Question for evolutionist

[1611AV]

I have seen this question asked before elsewhere, but never saw a answer, so I will ask it here.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

 

[sandwiches]

I have seen this question asked before elsewhere, but never saw a answer, so I will ask it here.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

With another cell capable of sexual reproduction, obviously. It could also reproduce with itself but I'm guessing that you have a specific point you want to make. Are you still confused or what?

 

[badtim]

Why is it so important that christians abandon their faith and start believing in evolution in stead?

Who said anything about people giving up their beliefs? I'm sure there's someone, somewhere, who still believes Thor causes thunderbolts.

But that guy doesn't get to make policy on climate issues.

 

[Phred]

I have seen this question asked before elsewhere, but never saw a answer, so I will ask it here.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Oh here we go. You can't evolve sexual reproduction. It has to be created because there have to be TWO of them. Oh the cleverness. Oh the intelligence. Oh the....

Wait.

Meiotic sex evolved in mitotic protocists [single celled organisms] long before any animal appeared in the record of life. ...

Meiosis is a variation on the theme of mitosis. Meiosis likely evolved in doubled cells that had already divided by mitosis. The first fertilization event probably satisfied an urge not to merge but to eat. This could have happened if the protist cannibals ate one another. Microscopists sometimes witness microbial wranglings in which a hungry cell engulfs a neighbor .... But the cells do not always digest what they engulf. ...

Once upon a time, we think, eating and mating were the same.

 

[sandwiches]

Oh here we go. You can't evolve sexual reproduction. It has to be created because there have to be TWO of them. Oh the cleverness. Oh the intelligence. Oh the....

Wait.

That's even more enlightening than my answer... I was simply thinking of animals can reproduce both sexually and asexually but this is much more interesting and educational.

 

[Jro]

I have seen this question asked before elsewhere, but never saw a answer, so I will ask it here.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

There's many species of bacteria that exchange genetic material, without a real differentiation between sexes. In certain circumstances this can prove very adaptive. This or something like it was probably the start of sexuality.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

There's many species of bacteria that exchange genetic material, without a real differentiation between sexes. In certain circumstances this can prove very adaptive. This or something like it was probably the start of sexuality.

Agreed, also with what Phred said as well

I kind of envision that it probably occurred out of a multicellular cooperative situation, where clusters of cells were operating together and sharing resources, like a proto-multicellular organism. Then as time went on certain cell lineages or parts of the population took on specific tasks (probably through polarization of genetic material), which then later developed into overt sexual reproduction. Then, because sexual reproduction is such a powerhouse for the generation of unique variants, eukaryotes exploded into this amazingly diverse set of organisms and animals. This is purely thought experiment, though

 

[plindboe]

Why is it so important that christians abandon their faith

It's not.

and start believing in evolution

Because science has improved our lifes greatly, and will continue to improve our lifes, and I consider anti-science harmful to the presence and future of mankind.

in stead?

Instead? Who says it has to be instead?

Now you could argue the same way about creation, but we have an answer: if someone offer you the ability to be immortal, and have eternal life as a free gift from God, it would be a disaster if we did not witness about what Jesus did on the cross! He forgave you all your sins!

So you believe that one has to accept your interpretation of creation in order to be saved? Funny theology, as most christians believe salvation is all about accepting Jesus.

Peter

 

[Blayz]

There's many species of bacteria that exchange genetic material, without a real differentiation between sexes. In certain circumstances this can prove very adaptive. This or something like it was probably the start of sexuality.

In addition aneuploidy is quite common in yeast, which is the best studied example of sexual reproduction in single celled organisms, and it is not hard to see the bridge between copy number plasticity due to fitness becoming the regulated genetic segregation of meiosis.

 

[Nostromo]

That's easy for you to say.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have seen this question asked before elsewhere, but never saw a answer, so I will ask it here.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

With another cell capable of sexual reproduction. The old chestnut of 'you can't evolve sex because you need one organism isn't enough' belies a misunderstanding of evolution, and is more generally an argument from ignorance ('I don't understand how sex could have evolved, therefore sex couldn't have evolved').

