Evidence For And Against Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, here is my answer: (for all involved) We are descendants of males and females. So when did predecessors to humans, according to the theory of evolution, first become male and female? Do you know? Perhaps you know and can help me out here, or, at least give me a good link to the answer. OK?

Not an answer to the question actually being asked.

He is asking if you agree that it is possible to determine someone to be more closely related to their mother then they are to their 3rd cousin, purely by comparing the DNA.

It's a yes or no question and it has nothing whatsoever to do with "males and females" or any other such drivel.

So, yes or no? Can a DNA test determine if you are more closely related to your mother then to your third cousin?

 

[Astrophile]

OK, here is my answer: (for all involved) We are descendants of males and females. So when did predecessors to humans, according to the theory of evolution, first become male and female? Do you know? Perhaps you know and can help me out here, or, at least give me a good link to the answer. OK?

I expected a biologist to answer this question, but since nobody appears to have tried this, I may as well make an attempt. Since almost all modern tetrapods reproduce sexually, it is likely that the first tetrapods, which evolved during the Late Devonian epoch (385-359 million years ago), were already divided into male and female.

 

[Audie]

I expected a biologist to answer this question, but since nobody appears to have tried this, I may as well make an attempt. Since almost all modern tetrapods reproduce sexually, it is likely that the first tetrapods, which evolved during the Late Devonian epoch (385-359 million years ago), were already divided into male and female.

Exchange of genetic material exists in microbes!

Some plants do both male and female.

Some specialize in being one or the other.

But then, we never expect a creationist to
have a clue about biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

I expected a biologist to answer this question, but since nobody appears to have tried this, I may as well make an attempt. Since almost all modern tetrapods reproduce sexually, it is likely that the first tetrapods, which evolved during the Late Devonian epoch (385-359 million years ago), were already divided into male and female.

Oh man, like you know. At least you said 'likely.' I'd love it if you had said absolutely. (ok, just being a little funny.) Meantime the real question remains: you gotta have a first 'human' male and human female to make more humans. Maybe not a biologist's way of talking, but -- you still have to have a first human male and female to make more humans. Therefore (I'll sum it up), humans are eons above, smarter than, superior to, more capable of many strata of learning, than are chimps and gorillas and whatnot, because -- (oh, I'll let you figure it out). Have a nice night.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh man, like you know. At least you said 'likely.' I'd love it if you had said absolutely. (ok, just being a little funny.) Meantime the real question remains: you gotta have a first 'human' male and human female to make more humans. Maybe not a biologist's way of talking, but -- you still have to have a first human male and female to make more humans. Therefore (I'll sum it up), humans are eons above, smarter than, superior to, more capable of many strata of learning, than are chimps and gorillas and whatnot, because -- (oh, I'll let you figure it out). Have a nice night.

Wow, are you even being serious here? Are you that ignorant of what science says (even if you don't agree with it)? The changes that led from the common ancestor to modern humans happened gradually over multiple generations. There wasn't some magic point in time when a modern human suddenly appeared.

It's like the changes that happen to a human growing up. You never see a big change from day to day, yet over decades people grow up and grow old. The differences between a baby and an old person are huge but there are no sudden transitions. Is anything sinking in?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Meantime the real question remains: you gotta have a first 'human' male and human female to make more humans

Populations evolve. Gradually.
Not individuals, and not overnight.

So no, there never was a "first" human. Just like there never was a "first" french speaker.
French gradually developed from latin. At no point in time did a latin speaking mother raise a french speaking child.

Same with evolution. Humans gradually developed from earlier primates. At no point in time did a non-human primate give birth to a human.

Maybe not a biologist's way of talking, but -- you still have to have a first human male and female to make more humans.

Not in a gradual process

Therefore (I'll sum it up), humans are eons above, smarter than, superior to, more capable of many strata of learning, than are chimps and gorillas and whatnot, because -- (oh, I'll let you figure it out). Have a nice night.

And chimps are eons above humans when it comes to short term memory, reflexes, upper body strength and swinging from tree to tree.

Every species has a thing they are "best" at.

 

[ecco]

Meantime the real question remains: you gotta have a first 'human' male and human female to make more humans.

A logical extension of your silly game is to ask you to specify, with supporting evidence, the origin of your God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Okay, so you understand that we can trace family lineages through DNA. So you also understand that each of us shares more genetic information with our mother than say, our third cousin, though we do share genetic material with our third cousin, just less of it than we share with our mothers. We notice as well that we probably look a lot more like our mothers than we do our third cousins. Common ancestry is evident. If you send your DNA to a testing lab, your genetics can be traced back for several generations, up to about 1,000 years, apparently.

