Male and Female evolution?

Consider this

Mysteries In Science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zTXxpXOoe0

The Young Age of the Earth

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-127254205...

The Origin of Man by Dr. Duane Gish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3FZDysZKFQ

The Origins of Life

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3181822797...

Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record - Part 1 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvydM

Skull Fossils - As Empty as the Evolutionary Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yu5jN897kM

Neanderthals - Smarter Then We Thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxL636n3w2o

Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVvGByvp13Q

Atheist's NightMare: Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqoCGPnVmE

Our Solar System: Evidence For Creation

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-253536904...

"So, we were amoebas and then we became human? I think there were some stages in between..."

6 minutes ago

"So wait a minute. Are you saying that a group of apes evolved into our common ancestor, and then a group of common ancestors simultaneously evolved into humans, both male and female?"

27 seconds ago

"Patriot: I am honestly trying to understand. Yet you yourself say that there was no evolution of an 'individual ape', so it must have been a group of such. Right? Or did our most recent common ancestor mate with an already evolved human?"

Nobody said anything even remotely like this. You're purposely dodging the information you're being given and twisting it into nonsense. I don't believe you're confused at all. I believe you're trolling. No one is this stupid.

<edit> Fine. I'll spell it out very simply. The "last species" - the homonid group that preceded homo sapien - evolved as a group. It consisted of males and females. When it changed into homo sapiens, it still consisted of males and females. It did not at any point become an asexually reproducing animal that then had to once again change into a duel gender species.

By the way, evolution only takes place at the species level. Individuals do not evolve. Inherited traits are passed on to successive generations, and then selected in or out of the gene pool. The first humans - notice that it's plural - were male and female.

The ORIGINAL ancestor - the simple life form made of amino acids and protien chains that developed the ability to self replicate - was sexless. It was the first ancestor of ALL life, not specifically human life, and it predates all other complex organisms.

Is that easy enough to undestand? Or, are you going to take issue with this, too? If you do, then you really should go to a site like talkorigins.com, and get an elementary breakdown in evolution, rather than continue to antagonize people here.

Are you being intentionally dense here? The "additional details" show a pattern of purposely twisting an answer to make it sound like something completely different.

The earliest life on earth would have reproduced asexually. Sexual reproduction came later. The question "how can an ape evolve into an asexual creature" shows either your complete misunderstanding of what "ancestor" means (hint, your ancestors lived BEFORE you, not after you), or an intentional falsification.

Populations evolve. Individuals don't evolve. You can't say "was the first human male or female" because the process of speciation is gradual and there is no sudden appearance of one individual of a different species. Imagine trying to breed a taller corn plant. Which one do you point to and say "That's the first individual of my taller group."?

Sexual reproduction was well established before there were any mammals. You don't actually believe that each species had to invent reproduction all over again, do you?

The question is essentially meaningless.

Our first responder (above) has the right idea, but of course the "first common ancestor" wasn't really an amoeba, but rather some kind of probably precelluar reproducing DNA strand.

The question manages to confuse that with something about apes, which results in meaningless questions like "How can an ape evolve into an asexual creature?" (which of course no-one claims).

The notion that there was an individual "first ape" who somehow became males and females is simply another retelling of the creationist fairy tale version of evolution, and has no bearing on biological science.

=================

"So wait a minute. Are you saying that a group of apes evolved into our common ancestor, and then a group of common ancestors simultaneously evolved into humans, both male and female?"

What exactly are you reading to come to that conclusion? No-one here said anything remotely like that.

I don't think you're making even the slightest honest effort to understand this.

You seem to be imagining a particular moment in time, a long way down the line from the beginning, when one type of ape gave birth to the next type of ape, which was either male of female. When animals evolve it is a gradual process which occurs within a group of animals who in this case would have been both male and female. Weaker or less useful traits gradually recede in the species, and dominant traits remain or develop further, there is no magic moment when one example of the next stage in that species evolution suddenly emerges, ta da, from behind a bush:)

> "yet what's the ingredient in lady and male. If we are evolving by using ourselves, why reproduce?" the ingredient of duplicate is which you don't get evolution without it. Evolution is measured as a distinction interior the traits of a *inhabitants* of organisms over *generations*. No single organism evolves - it quite is populations which evolve. And without duplicate, no inhabitants evolves the two. the rationalization why populations evolve is by fact many of the individuals are extra appropriate at surviving and reproducing than something of the persons - and that they bypass their efficient characteristics directly to the subsequent technology, meaning that the subsequent technology have (on well-known) extra of those efficient characteristics. *That* is evolution. playstation - for sure, there are a number of organisms which reproduce asexually. They evolve too - yet having sexual duplicate unquestionably speeds-up evolution when you consider which you get *genetic recombination* throughout the production of the eggs and sperm, and this introduces extra version interior the inhabitants.

Some new scientist is to evolve to answer that question.

The evolutionist have always stumbled on the missing link block itself. So their reasoning question has never croosed to ask themselves if a male and female individuals of the same speceis evolved together simultaneously every time an advanced species evolved. (Those organisms that reproduce only through heterosexual reproduction).

They enjoy asking if god is male or female, but they frown to see somebody asking "If the first individual of homosapien evolved was a male or a female?"

Obviously, a great sky fairy gathered up some dust and made a man out of it. Then, (unspecified time later) he took a bone out of the guy's chest (I wonder if it hurt) and used that to magically "create" a woman.

(Why didn't he just use more dirt?)

Wow... that makes much more sense than the scientific Theory of Evolution.

Don't ask question that you don't want the answer to.

It's called "trolling" and you don't do it well.

a) The asexual ancestor came well before the ape.

b) Depends where you draw the line between human and proto-human.

Not our most immediate common ancestor!

The evolution of sex happened far, far earlier than apes - or even mammals.

Edit: DEAN J, it only seems stupid if you're incapable of understanding it and are too proud to ask for help.

worms are asexual and have both bits to make sperm and bits to make eggs.

Higher evolved creatures have one or the other.

It is more energy efficient to produce one or the other. I imagine that as sexes became distinct, most members of that species were asexual while some lost their ability to create sperm and some lost their ability to make eggs. Natural selection showed the sexually distinct to be better equipped for survival and procreation.