How do evolutionists explain the opposite sex evolving at the same time to procreate in the same short life?

Question

Penster-variety doesn't go past a few days for some simple organisms or a 60 years for complex organisms. You are ignoring the obvious and saying a bunch of gobbly guk.

talk origins is ridiculous because everyone rants.

If you look at my profile you would see I have a degree in Biological Sciences so I think you need the education.

Squirrel to say that "JUST" happen at the same time is against all probability. That's why I posted the question. To show that evolutionary positions are highly suspect and questionable against all odds of probability so most likely people would infer a grand purpose.

Answer 1

They cant

Here is a hypothetical situation:
Get any evolutionist biologist,poke him/her in the eyes to blind, then put him/her in the Amazon forest, and let us see how long a fully 'evolved' organism can survive without sight in the Amazon forest.

Now then, which organ evolved first..... brain, muscles, eyesight, heart, bones, sex organs, .......

The only reason for the THEORY of evolution to remain in the Net, because proud man would NOT submit to the Word of God and acknowledge that they are sinful, along with the fact that they have a mortgage to pay, wife to feed, kids to sent to college......

Truly, Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Answer 2

In the beginning there was only asexual reproduction. Then, Nature made a chance discovery: It wasn't necessary for all the bits needed for both ends of the reproductive process to be in one body. And thus came sexual reproduction.

If the reproductive function can be split cleanly between two separate bodies, then there are potential evolutionary benefits: one can do all the usual competitive stuff while the other looks after the babies. And that's on top of the huge benefits that accrue from preventing auto-fertilisation. (Even monoecious plants have evolved ways not to self-pollinate.) No auto-fertilisation leads to more diversity within the population, and therefore faster adaptation to changing environmental conditions.

At some point, a few billion years ago, some life-form developed with the "impregnating" and "incubating" functions abstracted out into separate physical bodies; and pretty soon they were all at it.

(You could in theory have *three* sexes: one to provide an egg, one to provide sperm and one to incubate the embryo. However, this is unlikely to be successful for mainly logistical reasons -- it's enough trouble getting two people together, never mind three -- and one would logically expect trisex life-forms, if they ever evolved, to be confined to a limited environment.)

Now, in humans, the similarities between the sexes are absolutely, glaringly obvious; and over succeeding generations, the differences are vanishing. There simply isn't the environmental selection pressure anymore for men and women to be different. Individuals with less pronounced gender differentiations are less likely to be killed off and more likely to survive and pass on their androgyny. Give it long enough and we'll all be indistinguible, at least with clothes on.

Answer 3

Two sexes don't evolve at the same time. Sexual reproduction is a very late stage in an organism's evolution. A species will have parthenogenic females before males evolve. Maleness has been described by geneticists as occurring like a birth defect - certain biological processes have to take place to allow a fetus to become male. Even if a fetus has a Y chromosome, it will be female if any of the necessary processes are interrupted. There also have to be more females than males to ensure the survival of the species. Nature always prefers Her own gender.

Answer 4

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.


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).

EDIT - having a degree in biological science does not mean you understand evolution. Big mistake in your reasoning. I know several people in the same boat who are all creationists. The try to manipulate the science to fit the creation story.

I also think you are missing out the actual chemical nature of the earth as single cells began evolving.

Answer 5

Why can some fish have fry with out the aid of a male ??
And why do the female seahorses let the male of their species get pregnant and rear the young ??
And why is it that you believe in FAIRIES and non-existent things that you call GOD'S,when the Earth has been around a lot longer than all the God's put together,and you all say that you do not like fairy tales,if that were true then why do you read the Bible !! As it is the biggest book of Fiction in
this known world~~ Evolution is real ~~ Creation is what you do with a mould ??

Answer 6

are you able to tutor me the place a scientifically qualified evolutionist EVER made considered one of those assertion? heavily...in simple terms one single source to ascertain your declare that it somewhat is even what evolutionists think of surpassed off and not what you're intellectually disingenuous and featuring fake strawmen arguments. via fact i'm notably specific everyone knowledgeable with regard to the priority might hypothesize that they co-stepped forward slowly over an prolonged quantity of time and have been probably quite interchangeable on the beginning up (and for an prolonged time) and in ordinary terms differentiated throughout the time of many generations because it proved to be a constructive survival benefit to achieve this. additionally they might have stepped forward early in the approach (quite speaking) and speciation of maximum complicated multicellular animals might have come after the actuality and inherited the trait for differentiated sexes, no longer any incorrect way around (all cutting-side species first and then all of them advance sexes later on). For bonus factors, without going and finding it up, do you additionally be attentive to what the definition of lady and male is from an evolutionary, medical P.O.V.? And in case you elect to invite an evolutionist this question, ask it in technology the place human beings qualified to respond to can achieve this and end hiding in the back of the preserve of religion and posting medical questions in religious boards to evade having to stand quite solutions.

Answer 7

Perhaps in the same way certain reptiles evolution ended up discarding the opposite sex, yet they still perform male/female sexual rituals because of evolutionary 'left overs'.

Evolutionary theory is so perfect that just one piece of evidence against it would have the whole thing being denounced by all scientists. In 150 years not a single piece of good contrary evidence has ever been put forward.

Answer 8

This question barley deserves an answer.
I will, however, give a brief and simple answer. Males and females are not completely different species. They both evolve in the same species. Obviously, they're going to evolve at the same time, as they are of the same species. (and by the way, this goes for any species; the male and female of that species are of the the same species)

Answer 9

Instead of coming on here to pose your question you could actually try reading a book on evolutionary biology to find your answers.

Or you could take the easy route and simply believe that book of superstition, myth, contradiction and bigotry you call the Bible.

Answer 10

Because men and women are of the same species perhaps?