I will answer every question about evolution you have

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
My question is why and how
Your answer only deals with the benefits and function.
How and why, so show me how and why sexes developed not what the benefits are

The response I just showed you does show why it arose. It arose because it's beneficial and functional.

How it formed is due to any other mutation and genetic drift in evolution. The process to create Sexual Reproduction and the process to create blue eyes are the exact same process. Nothing more or less miraculous occurs.

The first two responses show the process of evolution, they are relevant to your question because the process is the same in those cases, as it is in developing Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How do two organisms give and receive information that they each can decode and then use to grow life

I've already explained to you that evolution doesn't occur on an individualistic scale. So this question is based on a false premise.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I am sorry you don't seem to understand the question.

I understand the question perfectly well. You simply cannot fathom that the same process that occurs when developing Sexual Reproduction occurs to every form of mutation. It's the answers you are not understanding.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What evolved first, male or female and why.

I've already explained this. Neither evolved first. Sexual reproduction is the mutation, and it occurred throughout populations over success generations.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How did the other evolve second and why did it.

Read above.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did they evolve together and how could two equally opposite yet comparable organs evolve together and function as one

I've already answered this.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I understand the advantages and the same word benefits
I know sex equals reproduction
You are talking outcomes, talk evolution

Ah, I see where you're misunderstanding my explanations. You believe that Male and female are two separate mutations. This is not the case. Reproduction occurs in several ways. One way is Asexual, where the offspring arise from a single organism. Sexual Reproduction is the opposite of Asexual, where two organisms are required to reproduce.

Sexual Reproduction is what the mutation is, not male and female.

So two blue eyes had sex and then sex differentiation was the outcome

Is that right

You might want to read and think about my question again

You have explained nothing

You have explained nothing

When an asexual organism reproduced, why and how did the sexual organs evolve and why

Did the mummy/daddy reproduce both a little boy and girl or did the mummy/daddy produce a boy and then by coincidence did another mummy/daddy organism happen to develop a little girl and finally why did these sexual organs suddenly evolve if they didn't know that they had a use, except unless luckily there was another organism with the capacity to receive and decode the information

I hope this question isn't to tricky for you

originally posted by: Raggedyman

So two blue eyes had sex and then sex differentiation was the outcome

Is that right

At this point, with the umbrage displayed in all of your posts, one has to wonder if you're really looking for an answer, if you're trollimg or just trying to catch Ghost in a 'gotcha' moment.

You might want to read and think about my question again

You have explained nothing

You have explained nothing

Not understanding the information provided isn't the same is it not being explained. You my not like, understand or appreciate the answers and the time out into them, but the responses provided by Ghost are fully in line with what modern biology knows and the evidence available for the initial stages of sexual reproduction.

When an asexual organism reproduced, why and how did the sexual organs evolve and why

Did the mummy/daddy reproduce both a little boy and girl or did the mummy/daddy produce a boy and then by coincidence did another mummy/daddy organism happen to develop a little girl and finally why did these sexual organs suddenly evolve if they didn't know that they had a use, except unless luckily there was another organism with the capacity to receive and decode the information

There was no mummy/daddy 1.2 BA when we see the first fossilized evidence for sexual reproduction. You need to understand that all sexually reproducing organisms have their root ancestry in eukaryotes during the Proterozoic Era. Despite your insistence on looking at this problem from a rather myopic viewpoint, it's nowhere near as simple as you try to paint it. An asexual organism didn't just suddenly grow a penis and start humping everything in sight until something happened. It's a cartoonish way of looking at something as complex as reproduction. You want a cut and dry, easy answer that fits into a 3x5 index card and thst simply isn't the case here.

When talking about things that happened well over a billion years ago, we have to rely heavily on the fossil record. ypu want a simple explanation of when gender became easily identifiable because that's what you think sexual reproduction revolves around. Unfortunately, there are many things that fall under the auspices of sexual reproduction that would be completely foreign to so,Rome who doesn't study biology or microbiology. The environment, the atmosphere... Everything about the earth at this point in time would be completely foreign and hostile to everything alive today. Basic eukaryotes had to deal with frequent issues of overcrowding, resource depletion and genetic damage. For example, bacterial transformation and meiosis in eukaryotic microorganisms are induced by the above mentioned issues as a response to stress. The suggestion here is that sexual processes are fail safe adaptations for dealing with those stresses that cause DNA damage. In bacteria, these stresses induce an altered physiology called competence. This allows the active take-up of DNA from a donor bacterium and the I tegrstiin of this donors DNA into the recipients genome. This allows for recombinational repair to the recipients damaged DNA.

