Parthenogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenic

Fascinating. How might this affect the Evolution vs. Creation debate?

Originally posted by David C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenic

Fascinating. How might this affect the Evolution vs. Creation debate?

Um, not at all?
What's your point?

Originally posted by David C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenic

Fascinating. How might this affect the Evolution vs. Creation debate?

Whats it got to do with the the Evolution vs. Creation debate?
Looks to me like a discussion of well known facts of science which even creationists would not deny.

Originally posted by amannion
Um, not at all?
What's your point?

Which came first, the Virgin Chicken or its' self-fertilizing egg?

Originally posted by David C
Which came first, the Virgin Chicken or its' self-fertilizing egg?

Nothing new about life that self replicates, most plants are capable of asexual reproduction.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nothing new about life that self replicates, most plants are capable of asexual reproduction.

Seems like a very strong link in the evolutionary chain of events.

Originally posted by David C
Which came first, the Virgin Chicken or its' self-fertilizing egg?

I think the consensus is that self-fertilisation was the first form of procreation.

Actually, duh!

Originally posted by David C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenic

Fascinating. How might this affect the Evolution vs. Creation debate?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't asexual reproduction inhibit the process of evolution? And hence sexual reproduction encourage it?

So I suppose the existence of the sexes is more evidence for evolution.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't asexual reproduction inhibit the process of evolution? And hence sexual reproduction encourage it?

So I suppose the existence of the sexes is more evidence for evolution.

You're wrong. Asexual reproduction would promote genetic differentiation between populations of the same species. Sexual reproduction promotes homogenisation of genes between members of the same population (although not necessarily the same species, if two populations are geographically isolated).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You're wrong. Asexual reproduction would promote genetic differentiation between populations of the same species. Sexual reproduction promotes homogenisation of genes between members of the same population (although not necessarily the same species, if two populations are geographically isolated).

If that is true wouldn't there be a higher speciation of asexually produced forms? Also more mutations?

Originally posted by sonhouse
If that is true wouldn't there be a higher speciation of asexually produced forms? Also more mutations?

Certainly asexual species survive for shorter periods than sexual ones. It's believed that sex evolved as a counter measure to parasites,since the recominbation of genes prevents parasites from spreading rapidly through the population. Sex prevents genetic drift by allowing recombination, and it's only really through some type of isolation (whether geographical or otherwise) that two sexually reproducing populations can speciate.