Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

That's exactly what I meant. As for the first sentence, it is a belief. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, as you all know. It has evidence, but you still need to believe in it, just as one needs to believe in the concept of atoms (something that my Chem teacher of all people brought up). No matter how obvious it seems, there is a possibility (no matter how slim) that it could be wrong. That's why we are in debate.

I know I prolly should, but for some reason responses from Rahvin seem to work best. He can filter out the unnecessary things and give the basic lay out (or even provide a link for "Evolution for Dummies"). I know it was demanding, but he seems, to me, as most interested in helping me understand (with his abnormally long replies -.-).

Thanks, Rahvin, for that. Really. At first, I was thinking "oh no, he is just reviewing what I learned", but as it went on, towards the end, I began to think about it more in depth - relating it to how Evolution would work. I must say, I began piecing things together in ways I had never thought of before (even if, unfortunately, it was review). It was when I got to... ... that I just about finished up. Here's what I pulled out of that message (and I'll be fair and include everything that I thought of and ruled out):At "add an antibiotic" I thought of 'early Earth' and varying factors that could count as, for lack of a better word, an eliminator. The population, as you said, would have different variations of mutations. The ones that had certain... resistances to that eliminator would be the ones to survive, as you said. That was my first 'bridge' that I made. It's hard for me to explain. Despite hearing about things like this, I finally thought of how mutations wouldn't always be noticeably phenotypical yet still help. Like how the whole population was wiped out, yet still the 'same type' of bacteria existed, only slightly different. I know it may seem obvious to you, but it was something that got the cogs turning. The phrase... ...was still review for me, but it reinforced the 'bridge' and brought new insight. I'm not going to keep repeating things, but I made references to other things, other mutations. They made more sense in a different way. Now my defiant made its entrance. I almost instantly threw out all the insight thinking 'but that would mean things would have to all 'evolve' the same and would have species variety.' Then the more reasonable part of my remembered how everything wouldn't be in the same spot. I know there is a word for it (which I cannot remember) that talks about how a species (or population) can get divided by a factor and evolve differently because of that.The best way to describe of what I thought in that 3 seconds is how population 'a' died, leaving the slightly different one alive. But, my problem before was that I thought, and others in this forum said, that the survivors would make population "b". They wouldn't. They would make more of a population "ab". It's not entirely different, only slightly. It still holds characteristics of "a", but brings in the mutation (no longer seen as a mutation but more as trait as everything left will have it), making it different. That was what part of me tried to throw out, thinking that it would bring variety. Then I thought of how population "a" wasn't actually gone. It was in that area, but not elsewhere. Elsewhere, a different eliminator struck, leaving population "ac", and elsewhere making population "ad". Then population "ab" could have been split by a natural factor, having a new eliminator for each set, making populations "aba" and "abb". This continues. Right after that, I read the "not necessarily a new species" part, making me smile and one again reinforcing the thought.There you go, reads of this post. That's how my mind figured out this snippet of info. You are prolly laughing at me, but meh, I'm not one who cares about many things. I will say, that whenever I find out something, it has an unusually high chance of coming around and slapping me in the face. By that I mean, somehow, my insight is very flawed in your eyes and is in dire need of heavy reconstruction. Please feel free to do so.As a final note, I will say that I am still Pro-creation, but in a way (even if flawed) this makes the Evolution Theory much more plausible to me. Thank you very much, Rahvin, for that. Even if my insight is still flawed, it is appreciated. Last question... was that the theory of Evolution or an example of mutation? I feel more like a made references to how it would work with Evolution than if it was Evolution itself.

Dr Adequate... Wow that is actually a very good example for the conversation. The only change I would make is that the painting would have a caption under it saying that it was painted by Michelangelo. I think "crude, ugly, stupid, and grotesque" are bad terms, however.In my opinion, the conversation would be more like arguing over an abstract painting that had the caption: "This is my most perfect painting yet" -Michelangelo.Then Bill acknowledging it as perfect in Michelangelo's eyes, but not seeing it as such. Followed by Fred saying that chimps have made similar paintings. Fred suddenly realizes that it looked very similar to chimp paintings. He remembers that the museum is often accused of having fake paintings, but none of the claims had been proved true yet. Bill puts his faith in believing the caption, while Fred believes that chimps made it.That seems more accurate in my mind.As for the "why didn't God give people four arms, wings, gills, webbed feet, or even protective scales" I am saying I don't know. I do know, however, that there is never enough. If we had all those, I'm sure I would have a whole different list of things we need (six arms, two heads, enlarged muscles, denser bones). What I feel, and this is backed by no Biblical text, is that God gave us just an adequate amount of traits to "dominate the birds, fish, and animals". Like, what could be seen as excess? Too many toes? Too much hair? Finger nails? I can see uses in all of those, as I'm sure you can.

