How can evolution create BOTH man and woman?

[TeleMad]

Yeah, it's good, but it's speculation. It could be very different from the actual scientific explanation....I don't know. It was just something I came up with off the top of my head.

[Tim_Lou]

i found an interesting site about sex determination and genetics...

http://webpages.marshall.edu/~adkinsda/b111outlineschrominhsex.html

 

"sex" evolutions must occur couple times to have all these "different form of sexes"...

[TeleMad]

What do you mean by "evolutions"? Origins?

[TeleMad]

Another form of sex determination not mentioned in the link (because it isn't based on the same mechanisms) is temperature. The sex of alligator offspring, for example, is determined by the temperature their eggs were maintained at.

[wisdumn]

it's simple, evolution didn't create man or woman, because evolution doesn't necessitate creating, it only involves evolving, hence the name evolution. you know good 'ol evolution, just one day for no apparent reason,stuff started happening and whammo blammo ala ka zammo, intelligent life, food chains, multiple universes and yes, ah yes, the ceation of men AND women, it is amazing how while evolving, evolution decided to evolve into opposite sexes that compliment each other. Hmm-

[Machina80]

I suppose as time goes on we will see which "mutations" going on between humans will become natural selection. Certain types of evolution have been going on for times much longer then our own. I really dont believe we have all the answers from where we are right now. IMO.

 

I read another post on here about hermaphrodites, being human "mutation" , is numbered at one in every thousand person. http://www.gettingit.com/article/78 One in every thousand seems alot, maybe only cuz i have never met one, or they for the most have been "fixed" But as more "come out" as say homosexuals have, and these "mutations" are from NS.... well, i guess only time tells where anything is really going.

[Tormod]

MAchina80, like wisdumn said, evolution did not create man and woman. Almost all species we now of in the half a billion years before mankind (at least) came in two sexes. Sex can be traced back to very early life, and it is not difficult to see how it is an evolutionary advantage (ie, sexual reproduction gives offspring with a new set of genes).

[Machina80]

ok, iam trying trying to see it all... probably too much for now. Evolution is one thing, but evolving is realizing what works and what does not; at that moment. If offspring is what its all about, then thats cool... but i think it might be more then that. imo. Life is more then reproducing, its "growing". How far have we really grown??

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Machina80

ok, iam trying trying to see it all... probably too much for now. Evolution is one thing, but evolving is realizing what works and what does not; at that moment. If offspring is what its all about, then thats cool... but i think it might be more then that. imo. Life is more then reproducing, its "growing". How far have we really grown??

 

I suggest you read up on what evolution is. The discussion of the metaphysical or philosophical aspects of evolution really belongs in our Philosophy and humanities discussion group.

[DivineNathicana]

I belive that someone mentioned before: evolution didn't really CREATE man and woman per se. Natural selection allowed a prehistoric species incorporating BOTH sexes to evolve into modern humans.

 

So a better question to as is why have two sexes at all? (Especially since bisexual reproduction is exhibited by thousnads of species' other than humans). This question was also addressed earlier - a more diverse genetic code is generally more beneficial for an organism (I never got why that is - anyone care to explain? Thanks.), and bisexula reproduction does not require as much energy (since a single organism no longer has to synthesize BOTH reproductive systems.

 

Also, one may observe that bisexually reproducing organisms are a lot more complex than asexually reproducing organisms. They have been able to develop a far greater intelligence, and even perception and a sence of "self" in humans (perhaps in animals as well, but I don't want to start that debate here).

 

So I guess that's the gist of the answer.

 

However, I do have an odd question to go along with this, and I don't think it unappropriate to ask as it pertains well to the topic.

 

Nature created orgasms so that sexually reproducing organisms would... Well, want to reproduce, and keep nature working. However, what would have driven earlier organisms to reproduce? Is it just genetically encoded? Or did orgasms always exist? If they didn't, how could they have come about? I mean, that's an odd thing to have just sort of "appeared", and it doesn't seem like a mutation either.

 

Any ideas? = )

 

- Alisa

[sundog]

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

Nature created orgasms so that sexually reproducing organisms would... Well, want to reproduce, and keep nature working.

I don't think this is the case. If you consider that an orgasm

is at the end of copulation, and until first orgasm is achieved

a creature has no idea how it will feel, then there must be some

other drive for reproduction.

 

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

However, what would have driven earlier organisms to reproduce? Is it just genetically encoded?

I would guess the drive to reproduce is part of the genetic make up.

 

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

Or did orgasms always exist?

I would say no because, for some creatures reproduction doesn't

even involve orgasm. Take the spider for example, the male simply

passes a sperm packet to the female using one of its legs.

 

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

If they didn't, how could they have come about? I mean, that's an odd thing to have just sort of "appeared", and it doesn't seem like a mutation either.

Many odd things appear in nature. I find it interesting that

women are the only female of a species capable of orgasm.

The clitoris is an organ that evolved purely for pleasure.

 

We are not the only creatures that copulate for pleasure though.

Dolphins and chimpanzees do it for fun. (erm... not with each

other. Chimps don't like water )

 

I'm sure others will know more and be able to give you some

better answers.

 

 

 

sundog

[DivineNathicana]

Originally posted by: sundog

I find it interesting that

women are the only female of a species capable of orgasm.

