This discussion is closed.
JnA
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#1
Ok people - good old battle of the sexes argument!

Nahh i thought Id try be bit sensible...so who came first...the male or the female. I mean everything had to come from one type of species didnt they? Logically thatmeans we perhaps came from hemphrodites, or non-gendered species. What evidence is there? Im not trying to get at whose better...just do you think we evolved from each other - or we co-evolved as different sexes?
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 16 years ago
#2
males and females are not different species (contrary to what many would like to think)
0
LongGone
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 16 years ago
#3
(Original post by elpaw)
males and females are not different species
Are you totally sure about that?
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 16 years ago
#4
(Original post by JnA)
Ok people - good old battle of the sexes argument!

Nahh i thought Id try be bit sensible...so who came first...the male or the female. I mean everything had to come from one type of species didnt they? Logically thatmeans we perhaps came from hemphrodites, or non-gendered species. What evidence is there? Im not trying to get at whose better...just do you think we evolved from each other - or we co-evolved as different sexes?

There are three main theories. One theory sugests (as you state ) that we started out as hemophrodites and then evolved into men an wommen. Another theory is that one single cell species simply "ate" another smaller single cell species, creating the foundation for the egg and the sperm. The third theory is that one single celled species "invaded" a host cell much like a parasite, creating the foundation for egg and sperm. It is difficult to say though as it would be extremely difficult and unlikely to find an intact fossil of such an early heterosexual species.
0
elpaw
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#5
Report 16 years ago
#5
(Original post by Jonatan)
There are three main theories. One theory sugests (as you state ) that we started out as hemophrodites and then evolved into men an wommen. Another theory is that one single cell species simply "ate" another smaller single cell species, creating the foundation for the egg and the sperm. The third theory is that one single celled species "invaded" a host cell much like a parasite, creating the foundation for egg and sperm. It is difficult to say though as it would be extremely difficult and unlikely to find an intact fossil of such an early heterosexual species.
are you talking "we" as in humans or animals?
0
Jonatan
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 16 years ago
#6
(Original post by elpaw)
are you talking "we" as in humans or animals?
I meant heterosexually reproducing species. Sorry about the ambiguity.
0
JnA
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#7
ok - so what about in humans...males have the the unstable Y chromosome, which is 'genetically empty', do u think that this Y chromosomewas originally a X chromosome, but during evolution it degenerated into a Y chromosome? But this does not take in account that the Y chromosome contains the genes that makes itmale. So theoriginal X chromosome which it may have broke off from must be entirely different to the X chromosome found in females.
0
randdom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 16 years ago
#8
(Original post by JnA)
ok - so what about in humans...males have the the unstable Y chromosome, which is 'genetically empty', do u think that this Y chromosomewas originally a X chromosome, but during evolution it degenerated into a Y chromosome? But this does not take in account that the Y chromosome contains the genes that makes itmale. So theoriginal X chromosome which it may have broke off from must be entirely different to the X chromosome found in females.
It is just one of those things that there are loads of theories about but no one can really ever be 100% certain what happend.
0
operato
Badges: 0
#9
Report 16 years ago
#9
sexual reproduction evolved from asexually reproducing orgasm...
or it just always existed that way. have you noticed that in almost all(i say almost because i don't know every organism) sexually reproducing organism there are 2 sexes?
0
MC
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 16 years ago
#10
God put a man and a woman on earth.
0
operato
Badges: 0
#11
Report 16 years ago
#11
(Original post by Mad Caddie)
God put a man and a woman on earth.
wow, don't we feel special now? ¬_¬
0
material breach
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report 16 years ago
#12
(Original post by Mad Caddie)
God put a man and a woman on earth.
And how would you know that?
0
icklehc
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 16 years ago
#13
(Original post by Mad Caddie)
God put a man and a woman on earth.
???
errrr...or not
0
JnA
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#14
god putting man n woman on earth is still not answer. we know that humans being didnt just come into existent. it had to have a single beginning - or is this too a simplistic view?
0
magicalsausage
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#15
Report 16 years ago
#15
Well it is impossible to know - bear in mind that it is not as if and apegirl got knocked up and a fully formed human came out! Evolution is incredibly slow so whether the first "human" was male or female depends on when you set the boundary of when they could be feasibly called human.
0
magicalsausage
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 16 years ago
#16
(Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
Which is simpler, God or evolution?

Occam's razor.

Evolution theory is full of gaps, and impossibilities. And denying the existence of God or supernatural creation is a philosophic not scientific decision.
Is it simpler that man came to exist through a plausible and explainable process backed up by evidence or created from nothing, with the only evidence a book? Many Christians don't believe the creation story/myth, seeing it as more of a parable.
0
magicalsausage
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 16 years ago
#17
Oh and I really don't like it when people attempt to justify themselves only with Occam's Razor - if you truly understand the issue you should be able to come up with a far better explanation for your position.
0
hornblower
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 16 years ago
#18
I visited the Darwin exhibition 'Origin of the Species' in the Science Museum yesterday.
0
tkfmbp
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 16 years ago
#19
Beliving in creation is a step of faith.
Beliving in MACROevolution (ape to human, not fish to different kinda fish) is a step of science.

there is know reason why the two cannot co-exist, just as faith and science can co-exist.
0
magicalsausage
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#20
Report 16 years ago
#20
(Original post by tkfmbp)
Beliving in creation is a step of faith.
Beliving in MACROevolution (ape to human, not fish to different kinda fish) is a step of science.

there is know reason why the two cannot co-exist, just as faith and science can co-exist.
They can only co-exist if you take Genesis as a moral tale rather than absolute fact. That said I know many christians (probably the majority of the christians I know) who see absolutely no conflict between their faith and their belief in evolution - good on them!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (18)
21.69%
No (65)
78.31%

Watched Threads

View All