The evolution of sex is well understood, and, briefly, followed the path of asexual division, to hermaphroditic dual insemination, to bi-sexuality (that is, two discrete sexes). Of course, this all depends on what you consider to be 'sexual reproduction'. Many bacteria have the ability to undergo lateral gene transfer, which is the physical exchange of genetic material between one bacterium and another. Some species can reproduce by both sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction (e.g., some lizards can breed 'normally', or can, in a pinch, undergo parthenogenesis - self-fertilisation).

 

[Phred]

But oh those stupid scientists. They think they know everything. If they really knew the Truth (TM) they'd have found that God created everything as it is and they'd stop looking for ways it could have evolved. Evolution, what a waste of time. We all KNOW that the Bible is True (TM) and even if it's not it's what God wants us to believe. It might be a test... to see if we will be faithful to His Word. Either way I'm not going to question. And you shouldn't either.

Still, every time I stand up to you clowns I get Heaven Points. By doing God's work in this way I'm guaranteed a place in Heaven.

Can I stop now... Please?

 

[1611AV]

With another cell capable of sexual reproduction, obviously. It could also reproduce with itself but I'm guessing that you have a specific point you want to make. Are you still confused or what?

No point, just a question. Just interested in your the answers. And JFTR, I was never confused.

Oh here we go. You can't evolve sexual reproduction. It has to be created because there have to be TWO of them. Oh the cleverness. Oh the intelligence. Oh the....

Wait.

It was one simple question. But the theatrics really convinced me, thanks.

With another cell capable of sexual reproduction. The old chestnut of 'you can't evolve sex because you need one organism isn't enough' belies a misunderstanding of evolution, and is more generally an argument from ignorance ('I don't understand how sex could have evolved, therefore sex couldn't have evolved').

The evolution of sex is well understood, and, briefly, followed the path of asexual division, to hermaphroditic dual insemination, to bi-sexuality (that is, two discrete sexes). Of course, this all depends on what you consider to be 'sexual reproduction'. Many bacteria have the ability to undergo lateral gene transfer, which is the physical exchange of genetic material between one bacterium and another. Some species can reproduce by both sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction (e.g., some lizards can breed 'normally', or can, in a pinch, undergo parthenogenesis - self-fertilisation).

Thank You for the reply. In your opinion, is evolution totally random or does it favor a more economical way it changes things? For instance if a lizard can reproduce by self fertilization why the need for a male and female lizard?

 

[1611AV]

But oh those stupid scientists. They think they know everything. If they really knew the Truth (TM) they'd have found that God created everything as it is and they'd stop looking for ways it could have evolved. Evolution, what a waste of time. We all KNOW that the Bible is True (TM) and even if it's not it's what God wants us to believe. It might be a test... to see if we will be faithful to His Word. Either way I'm not going to question. And you shouldn't either.

Still, every time I stand up to you clowns I get Heaven Points. By doing God's work in this way I'm guaranteed a place in Heaven.

Can I stop now... Please?

If you can....

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thank You for the reply. In your opinion, is evolution totally random or does it favor a more economical way it changes things?

It prefers maintaining the status quo until selection pressures change, so it's not random.

For instance if a lizard can reproduce by self fertilization why the need for a male and female lizard?

That's a slightly different question, and the answer is: variation. Sexual reproduction allows for greater genetic variety, and, thus, a greater chance for adaptation in changing environments. For example, if the climate became colder, asexual reproduction wouldn't generate the beneficial traits as quickly as sexual reproduction. But, similarly, self-reproduction has benefits over sexual reproduction: you don't need to find or compete for mates, etc.

So it depends on the situation. Lizards are largely solitary animals, and their reproductive methods don't have the innovations that mammals have, so both asexual and sexual reproduction have their benefits.
Mammals, on the other hand, are more social than not, and so have largely lost their asexual skills.

