Are there evolutionary reasons for reproduction?

Where do I start?You have not even tried to ascribe any meaning to the terms. What are you trying to measure? What are the dimensions?You aren't actually trying to do math. You're just wrapping up what you want to say in mathematical symbolism. This is not impressing anyone, and especially not those of us who know about math. So, let's get this straight ... when you wrote "we", you felt that you were speaking, not just for yourself, but for everyone else participating on this thread --- or at least those who were "ACTIVE" and "POSITIVE", whatever that means.Let me disabuse you of this notion. I feel fairly confident in telling you that you're on your own here.

Just wanted to clarify that by 'positive' I didn't mean 'in agreement' but meant 'constructive and positive attitude'. Therefore, 'disagreements' if are combined with 'respect' and 'constructive attitude' is also within the boundaries of my definition.I would rather ignore the rest of your comment. But your original post would have been helpful if you could provide a better alternative.

I hope you're not serious.Longevity, or the lack thereof, may or may not lead to greater fecundity.This is what I said, yes?This means that fecundity (reproductive differential) may or may not be impacted by longevity (your death scenarios).Your death scenarios only fit as they impact the reproductive differential.The point that I emphasize is that factors other than longevity affect fecundity, sometimes to a greater degree. It is the reproductive differential that impacts Evolution. Thus longevity of the species is not a "goal" of evolution.

I did. I said: "Just try to say, in plain English, what you want to say." This is, obviously, an alternative to trying to express yourself in pseudomath, and it would, obviously, be better.

I`m a little more than confused about the question. I don`t understand if you want what CAUSES reproduction, or WHY reproduction occurs...but in most organisms, when they mature, ATP triggers DNA that activate sex organs. When the sex organs are active, the brain instinctively wants to reproduce during some particular time, be it a certain year, season, or hour, depending on the organism you are talking about.In the broader perspective, evolution does not answer the question, why animals have male and female partners. Evolution explains asexual organisms, and could (by a stretch) explain hermaphroditic species, such as the flat worm. In order for male-female reproduction to occur, you require two members of the same species to evolve at the same time, because without a suitable partner to mate with (within it`s lifetime), the organism carrying the suitable mutations for this to occur would die. Now, by suitable, this is very specific. Because there are hundreds of species that interbreed, and are not sexually functional. A great example of this is the horse and the donkey giving birth to a sexually non-functional mule.I hope this answers some of your questions, and perhaps asks some new ones.Dennis.

You've not thought this through.You seem to admit the possibility of species reproducing sexually without having two different sexes.Now, the crucial difference between male and female is that males produce more but smaller gametes and the female produces larger but fewer gametes.Therefore, when a mutation first arises causing its posessor to produce (let us say) more but smaller gametes than the rest of its species, then it is male --- and every other member of its species is therefore female.When one sex first evolves, the rest of the species is the other sex by default --- the other sex doesn't need to evolve at the same time as such.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"the other sex doesn't need to evolve at the same time as such."Wrong. Supposing that one organism of a species evolves, making the others female by default. The male must find a suitable female of the same species with proper sex organs to fertilize for offspring. Although in theory, you are correct in your assumption, it does not answer the question, how does he mate with she? If the female has not evolved, then the process of male/female reproduction is irrelevant, because for this species to exist in the first place, it would have to be asexual, so without any genetic change, it would not require a male for reproduction. The male with genetic change would not find a suitable partner, and die, losing any traits it possessed.Second, even if two of the same species did evolve simultanously, the genes would have to match, or the offspring would receive half information from each respective parent, but the information would not match, making the offspring sexually inactive.Third, asexual reproduction seems favourable (to me), in that it preserves a line of genetic information perfectly, and does not require the finding of a suitable mate. Populations grow faster, giving them a distinct advantage.

"Proper sex organs"?As you would know if you were interested in biology, the regular way for marine species to mate is for the happy couple to emit their gametes in roughly the same place at the same time. What they both need is a hole for the emission of gametes, and this would be basal to the species by hypothesis. No, back up. You had already conceded the possibility of species that reproduced sexually but did not have two distinct sexes; you then wanted to know how the two sexes could arise. Again, by conceding sexual reproduction at all, you're supposing this problem to have been solved. Ah, the good old Argument From Undesign. This always amuses me when it's found on the lips of a creationist. Next time you're praying, perhaps you could mention to God how you think he went wrong there.And again, I would remind you that you conceded sexual reproduction --- you were asking about the origin of sexes, a question that I have answered.

"As you would know if you were interested in biology, the regular way for marine species to mate is for the happy couple to emit their gametes in roughly the same place at the same time. What they both need is a hole for the emission of gametes, and this would be basal to the species by hypothesis."I was refering to reproductive organs such as the penis, but I can do fish as well.Both mutations still have to occur at the same time. If the female lays eggs, but no males have developed, no fertilization. If male developes but no eggs, nothing to fertilize. Same problem." You had already conceded the possibility of species that reproduced sexually"Asexually"Again, by conceding sexual reproduction at all, you're supposing this problem to have been solved."Asexual reproduction, yes. Male/female, no. Your dancing. I can feel it."And again, I would remind you that you conceded sexual reproduction"Asexual reproduction. Yes. Why the hell would I concede the point I am debating? Your not making any sense.I get it. YOU don't know. Do you? You really don't know. And like every other evolutionist that meets a creationist with a valid point, you do they ol' I know you are but what am I? hahahahaha. Your funny. I think I'll keep you.

