English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-10-28 10:16:55 · 18 answers · asked by Joe 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

well i didnt ask people to tell me which section to put this in but since they have i will answer that there is alot of evolutionists that go in and out of the r&s section. Just look at most answers and you'll see that. I did ask this in anthropy to before putting it in here.

2007-10-28 10:50:36 · update #1

18 answers

evolution doesn't address the issue of gender. Darwin's theory of evolution only addresses why there some species are different than others, and why some species have similar characteristics but also different characteristics than other species - how these differences arose. gender was a given. without gender there can be no second generation. it takes a female and a male of each species to get to the second generation. Darwin was taken with the differences between the first and second generation and how differences develop over time

2007-10-28 10:21:30 · answer #1 · answered by flipper10 2 · 1 0

At the single cell stage, for genetic recombination.

Genetic recombination offers a big advantage in adaptability. By preventing self mating, population diversity is maintained, also a potential survival advantage. Some single cell organisms have more than two sexes (a species with 13 has been identified) where any two sexes's gametes can fuse.

As early as sponges, male / female dimorphism developed in that there are mobile (sperm) and sessile (egg) type gametes.

2007-10-28 11:33:43 · answer #2 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0 0

Good question. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’

2007-10-28 10:22:44 · answer #3 · answered by bwlobo 7 · 2 0

Sex started pretty far down the evolutionary ladder. Even bacteria have sex of a sort. The re-combination of genes afforded by sexual reproduction is an enormous evolutionary advantage, because it allows genetic traits to be "hidden" in a population in a largely inactive and benign state, and then reappear rapidly if the environment suddenly changes. It also allows for rapid mixing of new mutations with a full assortment of old, successful ones.

2007-10-28 10:23:06 · answer #4 · answered by cosmo 7 · 0 0

Ask this question in the science category under biology or zoology. What makes you think religious people would know?The reason we hang out here is because idiots like you post nonsense about science here. Stop doing it. I have asked repeatedly that yahoo delete science questions from this section and I am ignored. You insult our intelligence with this attitude of oh I'll post this off topic subject here and get an answer when really allyou want to do is get people angry.

2007-10-28 10:41:09 · answer #5 · answered by Stainless Steel Rat 7 · 0 2

gender is a linguistic term that has nothing to do with biology. language was invented by humans.

if you mean sex, a rough outline would be that meiosis evolved from mitosis, sexual dimorphism evolved, and genetic control of sexual development evolved. at least, this is what seems to have happened in the human lineage (although most of these things were settled long before humans themselves evolved). there are quite a variety of sexual processes in life as a whole, even bacteria have sex-like processes.

2007-10-28 10:32:12 · answer #6 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 0 0

Barnacles mark the point at which animal species separated into male and female. One species of barnacle evolved so that one "part" of it was almost entirely penis, which meant that it could fertilize the female organs of barnacles beyond its normal reach. This OBVIOUSLY confers a survival advantage over organisms that can only mate with others in their immediate area. Maleness is a bizarre mutation. Interestingly, in any body-size to penis ratio contest, the barnacle puts every other animal on earth to shame.

2007-10-28 10:27:11 · answer #7 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 0 1

I am a strong believer in Christianity and I believe evolution is not true! How could that happe!? I t makes no sense! fish arent turning into crocidiles now! Why would it change1 And why would women give birth! They wouldnt they would just grab a kid opn their own from the lake actually kids didnt exist back when than because it just turns into man. Im sticking to the true story Of God making the world! And he has proved it to me1 And we xcan go to Heaven with Him because he sent his son Jesus ChRIST TO DIE ON THE CROSS FOR ALL OUR SINS SO WE CAN BE WITH HI, FOREVER.And Why would only the Christians God be capitialized and other gods or idols arent .U can see I feel strongly about this and I have asked God for signs and he has sent them. u should try. I hope to c u in Heaven.

-God Bless

2007-10-28 10:25:02 · answer #8 · answered by Ashleigh M 2 · 0 2

Ask in the science section. Most people here do not have a clue about evolution.

2007-10-28 10:23:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Human beings are dependent for a longer period of time than other mammals. We need two parents to care for our offspring. Separate sex organs tend to better insure that.

Just a guess.

2007-10-28 10:21:54 · answer #10 · answered by mediahoney 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers