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

Now, you knew these "rational,logic hunters" couldn't come up with a rational or

logical answer,didn't you?

Evolution theory cannot explain everything that is observable in nature because we simply don't know enough about nature to make a conclusive statement yet. But that doesn't mean creationism is correct!

For example, I find it funny that when I ask a theist "what makes your religion the right religion, and all other religions are wrong", they become silent. Why would a loving God allow suffering in this world? Why would innocent babies die? How do you know the Bible hasn't been altered over times?

I'm not saying evolution is the RIGHT answer. But given the data that we have, I think evolution is at best ON THE RIGHT TRACK to the right answer. And creationism isn't.

@added: I also want to draw your attention to the notion of species. That is an out-dated word that really should not be used anymore. How do you define a species? Lion and tiger can inter-mate and produce viable offspring, does that make them the same species? Scientists today use a genome threshold similarity to define species, but what threshold to use is subjective, and given the lack of concrete definition for a species that can be applied to all life forms on Earth, you really shouldn't use terms like species or speciation.

@added 2: i've already said above that there are many areas evolution can't address. That's why there are still tons of active research going on precisely trying to solve those answers! And if you're going to accept answers that are purely about evolution, then post in biology section. this is religion talk here. Scientists are perfectly aware of many phenomenon evolution can't address, this is why so many sub-variations of evolution come up years after years. So your choice of word "ignorance" should only be applied to the laymen people who don't have any training in science and take evolution as the ground truth. Scientists know very well that evolution is a theory that may one day be changed. The key point is given the data we have now, it's the best theory so far.

Sexual reproduction is a big advantage as it produces genetic changes without the need for mutations.

The first life reproduced asexually. Hermaphroditic creatures would be able to reproduce sexually or asexually. Those would evolve into species with separate sexes.

Some species can still reproduce asexually. There are documented instances of 'virgin births' amongst sharks, as one example of this.

As for the rest of the details, get a better understanding of evolution and it will become clearer to you.

The only reason it is not a favorite topic is that it is usually a debate with someone who has no understanding of paleontology or evolution (which is O.K., but if you want to ask these sort of questions you should be willing to learn) and would rather go with the creationist straw men arguments. The sort of person who thinks an 'evolutionist' is different from a biologist.

variation in a species. organisms were both male and female. Some variants happened to be only one or the other, and they were able to reproduce later populations full of male or female individuals because for some reason these variants had some type of adaptation that gave them better reproductive rate in those populations over those variants with male and female individuals.

The fact that many species still today sometimes have individuals that happen to be both male and female helps provide evidence to this hypothesis that somewhere along the line we animals have an ancestor population that was mainly both (that and some species still survive today that are both, and even some that switch sexes when necessary meaning some species still carry within many of the individuals the ability to have both sexes). All the examples out there actually provide tons of evidence for evolution and evidence against Genesis and its male and female specifically story.

Actually, this was answered waaaaaay back in Darwin's time, so your copy-paste job is actually a flat-out lie. You don't start with a fully-formed male and a fully-formed female. Darwin himself found this one out by studying barnacles - y'know, those things that stick on to the bottom of ships? They're a type of animal. With them, there are a lot of species that are hermaphroditic, and then there are species which are single-sexed but where the male spends his entire life embedded within the female. In other words, there's a clear, gradual progression from asexual to sexual, no worries. And, if you want a simpler answer, look at plants; both male and female parts on the same organism.

In other words, this is not the 'gotcha!' question that you seem to think it is, merely another example of how often creationists recycle the same tired old questions and pretend they're new.

One theory is that it is the endosymbiotic relationship with mitochondria that gave rise to entirely seperate genders:

Since mitochondria are *only* passed down in egg cells, it is to the mitochondria’s advantage to be in a “female” organism. As a result, mitochondria evolve to “attack” the male gonads of hermaphroditic organisms by actions like oxidative radical production (this has actually been observed in hermaphroditic species). Evolutionarily, this maximises their chances of being passed down in an egg.

This means that instead of having a population of totally 50/50 male/female hermaphrodites, you get organisms that are “more female than male”, with possibly a few (sickly) “more male” individuals.

Eventually, the population consists of many entirely female organisms, with a few male individuals. As soon as this happens, there is lo longer any evolutionary pressure on the mitochondria to sabotage the male gonads, because they have no chance of being passed on from a male organism anyway. Therefore, the evolutionary pressure on the “host” organism takes over, where it is more advantageous to have a roughly equivalent number of males to females, and eventually, with more evolution, the proportions equalise.

Why are you asking biology questions in the R&S section?

And what makes you so sure this is a "hurdle" that no biologist has been able to answer? Sexual reproduction evolved from asexual reproduction, and all sexually-reproducing species are descended from the first sexually-reproducing organisms. The forms that gametes and the reproduction process would take is the only thing that changed in that respect.

Have you bothered to even read up on this, or do you just like playing armchair theologian?

>>how is it that these gametes (eggs and sperm) conveniently “evolved” so that

>>they each contain half the normal chromosome number of somatic (body) cells?

Because chromosomes can fuse. Speaking of which, we have empirical evidence that also proves we share a common ancestor with other apes. Just because you're ignorant about the discovery doesn't make creationism true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

>>We will have more to say about both processes later.

Who's "we"? Oh, I get it. This is just an unsourced copy-paste job.

First, there is a great deal of research and papers dedicated to describing the evolution of sexes. Second, while you and those that you are foolishly relying on for your "information" may think that this is not the case, from now on you have been informed that you are making claims from ignorance and doing it further is the same as lying. You should consider your sources as untrustworthy, if not completely dishonest.

You are encouraged to make your way to your local university library and spend many hours researching what we know about the evolution of sex.

Well a big mistake here, if you ask me, is going on the assumption that the sexes are utterly completely different when we are not. All start out the same in development. And even the parts that are "different" still have their counterpart in the other gender.

The Bible never said God would not allow for evolution to occur in His creation. Creationists should embrace the beauty that an adaptable world offers. God said that His creation was "good," not perfect. Therefore, it makes sense that he would allow us all to evolve as necessary to survive and THRIVE in our environments.

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_r...