The original species, by hypothesis, released identical haploid gametes which fertilized one another. With the evolution of the male, this process would continue as before. The only difference is that the male produces more and smaller gametes. You wrote: "Evolution explains asexual organisms, and could (by a stretch) explain hermaphroditic species, such as the flat worm."I therefore took as my starting point a species which reproduced sexually but did not have distinct sexes, which was what you apparently wanted explaining.If you now want to shift the goalposts, you should say so like a man instead of descending into hysteria, nonsense, and lies: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

"The original species, by hypothesis, released identical haploid gametes which fertilized one another."I don`t disagree with hermaphroditic sex. This would follow accurately the evolutionary trend.At some given point in history, organisms must have made a switch to male/female reproduction. Since each sex would have needed to evolve at the same time, this seems like a roadblock on the evolutionary highway."I therefore took as my starting point a species which reproduced sexually but did not have distinct sexes, which was what you apparently wanted explaining."As I said before, I have no issues with asexual reproduction, or hermaphroditic reproduction, as these to not REQUIRE the opposite sex for reproduction. My issue is, and always has been, with male/female reproduction.

Then I suggest that you read my posts. Then I suggest that you read my posts.

Not necessarily, Take a hermaphroditic species such as an earthworm. 2 different worms mate with each other the female part of worm one with the male part of worm 2 and vice versa. Given time,a such an organism could mutate to only having male or female reproductive organs and still mate with the hermaphrodite.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi, Dennis.Can you please use the qs dBCodes for quotes. Click on the peek button at the bottom of this message to see how I make this quote box: Let me take you through the evolution of sex, from the beginning, to the end.Single-celled organisms can reproduce sexually by fusing with another member of their species, or injecting copies of their DNA in another. This requires only one organism to develop a new trait, because only one of them need initiate the transfer: all that is required of the other is that it doesn’t stop the transfer. This could lead directly to two sexes, or it could result in a population full of cells that can initiate transfer.As organisms became more complex (e.g. animals), different cells within the body of the organism become specialized to take on different functions. Some cells within an individual retain the ability to merge with other cells. These cells are referred to as gametes. At first, there may only be one kind of gamete.Some individuals in a population may produce gametes that can initiate transfer. Some individuals’ gametes may lose this ability (or may never have had it), and are therefore only capable of merging when another gamete initiates transfer, but may evolve means to promote transfer. So, some individuals will produce gametes that can initiate transfer, and others will produce gametes that can accept transfer. This is the beginning of bisexuality.Originally, the gametes with the ability to initiate the transfer (we’ll call them sperm) would be able to detect and swim to female gametes (which we’ll call eggs). However, the organism will tend to retain traits that make the sperm’s job easier, because it will increase reproduction, and will thus lead to higher numbers of organisms that have those traits.So, the male might gain behaviors that bring the sperm closer to the egg (e.g. amplexus), or might gain morphological adaptations that allow him to place the sperm inside the female while the egg is still inside her. Again, this only requires one sex to develop a new trait or organ: all that is required of the female is that she not prevent it from happening. Eventually, we would expect the female to be altered in some way to help facilitate the male’s new mode of sex, but it would not require her to be altered significantly at the exact same moment as the male is altered.Does this make it clear what Dr Adequate was saying?Basically, sex predates sexual organs (or any organs, for that matter) by a long time, and sexual organs are later adaptations that increase the rate of success of sex.Also, each step can be explained by just some members of the population (comprising one sex) mutating away from the initial condition, and other members of the population (the other sex) evolving in response to the first group. This leap-frogging style of evolution is referred to as coevolution.Edited by Bluejay, : Typography.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi Mr. Q,Your post is very convoluted and I'm not certain of what message you are trying to get across, but I think I have an idea. If my answer doesn't answer your question please let me know. I don't think you are asking why reproduction is necessary for evolution (right?) because the answer is so obvious. I think you are asking why we have to reproduce at all.Well, why is anything the way it is? Why do we have to continually eat food to gain energy? Why do we need sleep? It could be surmised that it is more advantageous to never have to eat and never have to sleep. But these questions are meaningless because it would presuppose that nature is cognizant of itself and desires to make things the most efficient as possible.Nature does this quite accidently through natural selection. It's not that nature wants to do things the most efficient way, but rather it just ends up that way (survival of the fittest). The first organisms were allegedly prokaryotes, capable of reproducing with itself. More complex beings are eukaryotes which need to reproduce with members of the same species but opposite sex (there are a few exceptions).Now, it would seem that prokaryotic tendencies would not be phased out. We still have prokaryotes but why did nature select a far more difficult way to mate, the eukaryotic way? The answer is: No one knows. Obviously something that is able to reproduce won't have its species go extinct. You really can't see the advantage in that??? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal