Can an evolutionist explain male and female sexes as a part of evolution theory?

Asexual creatures produce offspring which are normally identical to themselves. This limits how quickly adaptations and evolution can move on as they have to wait until they make an error reproducing themselves for them to change and even longer for the error to be beneficial. Having to separate sex's increase the natural variance of a species by no longer having to rely on waiting for a genetic blip.

Of course there are wholes in the evolutionary theory that is why its not hard fact and still a theory. It is just the most likely theory from the evidence at hand extrapolated with logical reasoning.

This issue is debated ad infinitum over in "Society and Culture: Religion and Spirituality". By now, I must have seen well over 1,000 questions posted by the religious in an attempt to combat the evolutionists. And vice versa.

As fascinating as all this is (and it really is quite interesting, despite a distressingly low level of general intelligence and education at play on both sides in the debate on Y!A), I must point out that this is the Royalty category. You somehow landed your question in the wrong place, and you need to put it in the right one.

Oh, and by the way, your claim that evolutionists "become silent" on the subject of the evolutionary origin of sex is entirely wrong. There are vast numbers of books and monographs on this very subject. If you were genuinely well educated and well read on the subject of evolution, you would know that. The evolution of sex is an enormous subject and the object of much research.

Indeed, smart anti-evolutionists know the relevant scholarly and scientific material, on the principle of "knowing one's enemy".

Of course, most people worth listening to in this debate hold PhD's. If you do not, you may not be sufficiently well qualified to participate.

You're just ranting....and it's not a very informed one. What gives you the idea that "evolutionists" fall silent on the issue of sex?

Sexual reproduction brings in a greater variety of genetic material to the gene pool. Asexual reproduction can only pass on the genes of the originator. Sexual reproduction beings in a whole separate sex of genes. It allows for more variation and combinations, which gives a species overall a better chance at developing beneficial traits.

Of course, if you actually cared for an answer, you've be asking this in the science section. On the other hand, if you were wanting to just rant about religion, one would have thought you'd at least have the brains to put it in the religion section.

Apparently Creationists have never heard of Google.

1. Go to www.google.com.

2. Type "evolution of sex"

3. 4,550,000 results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=981&bih=661...

Any of the first 20 hits would have answered your question (except for one ... can anybody spot the Creationist site masquerading as a "science" site?). Among the 2 videos, and three links to entire books on the subject (including John Maynard Smith's well-known "The Evolution of Sex"), here are the top three you could have found on you own and save yourself the embarrassment of this posting:

* The evolution of sexual reproduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_r...

* The Evolution of Sex (from Brown University): http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/19.Evol.of.S...

* Evolution: Sex (PBS - yes, PBS did an entire TV show on the topic): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/index.html

But then, that would require familiarity with a concept that is foreign to Creationism ... namely the word "research."

>"When pressed to answer questions such as, “Where did males and females actually come from?,” “What is the evolutionary origin of sex?,” evolutionists become silent. "

No we don't. Again, type these exact phrases into Google, and see how "silent" we are!

Is that too much work?

And guess what we find? We find that your entire question is just a COPY-PASTE from apologetics press.org!

So that explains why you are either incapable or too lazy to research the answer ... you can't even be bothered to ASK YOUR OWN QUESTION without having to copy-paste it verbatim from a Creationist web site!

>"Obviously, evolutionist do not care that their theory is flawed and no more than a pagan religion."

Obviously not. Since I am a Christian (a Catholic) who accepts evolution, because I am capable of actually researching the science without feeling contempt for it.

Obviously, Creationists do not care that their dogma doesn't even rise to the level of "theory" and is no more than the refuge of people for whom effort, research, and logical thinking are foreign concepts.

The evolution of sex is admittedly a difficult subject to understand. I don't really agree that the theory is a pagan religion, but you are hammering on a difficult subject.

Evolutionary Theory flawed? - No.

Perfect? No.

Supported by more books than can fit into a Fundamentalist Christian temple? Yes.

If God wanted perfect creatures, He would have created us that way, and then had us divide asexually.

He clearly wanted us imperfect.

There are so many flaws in our structure, that it could only have come about by evolution.

Read more than one book in your life.

.

no sex is a basic of evolution, if you think we are silent on sex you have not done your research. sex is used to mix the genes so enabling an efficient form of evolution. if you ;look at asexual organisms like the wolami pines you see how not having sex hampers evolution and survival

i am still amazed your research is so faulty you think we don't consider sex very important

Fascinating as all this is, I really don't see what it has to do with Royalty. Maybe you meant to post it to all the loonies in Religion & Spirituality? Not that that would do you any good either - 99% of them are just there to troll.

It took you an awful long time to say absolutely nothing. Sexual changes were part of evolution.

The category is royalty.

Not gonna find a lot of evolutionist theorists here.

But, you know...has to do with propagating the species and all that....