problem of evolutionary reproduction

[RTooty]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes. Evolutionists can no more coherently explain the origin of sexual reproduction than they can the origin of life on Earth. Evolutionists talk about the advantages of sexual reproduction, but never offer any explanations as to how sexual reproduction came to be.

 

[MoonLancer]

A group of creatures does not make a jump from one species to another in a single generation, so your the point you are trying to make is not valid. you are arguing against a straw man.

Many traits from the father and mother are inherited. You might have your fathers eyes and your mothers hair. The successful mutations are one that are advantageous and usually are the ones that are dominant and more likely to be passed on to the next generation.

May I ask where you learned about evolution?

 

[consol]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes. Evolutionists can no more coherently explain the origin of sexual reproduction than they can the origin of life on Earth. Evolutionists talk about the advantages of sexual reproduction, but never offer any explanations as to how sexual reproduction came to be.

They can and they will,
but let's say you're right, so the only answer is, it must obviously have been the big thing in the sky,
now why didn't I think of that?
you don't know the answer to a question, so instead of trying to find the answer to that question,
you bring on an even bigger question which is even harder to answer, which in itself brings forth even more questions,
is this the way a sane person thinks? I don't think so.

 

[HammOnWry]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes.

You seem to be implying that all of these things would need to appear at once, and that there would thus be a generation of fully asexual individuals who would give birth to a generation of fully sexual individuals. But as MoonLancer has already pointed out, evolution simply doesn't work that way.

Evolutionists can no more coherently explain the origin of sexual reproduction than they can the origin of life on Earth.

Oh, look. A two-for-one sale on canards! I suspect that it's been pointed out to you in the past, but just in case it hasn't, I'll repeat it for your edification:

The theory of evolution is not intended to explain the origin of life.

Got that? Good.

Evolutionists talk about the advantages of sexual reproduction, but never offer any explanations as to how sexual reproduction came to be.

In spite of the fact that creationists seem to discuss them an awful lot, I've never actually met one of these so-called 'evolutionists', so I can't tell you what they do or don't talk about.

Now, evolutionary biologists, on the other hand, have a strong body of experimental support that indicates that sexual reproduction most likely arose in parallel with the evolution of the first eukaryotic cells.

 

[NailsII]

In case you hadn't noticed, there are many massive differences between an asexually reproducing organism and a sexually reproducing one, and many plants still reproduce asexually.

Rather than answer your question, i would like you to consider the differences between a bacteria and multi-cellular organism.
Huge differences, so maybe that's why it is only in the last 500my we have seen multicellular organisms out of the circa 3 billion years of life on earth?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes.

No you don't. Some organisms are hermaphrodites that can produce both sets of gametes. Look up aphids for an example.

Sexual reproduction is not so simple.

 

[BananaSlug]

Even bacteria can pass genetic information between one another. It's not sexual reproduction as compared to eukaryotic reproduction but it is not pure asexual either.

 

[keith99]

In case you hadn't noticed, there are many massive differences between an asexually reproducing organism and a sexually reproducing one, and many plants still reproduce asexually.

Rather than answer your question, i would like you to consider the differences between a bacteria and multi-cellular organism.
Huge differences, so maybe that's why it is only in the last 500my we have seen multicellular organisms out of the circa 3 billion years of life on earth?

I could have sworn someone provided a direct answer. You have touched on it. The OP brings up an image of multi-celled organisms, hopefully large things like mammals, but asexual developing sexual reproduction.

The fact is that sexual reproduction started way back in hte single celled organisms and things that are neither sexual (in the sense of male/female) nor asexual (in the sense of one cell spliting) are observed in single celled organisms. Two cells will exchange genetic material.

I'm not a biologist and my last bio class was decades ago so I'll leave details beyond that to someone a bit more current.

 

[Split Rock]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes.

Biology Lesson #1:
Populations Evolve, Not Individuals!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Actually, let me set the record straight here.

See this bacteria? (The one in the middle on the left side)

It's name is "Bob". Bob is what is known in the Kingdom Protista as a pervert. He meandered around the petri dish propositioning all the other bacteria. But since none of them were sexual reproducers he had to wander off lonely.​

Then one day he met the hottest looking single celled protist he'd ever met: Barbara (she's the one near the middle of the picture)​

Well, Barbara was, shall we say, "open to experimentation". She had tried budding in undergrad, she was a "BFUG" (Binary Fisioner Until Graduation). She was the classic libertine in the making.​

Bob met Barbara and they "experimented". And that's how we got Sexual Reproduction.​

(C'mon people, crack open a biology book once in a while! Sheesh!)​

 

[thaumaturgy]

Sexual reproduction is not so simple.

QFT

 

[USincognito]

No you don't. Some organisms are hermaphrodites that can produce both sets of gametes. Look up aphids for an example.

