Why male and female?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So during these changes at the on set there would have been an asexual creature under going changes
didn't require two sexes to procreate, while it could still produce off spring
the old way it was getting itself ready through random mutations to be able
to split into two sexes.

In my first post I pointed out that there are two aspects to this:
1. Sexual reproduction whereby two cells get together and combine their DNA, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
This takes place even in many single celled creatures.

2. Sexual dimorphism. It must be noted that a large percentage of species have sexual reproduction without sexual dimorphism. Most plants and many animals, especially sea creatures are neither male nor female.
You appear to be incorrectly assuming that sexual reproduction requires sexual dimorphism and that the various sexual strategies arose at the same time as sexual reproduction. This is not the case at all. Sexual reproduction predates all higher life forms, the various sexual strategies arose over time.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What do you mean?

Any worldview which conflicts with Kelly's 'Young-Earth-Creationist-Humans-Lived-With-Vegetarian-T-Rex's-On-The-Ark' worldview is deemed to be assumed regardless of how much scientific evidence backs it up.

It must be noted that the various sexual strategies and evolution explains many of the weird and wonderful life forms that we see on earth that can not be satisfactorily explained with 'goddunnit'.
For example if you ask why the peacock has such a fancy tail, evolution and sex can explain it. If you however say 'well God thought it was beautiful so he made it for our pleasure', then that begs the question as to why the female is so plain. Whereas evolution explains why the male if fancy but the female is plain.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Would you say in the last 1200 million years that life has evolved to having sex with same sex for purposes other than reproduction? Or is that just some of humanity doing it for the fun of it?

"Purpose" is a misleading term here. Evolution selects behavioural traits regardless of whether or not the organisms have any conscious perception of the "purpose" of what they are doing. Does an ant have a "purpose" in life? Does it even have the intellectual capacity to understand what having a purpose means?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
"Purpose" is a misleading term here. Evolution selects behavioural traits regardless of whether or not the organisms have any conscious perception of the "purpose" of what they are doing. Does an ant have a "purpose" in life? Does it even have the intellectual capacity to understand what having a purpose means?

True enough. There are many branches of life that get started that have no apparent advantage. Some branches die off while others continue depending on external factors. I just learned of a fellow in my girlfriends home town that had a wife and kids. He divorced her and married a man and confessed his homosexuality. I believe he is probably a bisexual person, but there is chance for genetics to pass from generation to generation.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
"Purpose" is a misleading term here. Evolution selects behavioural traits regardless of whether or not the organisms have any conscious perception of the "purpose" of what they are doing. Does an ant have a "purpose" in life? Does it even have the intellectual capacity to understand what having a purpose means?

It is God the Creator that decides the purpose for His creation, not the creature or the creation. Yes, of course an ant has a purpose. Just because you do not know what it is does not nulify that purpose.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8596341_functions-ants.html

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is God the Creator that decides the purpose for His creation, not the creature or the creation. Yes, of course an ant has a purpose. Just because you do not know what it is does not nulify that purpose.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8596341_functions-ants.html

The instructor

Well we as humans are deciding our purpose and there is nothing your so-called god can do about it. We WILL go back to the moon in spite of your stupid objections, we WILL go to Mars and get the hell off this confining planet and make our own purpose and you can do absolutely NOTHING about it. Except die off and stop bothering people with your so-called instruction.
In reality what you preach is DEstruction.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well we as humans are deciding our purpose and there is nothing your so-called god can do about it. We WILL go back to the moon in spite of your stupid objections, we WILL go to Mars and get the hell off this confining planet and make our own purpose and you can do absolutely NOTHING about it. Except die off and stop bothering people with your so-called instruction.
In reality what you preach is DEstruction.

Oh, a play on words, like EVILution. But mine is so much better, because mine is true.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
If there was no sexual reproduction with male and female, evolution would proceed at even more of a snails pace than it is now. The whole idea is to reshuffle the deck, like in cards you reshuffle and maybe you end up with a better hand.

It is a lot deeper than that but that is the general idea. It's amazing to me how some plants and trees have extremel ...[text shortened]... ated, the answer to the stress already there from that plant having dealt with stresses before.

The way you talk about "the idea" behind evolution makes it sound like it was all planned out.

I think the reason that sexual reproduction is more prevalent is that it causes evolutionary change to happen more quickly, therefore increasing the likelihood that certain mutations make a species more likely to survive.