 

I didn't know that! Hmm maybe it's because we have to go through nine months of rolling around and vomiting and then labor, and we definitely have more things to do than spiders or dolphins in that time. = ) is still odd. What do you think could have caused that? You know, I'm thinking maybe it's because humans have such an advanced mind and such advanced thought. In other species, it may just be that pheromones are released, hormones and instinct kick in, and really only the male absolutely NEEDS to have the pleasure aspect because he has to transfer the sperm (so there must be something pushing him to do so) while the female just sort of allows this to happen according to her DNA instructions. In humans, however, we have learned to disregard our instincts, and only engage whence we feel like it. And if not for female orgasms (and multiple ones at that), we would probably not even want to engage. That could explain it.

 

- Alisa

[DivineNathicana]

But sundog, are you sure? I have four female cats, and they seem mighty happy when they're in heat lol.

[sundog]

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

Originally posted by: sundog

I find it interesting that women are the only female of a species capable of orgasm.

 

I didn't know that! Hmm maybe it's because we have to go through nine months of rolling around and vomiting and then labor

Be thankful your not an elephant They have a gestation period

of nearly 2 years.

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

and really only the male absolutely NEEDS to have the pleasure aspect because he has to transfer the sperm (so there must be something pushing him to do so)

Of course there MUST be some kind of driving force. But I don't

think the male absolutely NEEDS to have pleasure. I can't imagine

what pleasure the Black Widow spider gets. After the male hands

over his packet, the female attempts to kill and eat him. Not my

idea of a fun date.

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

And if not for female orgasms (and multiple ones at that), we would probably not even want to engage. That could explain it.

You may be onto something there. The extra dedication and care needed

to raise a human is many times that of other species. So the extra

incentive may have been necessary, or it at least helps.

 

Originally posted by: DivineNathicana

But sundog, are you sure? I have four female cats, and they seem mighty happy when they're in heat lol.

Ha ha. Well I'm not saying other species get NO pleasure at all.

They just don't have a dedicated organ for it.

 

 

 

sundog

[Aquagem]

Many odd things appear in nature. I find it interesting that

women are the only female of a species capable of orgasm.

The clitoris is an organ that evolved purely for pleasure.

 

Hi - This is my first post -- i just had to answer this one, because, taken at face value (i.e., you believe what appears in the quote), it leads off in the wrong direction on several points:

 

1. The clitoris no more evolved purely for pleasure than the penis did. they are homologous tissues, present in all, or virtually all, mammals, and all primates. they attach to the same nerves, use the same neural machinery, and are produced by the same stimulation. i went to Google and typed in "chimpanzee clitoris" and found a wealth of information about bonobos (Pan paniscus, closer to us phylogenetically than troglodytes) and their promiscuous behaviors and the prominence of pleasure in their social structure. i did not find anything specific about the measurement of female orgasms in bonobos or other primates, which makes me curious about any research in that area.

 

But the point is that both sexes are capable of orgasm (as comes next) and it makes little sense that we alone experience it, since we are also homologous with all other primates, mammals, etc. Whether they occur in few, most, or all copulations is irrelevant.

 

2. What do we mean by "orgasm"? The author of the quote is probably referring to the SENSATION of pleasure attendant to satisfying the maze of requirements to produce one (including dinner and a movie...) But an orgasm is a complex, whole-organism response to a biological predilection, whether hetero or homosexual, the satisfaction of an emotional need. the animal doesn't have to have even the slightest sense that it's related to reproduction, although apparently in great apes, the connection is understood. Orgasm is a physiological process which we pick up and associate with pleasure because of the linkages of the "reward circuit" through the hypothalamus. "Scoring" in the sexual sense and that of slam-dunking a basketball are related on much more than a metaphorical level. But orgasm, in the sense of the feeling, is only a bit of the puzzle, and whether or not it exists as a conscious (or unconscious) FEELING is a matter for another day.

 

3. It would be difficult to think of a single biological adaptation that serves a single function, and virtually all have evolved by adding to or modifying existing structures. the separation of basic body types found in the world today were determined very far back in history. i feel quite certain that the mammal-like reptiles of the Permian had recognizable homologous tissues, and would have produced some form of orgasm, whether aware of it or not.

 

4. But what if females of other species don't have orgasms? (At the tender age of 60, i can say with confidence that there's a lot more to sex than orgasms, a truth wasted on the young...) Apparently, they aren't required to populate the world, although the potential exists. we men have nipples, and they, too, produce pleasure, but we don't normally lactate. so the existence of homologous tissues doesn't imply that the functions have to be the same to have biological significance.

 

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest....

[Tormod]

Many odd things appear in nature.

Indeed. Welcome, Aquagem!

[lindagarrette]

I found this interesting tidbit while surfing for more on Aquagem's excelent analysis. "Before the onset of sex, the earliest inhabitants of the primordial soup reproduced by fission, meaning they split off clones of themselves by dividing into two daughter cells. While this was great when conditions were favorable, the lack of genetic diversity left the species vulnerable if the climate took a turn for the worse. Sexual reproduction is believed to have originated around one billion years ago, when microorganisms began to fuse with one another to share genetic information. " Unfortunately there was no author or reference given but it makes sense to me.