When environmental stresses become persistent, the organism will adapt to survive the stresses. Selection would have been a continuous process throughout the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic. This would give rise naturally to sexual selection in eukaryotes.

It's nowhere near as cool as your "one day a penis appeared" hypothesis but this is how sexual reproduction as well as sexual selection got its start. If you want the magic penis hypothesis then you need to skip a billion years or so and get to plants with pistils amd stamens.



Here's some further reading for you- www.uea.ac.uk...

a reply to: Ghost147

This is a great question. The very origin of sexual reproduction is quite difficult to test through experimentation, however, we can determine what fitness advantages organisms get when that organism has multiple genders. Essentially, Sexual reproduction's benefits come from the fact that there are two parents which 'reorganize' their genotypes. This allows for greater diversity in genetic mutations, and an easy way to adapt to varying environments over time.

Asexual reproduction basically leaves the offspring as identical to the parent.....

This again doesn't answer the question. You are not even paying attention to all the assumptions that you are making. You are assuming that an organism went from lacking all the necessary parts to produce sperm to having those parts and at the same time another organism would need to evolve the necessary parts to produce eggs. Until the necessary male and female parts are completely formed(which would take a very long time) natural selection does not play a role in the process. Not only do the organisms have to evolve the necessary parts they also need to have an egg and sperm that are not sterile. Not only that these two organisms that are finally complete would also have to live in the same geographical location in order to reproduce.

Well, Protein Biosynthesis is what causes new proteins to form. Essentially, it's when a cell generates new proteins by copying necessary sections of DNA (which is a process of it's own, called 'transcription'), it's 'goal' is to produce mRNA, and it does this by basically using that necessary section of DNA as a template. The mRNA is referred to as a 'messenger' because it's function is merely to bring itself out into the cytoplasm from within the nucleus. Once outside it needs to find ribosom. The Ribosomal RNA already have protein in them, which read the mRNA code and add the correct amino acids to produce tRNA. tRNA tran....

You completely misread my question haha I am completely aware of all of that. The question I asked is where do new protein folds come from.

Excerpt:
If we take 300 residues as a typical chain length for functional
proteins, then the corresponding set of amino acid sequence possibilities
is unimaginably large, having 20^300 ( = 10^390) members.
How or whether this number should figure into our assessment of
origins scenarios will be examined in the following sections. Here
the point is simply that biological protein sequences are indeed
members of astoundingly large sets of sequence possibilities. And
by ‘astoundingly large’ we mean much more numerous than any
mutation events we might postulate as having produced them. According
to one estimate, the maximum number of distinct physical
events that could have occurred within the visible universe,
including all particles throughout the time since the Big Bang, is
10^150 [11]. Since only a minute fraction of these events had anything
to do with producing new protein sequences, we can assert
with confidence that there is a vast disparity between the number
of distinct protein sequences of normal length that are possible,
on the one hand, and the number that might have become actual,
on the other. In other words, real events have provided only an
exceedingly sparse sampling of the whole set of sequence possibilities.

Source

Proteins don't just fold into any shape. A relatively simple chain of amino acids folds into one specific shape out of the 10 to the 390th power possible shapes, and according to the estimate cited in the paper the maximum number of physical events in the universe is 10 to the the 150th power. Do you see the problem here?

Well, the Gene Regulatory Network isn't static, it can be both random and partiality random (as in it follows a relative pattern, but that pattern appears in a stochastic process). So the regulators of genes are DNA, RNA, protein and their complex, but the expression of those genes through those regulators can be randomized.

Furthermore, new phenotypes are caused by the organism as a whole, not by the GRN of a single cell.

I am sorry I should have said developmental gene regulatory networks, and just to go ahead and put forth the issues that I see with evolution and my question.

From EVOLUTIONARY BIOSCIENCE AS REGULATORY SYSTEMS BIOLOGY by Eric H. Davidson:

" Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of these assumptions are basically counterfactual. This cannot be surprising, since the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis from which these ideas stem was a pre-molecular biology concoction focused on population genetics and adaptation natural history, neither of which have any direct mechanistic import for the genomic regulatory systems that drive embryonic development of the body plan."

"Each apparently redundant spatial control mechanism turns out to have a special function, often not evident a priori. The overall control principle is that the embryonic process is finely divided into precise little “jobs” to be done, and each is assigned to a specific subcircuit or wiring feature in the upper level dGRN. No subcircuit functions are redundant with another, and that is why there is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way."