That would be human sexual reproduction. I can't say I know for sure, but I am sure that asexual reproductive organisms don't combine two cells, especially when they themselves are one cell. Sure, I'll be good enough. Genders, defined by male, female, hermaphrodite, or none at all (can't think of the name), are something I'm interested in. Sexual reproduction, the process in which an organism or organisms create more of the said organism, is something I'm not interested in. They are related, such as depending on which gender something is tells of its role in sexual reproduction, but I am interested in the formations of genders. Maybe it could be seen better as I'm interested in the creation organs that make up a gender. How did something (that is either a hermaphrodite or something else) start to form the separate organs penis and vagina? How did it start becoming a male or female?

o.O This is not an evolution thread? It's supposed to be. I didn't get to pick where this got placed, but it should be about the Evolution of Genders.As for being off topic, I don't think it really is. He/she said she is pro-evolution because of the evidence. I think that the year counting is also evidence. If I can't speak of that, then you can't speak of mutations, natural selection, or, as you might have mis-typed, evolution. Who is Jeebus, and when did I bring his pals into my thread?

o.0 This is not an evolution thread? It's supposed to be. I didn't get to pick where this got placed, but it should be about the Evolution of Genders.As for being off topic, I don't think it really is. He/she said she is pro-evolution because of the evidence. I think that the year counting is also evidence. If I can't speak of that, then you can't speak of mutations, natural selection, or, as you might have mis-typed, evolution. Who is Jeebus, and when did I bring his pals into my thread?

The way I understand theory is that a hypothesis that is repeatedly proven to be correct becomes a theory. I'm not saying "its just a theory" I'm saying it IS a theory. I know that it isn't some educated guess, like a hypothesis, its a proven educated guess. Please understand, however, that my views on Evolution is the same as yours on Creation. I acknowledge that its a possibility, but I do not believe it the origin of life as we know it, just as you (I think) acknowledge that Creation is a possibility, but you don't believe it is how life started.

Wow, I really don't know what to say to that Taz. I know what a scientific theory is, unless, of course, I went to School of We Want You to Fail and Know Nothing (WWYFKNHS for short), something that I'm starting to believe.

En.wikipedia says... Which is pretty much what I said. A hypothesis that is repeatedly proven (IE backed by "experimental evidence"). If this is still wrong and I fail at knowledge, I give up on this whole theory.Oh, and G'night for now. So tell me how much I fail when I get back (scale from 1-10, ten being epic fail).Edited by Lyston, : Didn't finish and am getting tired.

thank you for that. First time someone posted something directly related to the topic (not the changed title). I just wanted a plausible theory on genders, not sexual reproduction.

When you say "largely correct", I hope you mean I finally got something right and that it's not a typo. Yes, I know no one is pleased with my context of "theory", and it may sound like I'm looking at it as "just a theory", but I'm not. I acknowledge as what is the scientifically accepted (and proven through various experiments) method of the origins of the Earth. I'm not dismissing it. If I was, I certainly wouldn't have searched for a site to discuss/debate such a topic. I believe I tried to reach this stage back in comment 58. My quote is... I had even asked for the theory to outlined. I would, as the OP, like to continue to stage 2 please.

Yes, the sexes, not sexual reproduction nor asexual reproduction. To me, your definition sounds more like "gender stereotyping" (roughly the same as Gender Roles), something that we discussed in my psychology class. They define it as the "cultural or behavioral traits a society associates with ones gender" (and since its in a psychology book, let's just say it involves said "psychological traits"). Dictionary.com (based on Random House Unabridged Dictionary) defines gender as ones sex. En.Wikipedia defines gender as interchangeable with sex. So if my three sources are all incorrect, please tell me. First, may I ask what purvue is? It comes up as incorrect on spell check and is not found in a dictionary. Maybe you meant purview, which would make more sense. Anyway, by definition not found by you, this thread is supposed to be about genders. By definition, it also is about the sexes. I'm not here for a cultural, behavioral, or psychological lesson with things involved with genders... or the sexes if you don't wish to "interchange" them.

Originally title "Problems with Mutation", later changed by someone else to "Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of Sexual Reproduction". That is a wrong title change. It should be titled "Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of Genders". I made the thread, so I should have a rough idea what this is about. -.-

I read them. I'll sum them up real quick: (1) a cell tried to repair damaged DNA by copying another's. (2) Parasite infected a cell and spread its DNA. (3) A cell tried to eat a cell, but instead copied its DNA (or something close to that).So here's my questions. What happens after the initial mutation? How does it continue?And, how are you sure that things didn't start out with sexual reproduction and asexual was a mutation? I remember from a 7th grade video of single celled bacterium sending out a tentacle-like thing to another bacteria cell and transferring its DNA to it. How do you know that wasn't the first form of reproduction? I know it's an off chance, but can you prove its not possible? There is no way to tell what the first organism was, in my opinion. Maybe there is, so could someone explain that to me?You tell me not to call Evolution a theory, but on the contrary, is it not called the Theory of Evolution? You tell me not to call it "just a theory" (which I haven't), but in truth it would have to be "it's just some theories". I understand that this is a field under study currently, but how can "all the evidence that supports the origins of this topic" be divided into not one, but three (four total mentioned) theories. It may be my Pro-Creation views that are biasing my opinions, but it seems hard to just say "yeah, life was created in one of those ways".I'm not trying to just slap down your views, as you may actually have the "Truth" in one of those theories. Please understand that. I can guarantee that once again this will be seen as "arrogant and cocky", but please understand that it's not. I can here for understanding, not to mock/put down/prove wrong/dismiss Evolution. I want to understand it, as you can tell my knowledge is minuscule and flawed; nothing more, nothing less.(BTW, when I say theories (plural) I'm referring to the three theories wiki mentioned as origins of "Evolution of Sexual Reproduction")