• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Why are there girls in the world?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by mathinspiration, Apr 14, 2018.

  1. mathinspiration

    mathinspiration Member

    356
    +64
    United States
    Methodist
    Single
    If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of His Creation! Supporter

    +3,734
    United States
    Christian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  3. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +14,278
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Sex -> more genetic diversity.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. Dave-W

    Dave-W Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner! Supporter

    +13,789
    United States
    Messianic
    Married
    US-Others
    Indeed.

    Also, Sex -> a lot more fun. :)




    .
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +861
    Lutheran
    Married
    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.
     
  6. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,361
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    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.

    And a rather mathematical one:
    https://www.uv.es/~mazon/trabajos/RotifCalMazSer.pdf
     
  7. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +861
    Lutheran
    Married
    Sort of. How much do you want me to pontificate on that subject?
     
  8. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +4,939
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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.
     
  9. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,361
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Show us how selective pressure changes the desirability of asexual reproduction with the consequent survival of all on one's genes.
     
  10. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +861
    Lutheran
    Married
    Sorry. I wasn't referring specifically to that issue, but more generally to how "mathematical" it all is. It was a philosophical comment.
     
  11. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +18,884
    Anglican
    Married
    Genesis addresses this question head on, you know. :)
     
  12. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +4,939
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    By the way, the question in the thread subject should be "Why are there boys?" Girls are needed because they make babies; boys don't.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  13. The Barbarian

    The Barbarian Crabby Old White Guy

    +4,361
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    You could start here:
    Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
     
  14. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +9,773
    Christian
    Married
    From that viewpoint, the proper question should be: "Why are there boys in the world?"

    Asexual reproduction obviates the need for males, not females.
     
  15. RDKirk

    RDKirk Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner Supporter

    +9,773
    Christian
    Married
    You beat me to it.
     
  16. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +4,939
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    That's what I live for.
     
  17. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +4,939
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
  18. Petros2015

    Petros2015 Well-Known Member

    +1,731
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    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.
     
  19. Resha Caner

    Resha Caner Expert Fool

    +861
    Lutheran
    Married
    Is that supposed to be a joke?

    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.
     
  20. sfs

    sfs Senior Member

    +4,939
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Quite possibly.
    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.
     
Loading...