In any case, evolution works with what it's got.

 

[sandwiches]

No point, just a question. Just interested in your the answers. And JFTR, I was never confused.

I apologize for being rude. It's just that when a question like that from some people comes up, it usually smells like another PRATT.

 

[Phred]

It was one simple question. But the theatrics really convinced me, thanks.

I've seen that asked a thousand times now and not once was it asked earnestly. And still you got real answers. Amazing isn't it the patience we have with you folks? No matter what we say you'll believe "goddidit" but we answer anyway. Just in case on the 1,001st time it was asked earnestly. So if you get some theatrics maybe you could direct your annoyance at your fellow creationists? Jus' sayin'.

Thank You for the reply. In your opinion, is evolution totally random or does it favor a more economical way it changes things? For instance if a lizard can reproduce by self fertilization why the need for a male and female lizard?

Sexual reproduction is favored because it mixes up the gene pool and produces better results. Hardier creatures. Look at the Romanov Royal family of Russia if you want to know why it's not a good idea to self fertilize. You get all those diseases that are caused by recessive genes when they're duplicated. Like hemophilia.

 

[1611AV]

I've seen that asked a thousand times now and not once was it asked earnestly. And still you got real answers. Amazing isn't it the patience we have with you folks? No matter what we say you'll believe "goddidit" but we answer anyway. Just in case on the 1,001st time it was asked earnestly. So if you get some theatrics maybe you could direct your annoyance at your fellow creationists? Jus' sayin'.

Well unless you are a Bible believer, you wouldn't understand that we can not believe in evolution. I have been asked things a thousand times about God from non believers and still give answers. But Im not here to discuss God or the Bible so put you guard down.

Obviously evolution is a compartmentalized theory so it is difficult to know where the boundaries are when asking questions. If I was to ask for instance where did the big bang come from, a evolutionist would direct me to a different study of science. But to a creationist, a evolutionist should be able to trace evolution back to its origin not only in the field of Biology but across all fields of science. A creationist can explain the origin of human life because he believes God created a Human as a fully formed fully functional Human. Where a evolutionist can not accept that. So it is a waste of time to debate the two at the same time. I respect your position. All I ask is respect mine. I am here to discuss evolution.

Sexual reproduction is favored because it mixes up the gene pool and produces better results. Hardier creatures. Look at the Romanov Royal family of Russia if you want to know why it's not a good idea to self fertilize. You get all those diseases that are caused by recessive genes when they're duplicated. Like hemophilia.

Yes I agree. we can see that demonstrated when breeding a "pedigree." A mutt is a much healthier dog overall.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Well unless you are a Bible believer, you wouldn't understand that we can not believe in evolution. I have been asked things a thousand times about God from non believers and still give answers. But Im not here to discuss God or the Bible so put you guard down.

So I guess Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Nazarenes all don't believe in the Bible because they make room for evolution? The arrogance of you Evangelicals never ceases to astound me. You think that only your interpretation is right. It's inexcusable to think that you are correct by default, especially when so many others have read the same words you have read in that book and found a completely different meaning, and one that actually allows for science and reason to partake in their understanding of the universe.

 

[1611AV]

So I guess Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Nazarenes all don't believe in the Bible because they make room for evolution? The arrogance of you Evangelicals never ceases to astound me. You think that only your interpretation is right. It's inexcusable to think that you are correct by default, especially when so many others have read the same words you have read in that book and found a completely different meaning, and one that actually allows for science and reason to partake in their understanding of the universe.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now even a pure non Bible believing evolutionist would look at this and conclude: The Bible says God made a man out of the dust of the ground and would also conclude that he was not alive until he at least had nostrils, so he could not have evolved because man became a living soul after God breathed in his nostrils.

Now if you do not believe that then you are not a Bible believer and I will have no further discussion with you on the matter.

I am here to discuss evolution!

My apologies to those of you who I was speaking with prior to this rude interruption.