If Evolution Is True?

Question

why are there only 2 different genders????????
if we started from fungi or something there should be lots of different genders, looking at all creation, theres only 2.

answer my other evolution question

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070811005605AAaP9g1&r=w

DO REMEMBER THE STARS

olliedog- i agree i dont believe in it

leaving to votes, as im confussed on which to believe

Answer 1

"Afraid you will loose your faith?"

No, that would be you. Just how loose is your faith?

Answer 2

Very very simple. Since evolution is all about advantage ...

2 genders provides a HUGE ADVANTAGE over 1.

But 3 genders provides a HUGE *DISADVANTAGE* over 2.

The advantage of going from 1 gender to 2 (i.e. from sexual reproduction where all individuals are both males and females ... to sexual reproduction with dedicated genders), is that developing individuals don't have do develop both types of sex organs ... which dramatically simplifies embryological development. (This is a bigger issue with animals than plants ... which is why flowering plants are still largely hermaphrodite ... all individuals are both males and females.) This outweighs the disadvantage that it is now more difficult to find a mate.

But going from 2 genders to 3 (or more) provides no additional advantage. In fact, it produces a *disadvantage* ... it multiplies the difficulty of finding a mates (as you now need to find *two* mates of the other two genders).

It's not that complicated.

....

As for your agreeing with olliedog ... Why??? Do you really believe that scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution for no other reason than some dude named Darwin wanted to "sell a book"?

C'mon. You have to have more respect for your own intellect than that!

Answer 3

There is no "if" about it. Don't be too concerned with the word "theory". Creationism is also a theory, but being a theory does not mean something isn't true. Few scientists doubt the THEORY of relativity, do they? Does any one doubt Newton's THEORY of universal gavitation? Scientific theories are not just supposition and conjecture. They are supported, where possible, by mathematical explanation or logic and observation. Evolution is observable. Micro organisms mutate rapidly - that is evolution.

The creationist theory is supported by nothing, making it a fairytale.

Answer 4

No one knows for sure. All living things share tremendous amount of basic architecture. Like DNA/RNA/protein thing, similar metabolic pathways or identical one...etc. Considering evolution suggest all living things had common origin. Which loosely explains why so many or all living things have 1 or 2 genders. If all these livings evolved from early 1 particular sexually reproducing organism it makes sense. It's that common origin thing.

There are rare fish species which one gender can double as opposite gender. So 2 unique gender, but 1 of those gender can act as opposite. Lot of strange things are out there.

Answer 5

There´s absolutely no reason for there to be more than two genders.
Sexual reproduction makes sure the offspring is never identical to the parent. Before sexual reproduction came along, less than one billlion years ago, life reproduced by mitosis and life struggled along at a very primitive level much as it had for nearly three billion years. With sexual reproduction evolution exploded. It was such an evolutionary success that there was and still is no need for sexual reproduction with more than two genders. If three genders had been in anyway beneficial for evolution multi gender reproduction would have been a reality.

Answer 6

Do you remember all that stuff they taught in school about an ape becoming an ape man and eventually becoming a man with a briefcase? Well scientist have changed that theory. So now all those text books are just made up lies.

You may wonder how that information got in books if it wasn’t solid proof that Evolution was true…
That is what evolutionist do. They take a theory and try to draw up imaginary pictures and call it fact. Then when new facts come out they say “well we are learning and growing and it’s good that we have NEW evidence”
That’s fine and dandy but don’t take GOD out of school and then stick a bunch of lies in our books instead.

Teach kids the GOD theory
Teach kids the Science theory.

Why are atheist so worried about hearing both sides of the story? Afraid you will loose your faith?

Great websites to check out that disprove evolution and support the God who created us!

http://www.epm.org/articles/evolution.html
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/begin2.html

Answer 7

Because two is enough. The evolutionary function of gender is to insure rapid dispersal of favorable mutations, and two sexes is sufficient to do so. Evolution does not favor unnecessary complications. Incidentally, evolution is a proven fact.

Answer 8

First of all, evolution is not 'true'. Evolution is a theory. Theories are not 'true' or 'false'. Their value is based on their usefulness.

