Evolution of Sexual Reproduction

How did sexual reproduction evolve? Search for the evolution of sexual reproduction and you'll find articles explaining how genetic variability offers a good reason for the development of sexual reproduction. But no one has a clue how sexual reproduction could have evolved. Yet popular media and many scientists love to tell the public that sexual reproduction evolved. How about if we have scientific evidence before we draw a conclusion? Sexual reproduction is a huge problem for evolution because you don't have millions of years to develop a complex reproductive system. You only have the lifetime of the animal to develop a fully functioning reproductive system and find a mate with a compatible (but totally different) reproductive system.

[recognizingdesign]

Good job on your channel. I just found it from a link from Sal C. Judging from some of the negative comments, you're over the target! Keep it up.

[leelawateethompson]

Could it be that organism are male and female within itself then split and decide to go their own way sign. Biologist

[Tall-Cool-Drink]

I've been wondering about this myself for a long time.
How did evolution know to make male and female reproductive organs to become compatible with each other?
Didn't organisms evolve independently, and separately for each other, w/o knowing what was happening to each other?
.
Example: For any software systems to connect and be productive, the systems must know about other systems that may want to connect. Each software must know about the location, IP address, User ID, password ...etc... and maybe even the operating system of the other computer systems, before the connection can be successful.
So, how did evolution know how to make the connection between two random systems possible?

[faizmalik]

All i want to say is thank you.(you may not understand this but i really needed this video)

[aarrvindmbd]

How about if we evolve to egg birth system, can't imagine how it will evolve
This question of yours riddled be from ten years

[SelaNaama]

You said that evolotion of sexual reproduction is said to have occurred in one generation and not have time to evolve .you base this on at least two wrong assumptions.

First you assume that you must have two sexes . There are hermaphrodite organism that have male and female reproductive organs . So it is possible to be one, two or three sexes in the same species.

Second you assume complete genital form .this is wrong becouse we know that fertilization in most fish occur outside the female body .

[DapperDinosaur]

So I don't really understand your objections. Is there a chance we could chat about this?

[wamatar]

I love your videos straight to the point
...Going through comments unfortunitly many of them are negative from mostly blindly believers of a myth " Evelotion " .
Keep going strong you have our support 👍

[YancoxD]

Creationist propaganda. You almost got me there lol.

[AbdelalimMelboucy]

so we still havent solved the chicken or egg problem then

[NephilimFree]

The evolution of sexual reproduction is something that Natural Selection should prevent, since it would constitute a tremendous gamble and burden upon the species. NS should instead prevent a great burden on survival from coming into play. The very concept itself actually contradicts evolution theory as well as common sense. The evolution of outrageously complex, specified, corresponding anatomical systems that become necessary for each other for the survival of a species is a problem that cannot be explained by mutation and Natural Selection. It is absurd to believe that such systems could arise by complimentary modifications in both male and female. It simply could not ever happen. For example, the cillia in the human female reproductive system are in fact astonishingly complex, and they are only one tiny part of the entire system. Not even these cillia could possibly evolve by mutation and Natural Selection. It's an absurd thing to believe.

[logofreetv]

Well done. The problem of sexual reproduction requiring to be developed in just one generation is an insurmountable one for evolution as it is contradictory to the overall paradigm - and implausible as well!

[georhodiumgeo]

Ugh! Thats not how any of that works.

You have such a small picture here it's kinda impossible to go over everything.

The first step was cells that combine with other identical cells, then mitosis to split apart again, yes that process works in both ways (this is a well known function of some single cell organisms). This allowed a mixing of DNA not for reproduction but for error correction.

This was effective at correcting the mistakes made from asexual reproduction but was not used in reproduction itself until much later.

Then you get reproduction, then gendered reproduction.

You are still at microscopic organisms and it isn't until the organisms start becoming bigger that you even get to genitalia.

I'll put it another way.

You: "It's impossible to drive from California to New York"

Me: "No it's not, I have a list of directions right here on these sheets"

You: "How the heck can I make 200 turns at the exact same time?"

Me: "No, you start at the first one and then the second one until you have made them all"

You: gets frustrated, throws the papers in the air, and walks off telling me I'm the moron.

[korbendallas]

(Copied from a thread, in case something unfortunate happens to the original.)

TLDR: Do your research. If you plan to refute the foundation of all life sciences, *_do your bloody research._*

Your comment copies the mistakes of the video. In your case that's just sloppy research, in her case it's so basic and so sloppy that there is no excuse. That's no surprise, 99% of creationist video don't deal with evolution, but only with a caricature of evolution. I'll get back to this at the end.

So in order of appearance: The entire thing is a big argument from personal incredulity, in other words "I don't know, so godidit!" My initial response was on point: *AT BEST* a biologist would agree that there is still a gap in our knowledge. That might make science "pretty poor" in your opinion, but it's the best system we got, by a considerable margin.