And earthworms (at the very least, not really up on my worm reproduction).

Also RT, beings as simple as Bdelloid Rotifers and complex as reptiles can reproduce via parthenogenesis.

 

[Gracchus]

Also RT, beings as simple as Bdelloid Rotifers and complex as reptiles can reproduce via parthenogenesis.

Rotifers are not simple! They are small, but their bodies may have as many cells as yours.

Moreover, Bdelloid rotifers may die, have their cells break down, and when re-hydrated, live again, incorporating DNA from other dead organisms!

Reproduction by inter-species necrophilia!

 

[USincognito]

Rotifers are not simple! They are small, but their bodies may have as many cells as yours.

Yes, I could have used a more accurate word. I was speaking in terms of, say, organ structure and such.

Moreover, Bdelloid rotifers may die, have their cells break down, and when re-hydrated, live again, incorporating DNA from other dead organisms!

I know I saw that thread. Very

 

[Bombila]

Diversity of reproductive strategies starts among the very small. I love these little guys.

"Most water bears require males and females to reproduce. Some males place sperm directly into special sperm-storing organs on the female's body. Some females have special structures that are inserted into the male, allowing them to grab sperm inside the male's body. A few species are parthenogenic (PAR-thih-no-JEH-nik) and capable of producing young without mating. In some species, individuals have reproductive organs of both males and females."

http://animals.jrank.org/pages/1728/Water-Bears-Tardigrada-BEHAVIOR-REPRODUCTION.html

 

[Chalnoth]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes. Evolutionists can no more coherently explain the origin of sexual reproduction than they can the origin of life on Earth. Evolutionists talk about the advantages of sexual reproduction, but never offer any explanations as to how sexual reproduction came to be.

Nope. Like everything in evolution, it happened gradually, by small steps. It's easy to look at the before and end products of millions of years of evolution and claim you can't have gone from A to B. But it turns out that all of the important steps along the way are represented by animals that are alive today.

First you get pure asexual reproduction. Then, as the organisms get larger and their generation times longer, it becomes more and more important to swap genes around. So as they became larger, at the same time they developed ways of swapping genes between themselves. Early on, this basically meant they became hermaphrodites. Later evolution further specialized the sexes, and many species ended up with purely male and female organs. But even then, in many species the line isn't so clear cut. Some fish and frogs, for instance, can change sex as adults just due to changes in their environment.

The sexes may seem incredibly different and immutable when you look at humans, but that's just because we're separated from forms that had simpler sex organs by hundreds of millions of years.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Evolutionists talk about the advantages of sexual reproduction, but never offer any explanations as to how sexual reproduction came to be.

Be very careful when you tell us what has and hasnt been explained. I would be wealthy if i had a nickle for every time i heard a lay and/or creationist claim something to be unknown which has been adequately explained by science.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes. Evolutionists can no more coherently explain the origin of sexual reproduction than they can the origin of life on Earth. Evolutionists talk about the advantages of sexual reproduction, but never offer any explanations as to how sexual reproduction came to be.

even if you had found a gap in evolutionary knowledge, Gaps do not a theory destroy! Gaps in knowledge = fruitful areas of research. at least evolution explains things, creationism cannot account for anything in nature.

 

[Naraoia]

For evolutionary theory to work and get us to the stage of sexual reproduction you would need two individuals from the same species to simultaneously acquire the mutations that provide sexual organs and the mutations that result in only passing on half of their chromosomes. Evolutionists can no more coherently explain the origin of sexual reproduction than they can the origin of life on Earth. Evolutionists talk about the advantages of sexual reproduction, but never offer any explanations as to how sexual reproduction came to be.

I see nobody's said anything about meiosis (the "passing on half of their chromosomes") yet. AFAIK the evolution of meiosis is one of the Big Questions in evolutionary biology, although I must admit to my ignorance of the subject :o

However, one fact strikes me as rather neat: meiotic recombination (when chromosomes pair up before meiosis and exchange DNA) is related to an ancient way of repairing broken DNA (Holliday junctions for you). And by ancient, I mean everything from bacteria to us can do it.

(Random Fact Naraoia Likes )

In the end, as CactusJack pointed out, what matters is not whether we've answered every question related to evolution but whether the known facts support or contradict it.

 

[birdan]

There is a very good DVD from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute on nature's strategies for reproduction and the evolution of sexual reproduction. It's called Genes and Gender:

http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=product&itemId=165

Their full catalogue of DVDs contains some good basic lectures on evolution (as well as other topics), and is here:

http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=getCategoryListing&catId=2

All the HHMI DVDs are completely free - no cost, no shipping and handling, no cost at all. Just select the DVDs you want and fill out the shipping information and they'll show up at you house in a week or two. You can order mutliple copies if you want - they make great stocking stuffers!