"Though multiple such devices lead to the given overall developmental outcome, on principle they cannot be redundant, and in fact they never are when tested experimentally. That is, interference with expression of any of the key genes of these subcircuits always causes an immediate loss of function phenotype, such as ectopic expression if a spatial repression function is interrupted in cis (by mutation of repressor target sites) or trans (by application of a morpholino)."

a reply to: Raggedyman

He has answered you raggedy, but I'll have a go..

There are lots of advantages to sexual reproduction (giggidy), but how it originated is, like the origin of life itself, currently unknown with absolute certainty. It most likely first occurred in a single celled eukaryote. It may have orginated from a mechanism to exchange genetic material between cells, (bacteria do this kind of thing). A second possibility is that one cell ate another but incorparated some of its DNA into its own insted of digesting it all.

Why two sexes evolved basically is due to the advantages of having sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction, wherein the fission of cells into identical daughter cells occurs, is how organisms such as bacteria and yeast reproduce. The issue with asexual reproduction is that over time (essentially hundreds or thousands of generations), bad mutations will build up in the genetic code, causing developmental problems. The evolutionary way to overcome this is to mix genes with another organism through "sexual reproducton" to produce offspring.

Mating types, (i.e. male and female), arose because they are advantageous mechanisms of reproduction. There is only one known group of organims that is truly 100% asexual, tiny aquatic organisms called bdelliod rotifer.

You ask how and why sexual organs evolved? Because they are evolutionarily advantageous. Having two separate organisms combine dna to reproduce will over time develop distinctive 'mating types'.

"Sexes" didn't appear suddenly, like you to seem to be saying with your last paragraph. Mommy and daddy weren't distinct genders in the early stages.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Good job lamb.
Alssssso,

Yes things evolve and adapt.
Indisputably.

But there must be some greater entity that started some basic lifeforms up.

THE PROBLEM IS:
The series of changes in a row that build up to something that gives a reproductive advantage. When the first steps dont help until more are added
The first steps wouldn't stick so the chain of changes wouldnt be built.

THE OTHER PROBLEM IS:
Anything you would consider a chicken or egg situation.
Flowers are bright to attract bees.
Bees learn to like bright because it signifies a pollen rich flower.
Both traits evolved at once??????????
Because whichever came first wouldnt "stick" without the other.

a reply to: BOTAL

Thanks glad you enjoyed. I completely agree. I mean evolution may not be dead, but neo-darwinian mechanisms as an explanation for body plan morphogenesis are simply not possible explanations anymore.

originally posted by: TheSorrow
a reply to: Ghost147

how is the genetic information that's added over time organized to eventually create a new species? I never grasped how nature is able to reorganize the info into something useful.

It's not so much that anything is organizing mutations as it is that if a mutation allows an organism a higher chance of surviving and reproducing, it gets passed down to it's offspring. The mechanism that allows for this is Natural selection.

I'll give my example of the moths from earlier, as it is a great example of natural selection.

Lets say we have a moth. It has a blotchy, spotted black color on it's white wings. It's environment is a forest, and within that forest are trees that have white and black bark. The moths rest on the trees, and their coloration prevents predators from spotting them easily.

The black spots vary in number from moth to moth, and some are so covered with these black spots that they tend to visually stick out when they are resting on the white trees. So, the population of the moths with more spots begins to dwindle.

That is Natural selection. And this incident im writing about has actually happened. Soon later, a factory was build next to the forest, and the pollution that the factory gave off covered the white trees with black soot.

Suddenly, the predators were then eating all the whiter moths, and the moths with more black on them began to raise in population.

So Natural selection weeds out disadvantageous mutations through environmental factors (in the moths case, the factor was predation). The more beneficial mutation prevails and has a chance of developing even further overtime, if that development would be an advantage in that environment.

This would be an example of Micro Evolution though, and you're wondering how we can progress far enough into another species (Macro evolution). Well, it's the same process, just accumulated over time. Here's another simplified form of looking at the similarities and differences between the two (microevolution and macroevolution)

If we were to take one species, and separate the population, placing the -now- two populations in different environments, mutations would occur to each of the populations over the generations that would allow those organisms to adapt to the different environments around them. This would be an example of Microevolution. Given enough time through successive generations, both of the populations (even though they were the same species to begin with) would accumulate different mutations and eventually their genes would drift so far from each other that the two populations would not be able to breed anymore. That’s one indicator that they’ve become a new species.

