1. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    20 Jun '06 12:26
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenic

    Fascinating. How might this affect the Evolution vs. Creation debate?
  2. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    50026
    20 Jun '06 12:53
    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?
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Jun '06 13:02
    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.
  4. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    20 Jun '06 13:18
    Originally posted by amannion
    Um, not at all?
    What's your point?
    Which came first, the Virgin Chicken or its' self-fertilizing egg?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Jun '06 14:23
    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.
  6. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    20 Jun '06 22:43
    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.
  7. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    20 Jun '06 22:54
    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!
  8. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    20 Jun '06 22:57
    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.
  9. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    21 Jun '06 00:50
    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).
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    21 Jun '06 00:59
    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?
  11. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    21 Jun '06 02:24
    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.
Back to Top