Can the evolutionist explain the origin of sex?

Excuse me? Are you saying that asexual reproduction in anything other than simple single cell bacteria is impossible? Are you making the "intelligent design" argument for a creator? Sorry, but you lose. Asexual animals exist today in the form of some snails, which literally carry both parts, male and female, and can literally clone themselves or can mate with any other snail of the same species whether it exhibits male or female appearance. Since each snail carries equipped with both male and female parts, it can reproduce with any other, even with itself. All you have to do is go down the evolutionary tree and you will eventually find where the branch happened. These snails I speak of are just one example of NOT branching away from single cell division done by single cell organisms. It only takes ONE example to prove you wrong and these snails are IT. Others exist in the insect world. More exist in certain types of fish. All it takes is a single cosmic ray to modify a single cell and for than organism to reproduce the mutation to cause evolution to carry forth. What you fail to see is that it takes a very long TIME, many, many generations for any mutation to propagate throughout the general population and for a new branch to form on the evolutionary tree. This is the chicken-egg question. The answer is the egg, which was a mutation of an egg laid by a close ancestor relative whose similar egg was hit by that single lone cosmic ray which mutated it into the chicken we know today. Science can show proof that evolution IS possible, but since so great a time is involved, we can not directly observe it in our short lifetime. YOU, on the other hand can show NO proof that was any form of divine intervention. Great wisdom and power? Really? OK, so show me this great wisdom and power of which you speak. And please do not try using the bible as evidence. The bible is all hearsay and does not stand up in court. Science however, DOES stand up in court. Just show me something to support your position which will stand up in court. If god is so infinitely wise and powerful as you say, then why the middlemen? Why priests and Shamen to spread the word? Why not just do something supernatural that only a god COULD do instead of relying on the flawed misunderstandings of stupid mankind? That would surely convince ME. If man is helpless to understand this grand plan as YOU say, then why should I believe YOU? Aren't you as flawed as the rest of us mere mortals? For an intelligent designer or creator, your god sucks when it comes to designing and implementing a decent PR campaign... 14 out of every 100 do not believe in ANY religion or god... and even the rest who DO believe can't agree which religion has the one true god each claims to have! Will the REAL god please stand up? It is the Jewish god? Is it the Catholic god? Is it the Muslim god? What about the many Hindu gods? If your god is the one true god, then what about all the other religions who claim THEY have the one true god? Doesn't that make them nonbelievers and doomed to eternal torment just like the people who believe in NO god? Seems to me, all of us non-believers in YOUR god have you outnumbered... So, until you can show me something, ANYTHING to back you up, I'm sticking with none of the above and sticking with evolution over creationism or intelligent design. By the way, a recent publication I read on intelligent design was simply the same book which had been published years before in which they substituted "intelligent designer" for "creator" - which made for some interesting misspellings in the text...

Sexual reproduction allows for greater genetic diversity than asexual reproduction.

Asexual reproduction results in clones, with the only mutations (changes in genome) possible by radiation and chemical compouds.

Sexual reproduction allows for chromosomal recombination, resulting in a genome distinct from either parent.

The result is that a population that has acquired the ability for sexual reproduction can adapt to changing environments much faster than those without that ability, increasing the survival rate and by extension, the reproduction rate of that sexual population compared to the asexual population leading swiftly to a numerical dominance over the asexual population.

Evolution is not about blind chance. Sexual development is a well researched branch of evolutionary biology and you would get a much better answer in the science section - but I suspect you dont want a proper answer.

There is a raft of evidence covering the development of sexual reproduction vs asexual (and the variations thereof).

By the time mammals had evolved they were kept alive by being carried by the mother (in placental mammals anyway) so I dont know what your point there is - the survival of marsupials is much more amazing.

Evolution is science - it seeks answers and learns. Your alternative is to simply say "god did it" and stop asking any more questions - or can you explain why god created the Echidna and why it is unique to one geographical region today?

"Can blind chance, or aimless effort by senseless brutes, accomplish more than the amazing design of an infinitely wise and powerful God?"

Seeing as 'he' is completely man-made you can damn near attribute anything to 'him' that you please.

Faith: it involves lotsa crawling, sucking, maximum FEAR of invisible space chappies, as well as life and death, and an exceptionally large dose of gullibility.

~

Bertrand Russell: There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.

Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting.

But he dares not face this thought!

Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.

~

Just look at the Protozoa. The simpler ones reproduce by simple fission, the more complex ones by exchange of genetic material followed by fission, yet still single-celled. Next comes colonial single-celled forms. Multi-celled animals are the obvious next step. You probably should concern yourself with evolutionary issues you can understand - such as the irrefutable fact that no mammals existed at the time of the dinosaurs, but mysteriously (from your perspective) appeared a few million years later. And then there is that other sticky fact - that right between the age of reptiles and the age of dinosaurs, by a curious coincidence I am sure, there were reptiles with mammalian characteristics, and mammals with reptilian characteristics. Chew on that a while.

Actually, it's not.

Asexual reproduction can happen at a rate that threatens an environment with overpopulation, leading to death. An organism adapts to this survival threat by evolving the ability for sexual reproduction, an adaptation that creates a limit to the number of organisms reproduced, and how often.

As with all adaptations to life, no deity is required.

First, there is not such thing as an "evolutionist". It's not a religion or philosophy, it's science.

Second, read some books on evolution.

Third, if you're going to propose god, then provide some evidence.

If yo wanted a real answer you would have gone to a science forum rather than the R &S one. I don't know, but I put alot more faith in science than I do in god. Science has given us just about all the tangible technology we use. Religion has not given me anything.

Sex? Sure. It's a natural instinct that all animals have gained.

Animals live to survive - they kill other animals to eat, they find water to drink, animals in the desert (camels) store their water because they knew they weren't going to get regular intakes.

It's all about survival and what's the biggest part of survival - reproduction.

When you get older, your mommy and daddy will explain it to you.

Until then, ask your science questions in the appropriate category.