Why are there girls in the world?

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,595.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Without sexes, individuals could only reproduce something like genetic clones of themselves.

But sharing genes between pairs allows variation, which is extremely valuable for changing conditions.

With diversity, we are able to thrive in many diverse conditions.

If a new dangerous flu comes, it cannot kill all of a diverse set of genetic variety the way it could target one gene set.

The individuals well suited to the conditions will be more likely to be healthy and share their genes, sending on the useful genes.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?

Sex -> more genetic diversity.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?

Just so you understand, an answer can be rationalized for any question. Now that the advantage of sexual reproduction has been stated, ask the opposite question: If sexual reproduction is advantageous, why are there asexual organisms?

It's a fun little game.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,303
76
✟363,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Just so you understand, an answer can be rationalized for any question. Now that the advantage of sexual reproduction has been stated, ask the opposite question: If sexual reproduction is advantageous, why are there asexual organisms?

Depends on the selective pressures. When there's a lot of change in the environment, or there are relatively few offspring, sexual reproduction makes more sense. If there is a relatively stable environment or lots and lots of offspring (think bacteria) then asexual works better.

There are some lizards that now reproduce asexually.

It's a fun little game.

And a rather mathematical one:
https://www.uv.es/~mazon/trabajos/RotifCalMazSer.pdf
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Now that the advantage of sexual reproduction has been stated, ask the opposite question: If sexual reproduction is advantageous, why are there asexual organisms?
Asexual reproduction gives a large (twofold) and immediate selective advantage, so it can arise easily. The lack of recombination greatly reduces the long-term effectiveness of selection, however, and as a result asexual species tend to become extinct, so sexual reproduction is more common among multicellular organisms. That's what current evidence suggests, as far as I know.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,303
76
✟363,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Sort of. How much do you want me to pontificate on that subject?

Show us how selective pressure changes the desirability of asexual reproduction with the consequent survival of all on one's genes.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Show us how selective pressure changes the desirability of asexual reproduction with the consequent survival of all on one's genes.

Sorry. I wasn't referring specifically to that issue, but more generally to how "mathematical" it all is. It was a philosophical comment.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,303
76
✟363,230.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,169
US
✟1,440,830.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?

From that viewpoint, the proper question should be: "Why are there boys in the world?"

Asexual reproduction obviates the need for males, not females.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,088
4,321
52
undisclosed Bunker
✟287,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You are more vulnerable to viral attack if you reproduce asexually. You have lots and lots of children but they are all vulnerable to the same viral attack pattern. Other option is to have few each with unique attributes that can survive. Both tactics work, high level organisms prefer the second option.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married

Is that supposed to be a joke?

Or you could start with something that doesn't make multiple blatantly false statements on the first page.

I assumed Barbarian was joking. I doubt he would agree with anything on that site ... unless I've seriously misjudged his position. I find the topic of mathematics and science fascinating, so a serious discussion on the matter could be interesting. However, these forums present only the rarest of opportunities for a good discussion.

As part of my own (amateur) investigations, I wanted a mathematical basis. Qualitative science makes me nervous ... though it's not completely without merit. Biology faces a paradigmatic problem, however, in that it didn't have a Newtonian moment. By that I mean one of Newton's stunning achievements was to put physics on a mathematical footing. No one ever really thinks about doing physics without doing math. What many fail to realize is that Newton had several choices, and they each have their attractive features. But, due to history, we're locked into a Newtonian (updated to Einsteinian) mathematical model, and no one ever gives the alternatives serious consideration.

Biology has a much longer qualitative history, and as a result there is no single mathematical foundation (as far as I can tell). For my idea I utilized tile-based self-assembly (sTAM), and proved equivalence with Markov chains (at the 1D level). But those who reviewed my paper indicated I would need correlation to lab data before they would consider it a sufficient model for biological systems - and that's out of my reach.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Kaon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Is that supposed to be a joke?
Quite possibly.
Biology has a much longer qualitative history, and as a result there is no single mathematical foundation (as far as I can tell).
I think the difference between biology and physics has much more to do with the subject matter than with historical contingencies in the development of the field. There have been plenty of mathematically savvy biologists who have applied mathematics to aspects of biology, but the field does not lend itself to the kind of mathematical generalizations that physics does. That's my take, anyway, as someone who's been both a physicist and a computational biologist.
 
Upvote 0