Let’s say we pretend a second in time, is equivalent to a mutation. As time goes on, more seconds are added. Just like in our first example when the two populations accumulated mutations. Eventually we gather so many seconds that we can define new term in time, 1 minute. Using our example from before, there were so many accumulated mutations that we could define an entirely new species. Just like a bunch of seconds can create a minute, a bunch of mutations can create a new species.

If we continue this process, more seconds are added and new minutes occur, eventually we have so many seconds that we can make a new definition, an hour. We could view the same thing in taxonomy, where an hour would be similar to a genus. We could go further to say that a day is a family, a week is an order, so on and so on.

They all came to be from the same process of accumulation, just viewed at a larger time scale.

originally posted by: spygeek
a reply to: Raggedyman

He has answered you raggedy, but I'll have a go..

There are lots of advantages to sexual reproduction (giggidy), but how it originated is, like the origin of life itself, currently unknown with absolute certainty. It most likely first occurred in a single celled eukaryote. It may have orginated from a mechanism to exchange genetic material between cells, (bacteria do this kind of thing). A second possibility is that one cell ate another but incorparated some of its DNA into its own insted of digesting it all.

Why two sexes evolved basically is due to the advantages of having sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction, wherein the fission of cells into identical daughter cells occurs, is how organisms such as bacteria and yeast reproduce. The issue with asexual reproduction is that over time (essentially hundreds or thousands of generations), bad mutations will build up in the genetic code, causing developmental problems. The evolutionary way to overcome this is to mix genes with another organism through "sexual reproducton" to produce offspring.

Mating types, (i.e. male and female), arose because they are advantageous mechanisms of reproduction. There is only one known group of organims that is truly 100% asexual, tiny aquatic organisms called bdelliod rotifer.

You ask how and why sexual organs evolved? Because they are evolutionarily advantageous. Having two separate organisms combine dna to reproduce will over time develop distinctive 'mating types'.

"Sexes" didn't appear suddenly, like you to seem to be saying with your last paragraph. Mommy and daddy weren't distinct genders in the early stages.

Thank you for that long winded yet irrelevant post

Did I ask what is the benefits of two parents? Anywhere?
I know the advantages of two parents, again that's not and has never been the question
Did I ask are they advantageous? Anywhere?
Please show me?

I asked why, not because it was advantageous but what caused this directional change, what made nature take a course it could never understand, as if by magic? Almost as if was guided?
I also want to know why an organism would could develop a receiving organ and another a producing organ and how they could decode each other's information

I don't want to know the why of what happens after two parentage, I want to know the why it became necessary and why it changed before it could produce offspring

The answer lies in your simple statement "it's currently unknown"
So why have you and ghost added all that irrelevant fluff

Why have you said you answered my question when you then say it's currently unknown

That's dishonest

Is their a solid scientific theory, something not based on faith?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So two blue eyes had sex and then sex differentiation was the outcome

Is that right

No, I've already explained to you multiple times, and in multiple ways that Evolution occurs in populations and over successive generations.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You might want to read and think about my question again

Or perhaps you should reread my answers. I have, time and time again, showed you that Evolution occurs in populations and over successive generations. In fact, here's all the quotes from all the posts I've responded to you that show I have said this:

post 20082580, page three: Evolution doesn't occur on an individualistic scale, it occurs on a population-based scale. (in this post I directed you to another post I made [which you refused to look for, even though I told you the page number, and how far down the page it was, and who it was responding to] that also says that same thing)

post 20083142, Page four: Evolution changes the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms that share a common gene pool through different generations. (I then gave you two explanations on why Evolution changes in populations and over a small period of time, in great detail)

post 20083142, Page four (Yes, this is the same post that the quote above comes from): Firstly, nothing evolves "in a day", it can take thousands, or even millions of generations for a larger mutation to really make its mark.

post=20083522, Page 5: Keep in mind that this isn't on an individualistic level, it's on a population level.

Why exactly do you continue to say the same thing, and additionally put words in my mouth or declare victory off of the very false premise that I explain to you over and over again?

Why is it so difficult to simply admit "Oh, I guess Evolution does occur differently than how I thought It does". Clearly I've given you a substantial amount of evidence to back my claims.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You have explained nothing

You have explained nothing

I've explained everything, it's just that when you see my comment pop up on your screen, you must shut your eyes, click on the reply button, and then ask the very same question that I just answered.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
When an asexual organism reproduced, why and how did the sexual organs evolve and why

Here is a direct quote, from me, from when I answered this exact same question, to which you had no rebuttal to.

post 20085229, page 5: It arose because it's beneficial and functional.

