Male and Female

Freodin, you raise an intresting out about others that are asexual. Obviously the first cell or simple life did not have a gender. As "evolution" progress's we find gender. How? How is it that animals start to adapt a new reproductive system and still be asexual or have a gender, its the chicken or the egg question.

Bacteria do indeed have a primitive version of sexual reproduction, called "conjugation". In bacteria, and in many other unicellular animals (and some multicellular ones) sexual reproduction is still "nice to have, but not necessary".

Of course, sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity, which is a good thing for any species if it is to last for long. So we see sexual reproduction is rather popular. (the fact that it is fun is more a reflection of usefulness than anything else) So, we would expect that species would evolve toward a greater dependence on sexual reproduction, until for many of them, it would become essential.

And that is what we see, in the world.

Do you guys listen to your posts. You sound as if their's this great voice from above saying to a species, alter and adapt yourself to survive. Barbarian you stated that sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity, i agree, thank God for that. We find animals with gestration periods while others lay eggs, we find animals that have gender while some that are asexual. According to you almost every species would have gender since its sooooo beneifical. Bacteria thur "conjugation" creates the gender, you say. No one is aurging that sexual reproduction increases genetic diversity, the issue is your idea that bacteria did it. I read all your articles and they still never address the issue of how a species is "told" to alter itself with these new reproduction organs. It's like your saying, something or someone told a species to have gender to increase diversity. What then is the best species suited for its environment, is it humans for its intelligence, no, not everything is human, though this evolution would understand that intelligentance is a key factor to the surviability of a species. Your issues of HIV Antiviral Resistance, Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance can be explained in http://www.ideacenter.org/antibiotic.htm

I havent even started the issue of different races we have in human. Dr Walter Brown address this very issue and its implication of evolution that this well established phenomenon is not a mechanism for macro-evolution as a century of experimentation has shown, although it is an important mechanism for micro-evolution. Natural selection filters out certain parental genes in successive generations, producing offspring with slightly different characteristics and less genetic variability. For example, a fair skinned person living near the equator is susceptible to several health risks, such as shin cancer.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner...Get_the_R.html

Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop. Oh no, not another creationist website, lol

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...efinition.html

And an awesome site, not creationist, about evolution. This one is worth reading.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html

:rolleyes:right . . . not a Christian creationist, but a creationist none the less. Interesting source, Do you agree with his alternative to what created man if evolution is not responsible? If not, why not?

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/about_author.html
The author, who writes under the pen-name HARUN YAHYA, was born in Ankara in 1956. Having completed his primary and secondary education in Ankara, he then studied arts at Istanbul's Mimar Sinan University and philosophy at Istanbul University. Since the 1980s, the author has published many books on political, faith-related and scientific issues. Harun Yahya is well-known as an author who has written very important works disclosing the imposture of evolutionists, the invalidity of their claims and the dark liaisons between Darwinism and bloody ideologies such as fascism and communism.

His pen-name is made up of the names "Harun" (Aaron) and "Yahya" (John), in memory of the two esteemed prophets who fought against lack of faith. The Prophet's seal on the cover of the author's books has a symbolic meaning linked to the their contents. This seal represents the Qur'an, the last Book and the last word of God, and our Prophet, the last of all the prophets. Under the guidance of the Qur'an and Sunnah, the author makes it his main goal to disprove each one of the fundamental tenets of godless ideologies and to have the "last word", so as to completely silence the objections raised against religion. The seal of the Prophet, who attained ultimate wisdom and moral perfection, is used as a sign of his intention of saying this last word.

The author's childrens books are: Wonders of Allah's Creation, The World of Animals, The Splendour in the Skies, Wonderful Creatures, Let's Learn Our Islam, The World of Our Little Friends:The Ants, Honeybees That Build Perfect Combs, Skillful Dam Builders: Beavers.

No, that is not what happens. Evolution states that variability is introduced randomly through mutation. Natural selection operates on that variability.

Actually, this one has an answer. Not original to me, but I'll pass it on.

At some point, there was a mutation in the species that preceeded the chicken that finally made the new offspring unable to interbreed with the old. This mutation (which was passed on to others of the transitional species by, interestingly enough, massive amounts of sex), occurred when that pre-chicken "hen" layed an egg. The hen did not have the new mutation, but the egg did. That egg was the first true chicken.

So the egg came first.

Why is this such a difficult concept? There is no "great voice". It's called natural selection. The diversity means that some individuals will be better adapted to survive and have sex than other individuals. That's why diversity is good, that's why there is evolutionary pressure over time.

"evolutionary pressure over time" from where dude? or by what? Where does this pressure come from to alter a species?

The environment.

From the same mechanism that causes microevolution (which I assume you accept). Natural selection operates the same way in both.

__________________

To the best of my knowledge, only believers hear "voices" and claim they're from God.

I don't "listen" to posts, I read them. Everything I've read so far is quite consistent with evolutionary theory, well documented in corroborating literature. It may "seem" to someone who is superstituous or doesn't understand the science properly, that some "magical" force impels species to adapt to survive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Fact is, those that failed to adapt, died. They did not pass along thier genes, and they did not get to make a contribution to modern species. So, those species that did adapt and survived to pass on thier genes, produce heirs which are more readliy adaptable. As a general rule, the adaptability of a species gives it better opportunities to respond to a changing envirnment.

All the "forces" in this are purely natural and physical. No outside agent is required, no consciousness "directs" the animal. It just "seems" like conscoiusness when looking at it in retrospect, and trying to fit a pattern to it.

It's a certian human snobbery to assign consciousness to places it doesn't belong, I'll grant you.

Not necissarily. If the species is well adapted and feels no environmental pressure, it wouldn't need to develop sexual reproduction. Slime molds, fungi, algae are doing fine without sexual reproduction, so why should they bother?

Once again, you have to look at the developmet of sexual reproduction in a context of a given species history. It became advantageous for certian species to sexually reproduce because they faced certian pressures at a certian time in thier history. Not all species encounter the same kind of pressure in the same point in thier evolutionary development; nor do they solve the problem in precisely the same way.

Hence, genetic diversity.

Read my reply above.

This takes any species out of context. You must say all living species are the end result of 4 billion years of changing pressures, and each one developed a different scheme for survival that has worked so far.

Intellegence is not the end-all-be-all of evolution, and if you believe it you're applying that human snobbery I wrote about before. Intellegence has caused us not a few problems as well as successes, and many, many species are doing fine without it.

So there's not necissarily a requirement that all species, or all primates will develop intellegence. Whatever pressure proto-humans were responding to that forced intellegence, other groups of proto-apes were not under. They developed along different pathways in response to different local pressures.

Those kinds of pressures probably aren't impacting current ape environments, so there's no reason for them to develop intellegence.

Racial differences were answered in the article you quoted: balance between vitamin D production and preventing skin cancer. No evolutionist argues that intra-species and inter-species evolution both take place, so you're saying nothing that evolutionists haven't considered and accepted.

You are asserting, despite a mountain of evidence, that speciation doesn't take place. In that respect, you are being willfully blind.

__________________
"Be polite, be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet." -USMC "unofficial" Gunfight Rules

"Their single-minded devotion to self-improvement and the propagation of their own genes can strike other species as selfish and arrogant, yet in practice the Nietzscheans' boundless energy and willpower have made them valued contributors to Commonwealth society."-All Systems University Encyclopaedia entry: Nietzschean