This is serious and was stated by a renowned zoologist. Goggle it and you might come up with the article. This person said that homosexuality is THE NEXT STEP in human evolution, because we no longer need the nurturing of the other sex. This is supposed to be a PLAUSIBLE argument.
Were do we go from there? We had better start cloning ourselves, FAST.
The latest theory is a humanoid female had sex with several differently evolved ape-men, and had children kind of like a cat, one child from each different ape-man, and that is how we got the different races.
Another example of the theory of evolution having more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
sorry I cant help you with your question. I quit the evolution crowd some time ago.

Answer 9

Well I guess I can safely assume that you NEVER paid any attention in any science/biology classes. By the way, you assume way to much about things. Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't make it bad nor good. So drop the ever present obnoxous attitude that "creationists" love to share with everyone.

Answer 10

There are many simple organisms that can reproduce both sexually and asexually. This ability carries clear into reptiles. It isn't necessary that it was a clear cut one day.

And many water creatures just release the genetic material, they don't have organs to mate. Those came later.