We can see this same degree of relatedness between all living creatures on this planet that indicates a common ancestry. Just like you and your first cousin share a common ancestor in your grandfather. This is how we know, for instance, that modern day chickens are descendants of dinosaurs; because they share specific heritable genetic material.
It's in the DNA. It's demonstrable. It's observable. In the same way we can demonstrate that you are related to your great-grandfather, we can demonstrate that humans share common ancestry with other apes, and to lesser degrees of relatedness, with other creatures on the planet. We are all related, to some degree. Just like you and your family members.

I guess I'm never going to get a response to this?

 

[night912]

Here's what I don't think is impossible, since we are descendants of males AND females together. Each male is an offspring of males and females. Same with females. Offspring of males and female. Lots and lots of genetic material from many, many predecessors. Therefore, I don't think it is impossible for genes to be arranged in a way to produce a child without having sexual intercourse. Now do I think it is a "natural" way of getting pregnant? Certainly not. But I say this with a smile -- not impossible.

Of course it's possible to produce a child without having sexual intercourse. I'll explain below.

Spoiler: **WARNING** explicit content

A way to produce a child without having sexual intercourse can happen when a female gives a male oral sex. Then the male ejaculates inside the mouth of the female. Then without swallowing the semen, the female goes to another female and her oral sex and deposits the semen inside the vagina of the other female. Then the natural process begins. So there you have it. A possible way that a female can get pregnant without having sexual intercourse. <---- Not impossible.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, here is my answer: (for all involved) We are descendants of males and females. So when did predecessors to humans, according to the theory of evolution, first become male and female? Do you know? Perhaps you know and can help me out here, or, at least give me a good link to the answer. OK?

First of all, males and females are of the same species and evolve together--it is the population that evolves not the individuals.

Second, sexual dichotomy is very ancient: even some single-celled species that can reproduce by division can also reproduce by 'sex' involving crossing over of chromosomes and re-division.

So the existence of males and females goes back long before humans were around: back even before vertebrates were around.

That said, not all species are as rigid on this as mammals (and humans are mammals): for example, many species of fish and amphibian can change genders during their lifetime. The point is that gender is not determined genetically for such species, but by the environment or via hormones.

Genetically determined gender is common to all mammals and birds, but the mechanisms are different (mammals have XX females and XY males, birds have AA males and AB females) so they developed that rigidity independently. For mammals, we don't know the exact timing (reproductive tracts are seldom preserved in fossils), but it is certain that this fixation was produced *at latest* by the beginning of the Cenozoic era (65 million years ago).

Again, this is long before any humans were around.

As for your claim that there needed to be a *first* male and a *first* female, that is simply false. The reason is that species boundaries are not precise, but are broad. As populations change, the males and the females change together through the transition generations. At every stage they are able to interbreed with others *at the time*, even though the beginning and end populations would not be able to. At no point was a line crossed. The boundary is just not that definite.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all, males and females are of the same species and evolve together--it is the population that evolves not the individuals.

Second, sexual dichotomy is very ancient: even some single-celled species that can reproduce by division can also reproduce by 'sex' involving crossing over of chromosomes and re-division.

So the existence of males and females goes back long before humans were around: back even before vertebrates were around.

That said, not all species are as rigid on this as mammals (and humans are mammals): for example, many species of fish and amphibian can change genders during their lifetime. The point is that gender is not determined genetically for such species, but by the environment or via hormones.

Genetically determined gender is common to all mammals and birds, but the mechanisms are different (mammals have XX females and XY males, birds have AA males and AB females) so they developed that rigidity independently. For mammals, we don't know the exact timing (reproductive tracts are seldom preserved in fossils), but it is certain that this fixation was produced *at latest* by the beginning of the Cenozoic era (65 million years ago).

Again, this is long before any humans were around.

As for your claim that there needed to be a *first* male and a *first* female, that is simply false. The reason is that species boundaries are not precise, but are broad. As populations change, the males and the females change together through the transition generations. At every stage they are able to interbreed with others *at the time*, even though the beginning and end populations would not be able to. At no point was a line crossed. The boundary is just not that definite.

You may say that there was no "first" male and "first" female. But do you know beyond speculation? Let's start there for a while, shall we, I mean insofar as evolution is concerned. Odd, though, in this context that the Bible says Eve came from Adam's rib. Thus she was very much alike to Adam with some rather major differences. The DNA was obviously very similar. But distinctly different. So Eve was part of Adam. And Adam was part of Eve. Neat, isn't it, how it works out?

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it's possible to produce a child without having sexual intercourse. I'll explain below.

