If evolution is true, then . . .?

Question

How did all the pa-nay-nays and va-jay-jays develop?
How did procreation occur?
Were we all hermaphrodites impregnating ourselves?
GROSS!

Answer 1

Oh great, another biology question in the religion section.

Playing armchair theologian on a measly little Internet forum does not constitute scientific research.

If you're asking about the origin of sexual reproduction, and the first sexual-reproducing creatures, here's an article from Brown University:
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/19.Evol.of.Sex.HTML
(Of course, you'll have to extend your vocabulary beyond layman's terms. This IS rocket science.)

Oh, and nice copy-and-paste job from sisterzeal. But it's bogus. Carbon-14 dating is NOT the only form of dating used by geologists. You can see Hovind completely debunked here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Answer 2

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:


* Evolution is every much a fact.
* The theory of evolution is a theory - just like atomic theory and gravity theory. The word "theory" has a very specific meaning in a scientific context* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.
* There are no alternative scientific theories.
* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...
* And zero evidence against it.
* The 'discussion' is actually educated people trying to educate others.
* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.
* The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the united states.

Specifically:


1. The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.

2. Many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex (Barton and Charlesworth 1998). There is good experimental support for some of these, including resistance to deleterious mutation load (Davies et al. 1999; Paland and Lynch 2006) and more rapid adaptation in a rapidly changing environment, especially to acquire resistance to parasites (Sá Martins 2000).

References:

1. Barton, N. H. and B. Charlesworth, 1998. Why sex and recombination? Science 281: 1986-1990.
2. Davies, E. K., A. D. Peters and P. D. Keightley, 1999. High frequency of cryptic deleterious mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 285: 1748-1751.
3. Kondrashov, Alexey S., 1997. Evolutionary genetics of life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 391-435.
4. Paland, Susanne and Michael Lynch. 2006. Transitions to asexuality result in excess amino acid substitutions. Science 311: 990-992. See also: Nielsen, Rasmus. 2006. Why sex? Science 311: 960-961.
5. Sá Martins, J. S., 2000. Simulated coevolution in a mutating ecology. Physical Review E 61(3): R2212-R2215.

Further Reading:
Judson, Olivia, 2002. Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation, New York: Metropolitan Books.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, 1990. Origins of sex: three billion years of genetic recombination, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wuethrich, Bernice, 1998. Why sex? Putting theory to the test. Science 281: 1980-1982. See also several related articles in the same issue.

Answer 3

There are a pair of theories in the back of this, yet some thing like limitless regression fairly says "it is so a techniques lower back we don't know and could no longer know." ideally, we don't know what began evolution. yet this could be examined extra heavily between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution continues to be very rather contested, and many question its validity in the sector of biology. Micro evolution is all approximately adaptaion to stay to tell the tale. Necessity is the mummy of invention...inspite of the indisputable fact that it would seem that lots that's reported in micro evolution is organic risk, no longer necessity. the two way, survival may be a sturdy motivator for adapability. it relatively is sort of of of twisted good judgment, materials are constrained so in a roundabout way a mutation happens which provides one creature an more desirable side over others (micro evolution)...ultimately those mutations will develop into so great that there is an entire new species (macro evolution). yet there seems to choose a driving stress, considering that rely nicely-knownshows its lowest solid point of means, why might it try to compete? what's thecontinual? of direction technological information Fiction does factor out that radiation can mutate lizards into horribly great hearth respiratory beasts.

Answer 4

By combining genes, greater diversity is achieved. This is incredibly advantageous. Sexual reproduction goes back to very early life. It was most likely simple organisms that would combine with or consume other organisms of the same species and create an offshoot with the combined genes. This was advantageous, so the process evolved into sexual reproduction.

Answer 5

Please, ask this question in the Biology section, or go to school and pay attention in your science class.

For the record, we were never hermaphrodites, but even if that were the case (which it's not), what's "grosser"? Hermaphrodite reproduction, or incest between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve?

Answer 6

Evollution is true. And if your asking something as stupid as that then I might as well answer it with something equally stupid. We were al created by a fish that spit us out then the monkeys took care of us until we were smater than them. Unless you want a smart answer you should get smarter and ask smarter questions.

Answer 7

Humans can only be interesexed, not hermaphrodites.

And, besides that, I don't follow your wording. But in any case, yes, evolution is true.

Answer 8

First would have been binary fission - where single-celled organisms split themselves into two identical copies - basically clones of the original.

Later, comes sexual reproduction.

Answer 9

As an adaptation to parasites.

Answer 10

no, zoia , u shoudl be asking why the monkeys at the zoo still havent became humans yet or better yet, why are there monkeys at all, i mean shouldnt they have ceased to exist and all became humans