As for genders. Well, it's not quite that simple. Not all living creatures reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction allows a species to make the best use of the gene pool. But even some creatures who -do- reproduce sexually have no gender. Earthworms, for instance, are both genders, and when they mate they both go away pregnant. Some reptiles can change gender to correct the gender balance of their populations.

Answer 9

In actual fact gender is not necessary, it has evolved to work in many cases, but there are still creatures and plants that reproduce asexually. Which is basically a form of cloning. Also there are many creatures that are hermaphrodite, snails for instance. This means that they have both male and female genitals which are both in use. They cannot fertilise themselves, but fertilise each other instead. What gender would you class them as?

Answer 10

Everything evolves to fit circmstances and improve to fit those circmstances and conditions. Apart from which, officially or whatever the correct word might be, we might know only male and female, but in today's world as we all know, it could be said that within those two main genders there are different types.

Answer 11

Keep in mind...fungi also reproduce through sexual reproduction. When their hyphae meet - they form a new fungi there.
We didn't actually start from fungi itself, we - theoretically came from a prokaryotic cell, or unicellular organism through evolution. But then of course, there are things to remember here:

* The theory of evolution came from observing patterns in inheritance, and IS only a theory that most believe to be logically correct over the theory of 'creation'. But of course, it's only a theory - and I would personally prefer to believe this theory than the one Lamarck came up with (Lamarck was the guy who proposed that we got out traits from environment not through reproduction. He really was the person who set off Darwin's adventures).

* Prokaryotes have single stranded genetic material (RNA)- which is prone to mutation as there is no second strand. During DNA replication the 2nd strand is suppose to act as a template, not only to allow cell division and the production of RNA for protein synthesis - but also allow the semi-conservative nature of DNA to continue, maintaining the same function and appearance of an organism.
The single-strandedness of prokaryotes are a slight disadvantage this way - because they have more chances of mutation, whereas DNA in eukaryotes have enzymes like ligase to 'double check' the sequence of nucleotides. Despite this though, prokaryotes – through mutation are able to always ‘adapt’ or become ‘resistant’ rapidly, so therefore this mutation is benefital (allowing evolution).
Example of this is bacteria being able to become resistant to antibiotics.

So why is it not possible that micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution? If environments can change, then an organism needs to adapt to it else it will go extinct. The thing about ‘mutation’ is that it allows a variety of characteristics – and Darwin’s theory of natural selection comes into play.
Natural selection is basically some environmental pressure on the organism. Usually in the gene pool, there are characteristics that are better adapted, so therefore survival IS of the fittest. Is it not possible that prokaryotes through periods of gradualism and punctual equilibrium developed “structures” based on their environments in order to survive?
If its original environment gets crowded it will need to move into new niches, and then adapt to survive in them. This would eventually lead to geographical isolation, and then reproductive isolation … leading to diverging evolution through allopatric speciation .

But wait, I’ve mention reproductive isolation! Of course there is the question about how these organ’s developed, and it’s not like we could keep reproducing asexually by binary fission right (no variation this way)? Well think about it – how much does slight alteration of DNA and chromosomes affect phenotype? There must have been a divergence somewhere along the way, leading to the formation of sexual structures. Fungi – for example, is extremely simple, yet is able to produce through sexual reproduction. I doubt its adaptive radiation at this point; it is most likely either parallel evolution or a form of divergence from a common ancestor who had successfully been able to reproduce sexually.
Sexual reproduction on its own allows a lot of genetic variation, and doing this would have allowed greater chances of diversity towards survival. The most successful would have been able to survive through the variations of genes in the gene pool, whereas The male and female organs are a sort of ‘lock and key’ combination, only allowing the “piece” that fits being able to enter it. Why would you need more genders anyway? You’d only end up needing genders that allowed “fitting pieces” (what good would this do? You'd need longer strands of DNA, so therefore larger chromosomes too).
The common eukaryotic ancestor must have developed this, as a key to survival – making sure only the opposite gender (and only this ONE gender) would allow fertilization, and allow the formation of a zygote with the correct homologous + diploid number of chromosomes, and continue the survival of its species.