How it formed is due to any other mutation and genetic drift in evolution. The process to create Sexual Reproduction and the process to create blue eyes are the exact same process. Nothing more or less miraculous occurs.

The first two responses show the process of evolution, they are relevant to your question because the process is the same in those cases, as it is in developing Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did the mummy/daddy reproduce both a little boy and girl or did the mummy/daddy produce a boy and then by coincidence did another mummy/daddy organism happen to develop a little girl and finally why did these sexual organs suddenly evolve if they didn't know that they had a use, except unless luckily there was another organism with the capacity to receive and decode the information

I have already answered this question, and showed how it's based on a false premise over and over again.

originally posted by: BOTAL
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Flowers are bright to attract bees.
Bees learn to like bright because it signifies a pollen rich flower.
Both traits evolved at once??????????
Because whichever came first wouldnt "stick" without the other.

How is it you can see my question yet others can't
A bee wouldn't survive without the color of the flower, the flower without the bee.
The two must have evolved together, that's beyond chance
It's like sexual organs, for some unknown and inexplainable reason nature decided that two parents are better than one so nature would provide codes, organs to develop in a singular moment by pure coincidence and random chance as if it was designed and Shazam male and female and offspring

Just a little to convenient for random chance to me

One without the other wouldn't stick logically

a reply to: Raggedyman

They simply want to debate. Maybe later in their own time when they have time to reflect they will see.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So two blue eyes had sex and then sex differentiation was the outcome

Is that right

No, I've already explained to you multiple times, and in multiple ways that Evolution occurs in populations and over successive generations.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You might want to read and think about my question again

Or perhaps you should reread my answers. I have, time and time again, showed you that Evolution occurs in populations and over successive generations. In fact, here's all the quotes from all the posts I've responded to you that show I have said this:

post 20082580, page three: Evolution doesn't occur on an individualistic scale, it occurs on a population-based scale. (in this post I directed you to another post I made [which you refused to look for, even though I told you the page number, and how far down the page it was, and who it was responding to] that also says that same thing)

post 20083142, Page four: Evolution changes the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms that share a common gene pool through different generations. (I then gave you two explanations on why Evolution changes in populations and over a small period of time, in great detail)

post 20083142, Page four (Yes, this is the same post that the quote above comes from): Firstly, nothing evolves "in a day", it can take thousands, or even millions of generations for a larger mutation to really make its mark.

post=20083522, Page 5: Keep in mind that this isn't on an individualistic level, it's on a population level.

Why exactly do you continue to say the same thing, and additionally put words in my mouth or declare victory off of the very false premise that I explain to you over and over again?

Why is it so difficult to simply admit "Oh, I guess Evolution does occur differently than how I thought It does". Clearly I've given you a substantial amount of evidence to back my claims.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You have explained nothing

You have explained nothing

I've explained everything, it's just that when you see my comment pop up on your screen, you must shut your eyes, click on the reply button, and then ask the very same question that I just answered.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
When an asexual organism reproduced, why and how did the sexual organs evolve and why

Here is a direct quote, from me, from when I answered this exact same question, to which you had no rebuttal to.

post 20085229, page 5: It arose because it's beneficial and functional.

How it formed is due to any other mutation and genetic drift in evolution. The process to create Sexual Reproduction and the process to create blue eyes are the exact same process. Nothing more or less miraculous occurs.

The first two responses show the process of evolution, they are relevant to your question because the process is the same in those cases, as it is in developing Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did the mummy/daddy reproduce both a little boy and girl or did the mummy/daddy produce a boy and then by coincidence did another mummy/daddy organism happen to develop a little girl and finally why did these sexual organs suddenly evolve if they didn't know that they had a use, except unless luckily there was another organism with the capacity to receive and decode the information

I have already answered this question, and showed how it's based on a false premise over and over again.

Your answer does not address my question.

Why would nature assume their was a benefit to two parents, how did organs evolve together, both opposite yet capable of reading each other's codes?

I have read your replies, they don't address my question, why, not in relation to advantages but why change direction as if nature knew something.

a reply to: Ghost147

Do art and religion have evolutionary benefits? And if not, what is your explanation for their universal or near-universal prevalence among human communities?

a reply to: Ghost147

Simple one . Why are flamingoes legs on back to front .

Can you show me evolution occurring on a population based scale
I don't understand the how and why

It sounds like you are saying mutations are spewed out en mass and all of a sudden they all change, or you are saying so many are spewed out eventually two match and it happens from there?