Her first mistake (and yours) is to assume that evolution created the exclusive use of modern reproductive systems in one step. That's false. It does not slowly manifests itself as false after years of careful study, it's so blatantly false that it features prominently in the second paragraph of her own source. It also appears at 4:05 in her other source, the PBS video. It finally allows me to save time ond completely disregard her third source, the TED video, because that's about genitalia, not sex.

We can see "incomplete" reproductive systems all over the place. The PBS video mentions two examples from the ocean. We can also easily find the "missing link" with many plants, who can reproduce sexually or asexually (offshoots). The PBS video also gives a reason to keep both modes of reproduction, as they can have different advantages in different circumstances. So to drive the point home: At 5:00 she denies that Funisia shows anything but sexually reproducing animals, when their asexual mode of reproduction was made explicit in the PBS video.

Let's look at her handling of the Colegrave paper. I will limit my reading of this paper to a) what's shown in this video and b) the very end of the paper. Why? Well, to make a point: It is a clear demonstration that not even minimal research is necessary to rebut this video.

She starts by quoting the abstract, always a bad idea. The questions posed in the abstracts of scientific papers are regularly answered in the paper itself. In this case, we don't even have to get this far, the very parapraphs she quotes continues: "Recent research is shedding light on the answers to some of these question." The second illuminating quote is from the very end of the paper: "Despite these outstanding issues, it seems that the 'Queen of problems' might be close to abdication."

Both quotes taken together shine a very different light on the paper's conclusion, and make her interpretation more than doubtful. It turns out that biology is progressing, and this direction is no exemption. The paper points that out, and instead of acknowledging that she takes special care to avoid quotes that would make that obvious.

I admit I have a hard time ascribing her selective perception of _her own sources_ to mere sloppyness. Rebuttals of her own claims are not only easy to find, they are in at least one case very hard to avoid. So at best, she is deceiving herself, and by that trying to deceive us.

Two points in conclusion: First, creationists seem to a have a deep misunderstanding about science. The most consequential scientific work ever written is probably the Principia. For more than two centuries it was uncontested, and while its core is superseded for more than a century on top of that, most of its practical findings are still valid. Now, if you had to think of one famous scientist, what name would come to mind? Without any priming, the answer I most often get is Einstein, who is famous exactly for blasting apart this very icon of science. Science is at its heart an iconoclastic endeavour. Students of science don't want to become famous by confirming what's already known, they want to kill the king and usurp the throne, just as Einstein did. If someone would find serious flaws in the theory of evolution, and come up with something better, she would be celebrated in ways we can't even imagine (and swamped with money).

Second, imagine Youtube would present you with a video showing a biologist ranting about Christianity and explaining how bad it is because it forces you to kill a puppy every day. What would your reaction be? Would you point out in a comment that the puppies are usually sedated? Would you discuss whether puppies have a soul and even have the capacity to suffer? Would you debate the damage the puppies could do once they are fully grown?

Or would you merely point out that the entire idea is bonkers, the biologists is completely wrong and he should talk to his friend the thologian before spewing nonsense like this again?

Now you know how we feel.

[gary]

As far as I'm aware, the last time creationism tried to get somewhere in the schools, they lost in court. See Kitzmiller v Dover. Creationism has lost at least 10 times since 1969. Creationists will always give their uninformed opinions, based on religion, but evolution (reality) wins where it matters.

[johnbrinsmead]

That's quite a strawman you've built there

[blownzed]

Ok I'm game. If sexual reproduction didn't evolve how did it get here?

[johnarmagh]

Oh my God, what twaddle.
If you are going to argue against something, using a pathetic straw man argument is not going to make your case.

[NephilimFree]

You pointed out many of the serious issues with sexual reproduction evolution. Well done! Some people miss explaining some of these great problems but you touched upon them, such as that developing sexual reproduction would create a terrible burden for survival which Natural Selection should prevent instead of participate in. Every change in male or female would require a corresponding change in the opposite sex. The likelihood that this could occur because of selection is absurd. Instead, the inability of reproduction should occur almost immediately, and those individuals with the change, even the first one, should not participate in passing on their genes to any offspring, which would eliminate their changes from any imagined evolution! The idea even contradicts evolution theory itself, although you will never hear evolutionists admit this. Instead they invoke magical chances against all odds of unbelievable proportions, then claim that such a thing happened not just a dozen times, but millions of times just to evolve a single biological system! It's a beautiful example of evolution theory refuting itself, but evolutionists pretend they can never see this problem and simply claim that "evolution did it" anyway. They love to talk about how evolution removes changes which create a disadvantage except for when that disadvantage is necessary for evolution. Then it's somehow no longer a problem and becomes the marvelous mystery and genius of evolution that they shy away from clear-cut, detailed discussion of, which you also pointed out about regarding the videos that claim it all happened but refuse to give any details about how it did happen, much less how it even could be possible in anything resembling a step-by-step process!

[asmasana]

Hi Ma, am!!
Ma, am I agree with urs idea about evolution.There are no solid evidences
about evolution but here a big question arises that why this subject is being taught in education institutions if it has no scientific proof🤔