That's a bit different than the concept I derive from your post, which is that evolution "chose" sexual reproduction with some foreseen goal of being able to "reshuffle the deck" as it were, and speed up gene diversification and mutations.

Originally posted by forkedknight
.... sexual reproduction is more prevalent....

Does anyone have any actual stats on this? I believe the vast majority of organisms on the earth are in fact single celled and I do not know what means of reproduction is prevalent. I do know that the vast majority of more complex life (large multicellular) uses sexual reproduction or a combination of sexual and asexual.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Does anyone have any actual stats on this? I believe the vast majority of organisms on the earth are in fact single celled and I do not know what means of reproduction is prevalent. I do know that the vast majority of more complex life (large multicellular) uses sexual reproduction or a combination of sexual and asexual.

Many single celled organisms have a means of reproduction that looks very much like sexual reproduction in the sense that genetic material is contributed by two "parents". Even some bacteria do this. There are no additional body parts required thus removing that objection at a stroke.

Originally posted by forkedknight
The way you talk about "the idea" behind evolution makes it sound like it was all planned out.

I think the reason that sexual reproduction is more prevalent is that it causes evolutionary change to happen more quickly, therefore increasing the likelihood that certain mutations make a species more likely to survive.

That's a bit different th ...[text shortened]... able to "reshuffle the deck" as it were, and speed up gene diversification and mutations.

See. That just shows how little you know about how EVILution is supposed to work. Let sunhouse educate you.

The Instructor

Originally posted by forkedknight
The way you talk about "the idea" behind evolution makes it sound like it was all planned out.

I think the reason that sexual reproduction is more prevalent is that it causes evolutionary change to happen more quickly, therefore increasing the likelihood that certain mutations make a species more likely to survive.

That's a bit different th ...[text shortened]... able to "reshuffle the deck" as it were, and speed up gene diversification and mutations.

Ok, I should have said Our understanding of the process is that.....

Problematic is right. There are two different ways 'evolution' is defined. One is natural selection, and the other is selection of something entirely new that comes about due to very small (randomly occurring) changes. Selection of genes which already exist is no big trick. But changes leading to new species and more complex organisms IS tricky. Division into two different but compatible genders would mean evolution had to create two different critters of the same species at nearly the same time. And this would need to happen very early in the evolution timeline, because the odds of it happening at all are mind boggling. So combine the odds of it only happening once multiplied by all of the various species that reproduce in this way... then it goes beyond mind boggling. The problem with making evolution (as a theory) work is we can't assume a consistent stream of dumb luck coincidences, or that any intelligent input and/or guidance is at work. However, I've been told I don't need to worry about this, because evolution is a fact and not just a theory.

Originally posted by Phranny
Read pulitzer prize winning book, "The Beak of the Finch". Evolution can happen rather rapidly, within a few decades or less. Individuals within a specie have small differences. We tend to notice differences in our own species and in domesticated animals with whom we live rather than in a finch. These tiny differences can become crucial for survival when ...[text shortened]... lows those with half a brain to remain religious while embracing science and rational thought.

The genes responsible for the moths becoming darker didn't mutate. Those genes were already there. If most moths were light colored before the industrial revolution, it was because lighter colored moths were better suited for survival. When the landscape became darker and birds began harvesting mostly light colored moths, it gave the 'evolutionary' advantage to those moths carrying the dark gene. Imagine if the reverse had happened, and dark colored moths found themselves in a lighter environment. The population as a whole is already carrying genes for the lighter color, and those genes would soon become a dominant survival factor. That's how natural selection works... the selection process always favors the genes that enhance survival.

By the way, I have no problem with believing the creation story as it stands while using my whole brain. However, my whole brain does balk at a theory being called a fact in the absence of any truly compelling evidence. And what about common sense? A frozen prehistoric animal whose meat is still fresh, and a pool of blood is found underneath it? How long can meat be kept in a freezer before it starts showing signs of freezer burn? Or how about the dinosaur bone that broke in half as it was being excavated, and the fleshy inside of that bone turned red when it was exposed to air? And it wasn't a frozen bone, it was just buried in the ground until someone found it. It doesn't take a half a brain to see what is wrong with this picture, but maybe if we cover one eye and look away with the other it will all begin to make sense.