I can't understand your logic

You say millions of generation yet they just don't start with one change, that's bizzare

It also doesn't explain how a code is naturally made that can be written and then enacted upon by two different organisms

a reply to: Ghost147

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Raggedyman

They simply want to debate. Maybe later in their own time when they have time to reflect they will see.

I don't think they can understand the question
They can see the benefits of the outcome but not why nature would make a decision to move in that direction
All they can say is random chance but that's swinging a cat, that's religios, that's belief in the magical

Billions of planets and no life, yet our planet has life and logic beyond comprehension based on luck, chance. Codes in DNA that have taken humanity millenniums to decode and it's random

Because I don't understand it, believe it with their faith I am stupid
Amazing

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147

Do art and religion have evolutionary benefits? And if not, what is your explanation for their universal or near-universal prevalence among human communities?

I am watching sport
Why, why do humans take pleasure in anything, creating a story, reading a book, making a cake or repairing a car
Your question leads me further down the road of realization how different we are to animals

Great question

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ghost147

Do art and religion have evolutionary benefits? And if not, what is your explanation for their universal or near-universal prevalence among human communities?

I am watching sport
Why, why do humans take pleasure in anything, creating a story, reading a book, making a cake or repairing a car
Your question leads me further down the road of realization how different we are to animals

Great question

a reply to: Astyanax

Somewhat. Rather, you should be asking yourself what the benefit of the traits that lead to art and religion are, (creativity and faith) are. Art and religion themselves are human constructs.

@Raggedyman

Billions of planets and no life, yet our planet has life

I don't think you're looking at this from the right perspective.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So two blue eyes had sex and then sex differentiation was the outcome

Is that right

No, I've already explained to you multiple times, and in multiple ways that Evolution occurs in populations and over successive generations.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You might want to read and think about my question again

Or perhaps you should reread my answers. I have, time and time again, showed you that Evolution occurs in populations and over successive generations. In fact, here's all the quotes from all the posts I've responded to you that show I have said this:

post 20082580, page three: Evolution doesn't occur on an individualistic scale, it occurs on a population-based scale. (in this post I directed you to another post I made [which you refused to look for, even though I told you the page number, and how far down the page it was, and who it was responding to] that also says that same thing)

post 20083142, Page four: Evolution changes the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms that share a common gene pool through different generations. (I then gave you two explanations on why Evolution changes in populations and over a small period of time, in great detail)

post 20083142, Page four (Yes, this is the same post that the quote above comes from): Firstly, nothing evolves "in a day", it can take thousands, or even millions of generations for a larger mutation to really make its mark.

post=20083522, Page 5: Keep in mind that this isn't on an individualistic level, it's on a population level.

Why exactly do you continue to say the same thing, and additionally put words in my mouth or declare victory off of the very false premise that I explain to you over and over again?

Why is it so difficult to simply admit "Oh, I guess Evolution does occur differently than how I thought It does". Clearly I've given you a substantial amount of evidence to back my claims.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
You have explained nothing

You have explained nothing

I've explained everything, it's just that when you see my comment pop up on your screen, you must shut your eyes, click on the reply button, and then ask the very same question that I just answered.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
When an asexual organism reproduced, why and how did the sexual organs evolve and why

Here is a direct quote, from me, from when I answered this exact same question, to which you had no rebuttal to.

post 20085229, page 5: It arose because it's beneficial and functional.

How it formed is due to any other mutation and genetic drift in evolution. The process to create Sexual Reproduction and the process to create blue eyes are the exact same process. Nothing more or less miraculous occurs.

The first two responses show the process of evolution, they are relevant to your question because the process is the same in those cases, as it is in developing Sexual Reproduction.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Did the mummy/daddy reproduce both a little boy and girl or did the mummy/daddy produce a boy and then by coincidence did another mummy/daddy organism happen to develop a little girl and finally why did these sexual organs suddenly evolve if they didn't know that they had a use, except unless luckily there was another organism with the capacity to receive and decode the information

I have already answered this question, and showed how it's based on a false premise over and over again.

Your answer does not address my question.

Why would nature assume their was a benefit to two parents, how did organs evolve together, both opposite yet capable of reading each other's codes?

I have read your replies, they don't address my question, why, not in relation to advantages but why change direction as if nature knew something.

Who is this person named nature you claim is making assumptions based on prior knowledge and why do you think he or she has anything to do with the theory of evolution?