That's ridiculous and far away from the discussion. So -- so long for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

I guess I'm never going to get a response to this?

Sorry, I've been away for a while. The answer is that close family ties are usually stronger emotionally than let's say cousins far removed in different cultures. Since we are all close in relation, family history is another story. So as I was thinking about it, maybe someone can trace family lineages back to an ape? But no, that ape that engendered, shall we say (or the Unknown Common Ancestor) a male and/or female human, would be by now, dead. No matter how close, those little genes make a big, B-I-G difference.

 

[YoursTrue]

A logical extension of your silly game is to ask you to specify, with supporting evidence, the origin of your God.

Hmm, I was thinking about that. And the answer is that the true God Almighty was never born, made, or created. Can I understand it? No. It is beyond human comprehension except to recognize that. Because we have a beginning. And God does not. Do I understand, or comprehend that? (No.) Does that mean, because I do not understand that there is no God from everlasting to everlasting? No, you guessed it. God is greater than anything else.

 

[Polymath257]

You may say that there was no "first" male and "first" female. But do you know beyond speculation?

Because a population of only two individuals would be a bottleneck to such a degree, we would see the lack of genetic diversity in the population today.

Let's start there for a while, shall we, I mean insofar as evolution is concerned. Odd, though, in this context that the Bible says Eve came from Adam's rib. Thus she was very much alike to Adam with some rather major differences. The DNA was obviously very similar. But distinctly different. So Eve was part of Adam. And Adam was part of Eve. Neat, isn't it, how it works out?

If she came from his rib, the genetics would be *identical*. In other words, she would be male.

 

[ecco]

the Bible says Eve came from Adam's rib

Do you know that many male mammals have a penile bone. Do you know that the human male does not have a penile bone? When the ancient storytellers were concocting stories about man's origins and nature, the original story was that God took the penile bone from the human male and used it to produce the female. That explains why human males do not have a penile bone. It also promotes the idea that God made females from the male and that they are (still) subservient to males.

I always thought it funny that God could make males and females of all kinds of animals, but didn't think it was necessary to make a female human. Perhaps that was because God didn't need a female version of himself to pal around with. That, in and of itself, shows we are much closer to animals than to a God.

 

[metis]

No matter how close, those little genes make a big, B-I-G difference.

That depends on which genes one is referring to. The reality is that we are a "Naked Ape", as anthropologist Desmond Morris named us in his book by the same name, and most everything that "separate us" is simply just a matter of degrees.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, I've been away for a while. The answer is that close family ties are usually stronger emotionally than let's say cousins far removed in different cultures. Since we are all close in relation, family history is another story. So as I was thinking about it, maybe someone can trace family lineages back to an ape? But no, that ape that engendered, shall we say (or the Unknown Common Ancestor) a male and/or female human, would be by now, dead. No matter how close, those little genes make a big, B-I-G difference.

It's not that you've been away, because you were here and you did type a response to my post twice, it just had nothing to do with the point of my question. Kind of like this post.
At this point I'm just left wondering why you won't answer my question. I'm not talking about emotional ties from different cultures or anything of the sort.

You know scientists have mapped the human genome and the chimpanzee genome (among many others) and can see and demonstrate how closely related we are, genetically to the other apes, right? That demonstrates a common ancestor between us. Just like how we can map your genome and your great-great-great-great grandfather's genome and determine that he is your ancestor and that you and your cousin share him as a common ancestor between you (as well as your sister, mother, great-grandfather, etc.) This is the point I'm trying to make you see, but you simply refuse to, for some reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmm, I was thinking about that. And the answer is that the true God Almighty was never born, made, or created. Can I understand it? No. It is beyond human comprehension except to recognize that. Because we have a beginning. And God does not. Do I understand, or comprehend that? (No.) Does that mean, because I do not understand that there is no God from everlasting to everlasting? No, you guessed it. God is greater than anything else.

So if you don't understand it and can't demonstrate it, why do you believe it so fervently?

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm, I was thinking about that. And the answer is that the true God Almighty was never born, made, or created. Can I understand it? No. It is beyond human comprehension except to recognize that. Because we have a beginning. And God does not. Do I understand, or comprehend that? (No.) Does that mean, because I do not understand that there is no God from everlasting to everlasting? No, you guessed it. God is greater than anything else.

Why do you find these concepts so difficult to understand? And, given that you admit you don't understand them, why do you believe them?

You are making claims about something you admit to not understanding. These claims are based on no evidence other than hearsay. And yet, you fervently adopt them and cannot seem to imagine that others don't think them to be reasonable beliefs.

I find these concepts fairly easy to understand. I just don't think they are believable.