If Evolution is true, then why only females can give birth?
Female mammals give birth. They say species pass on genes to ensure the survival of their kind.....so is it not faster and better if both gender can give birth instead of just one??
If both can give birth, then genes are passed to a faster rate and it could also improve the survival rate of the species.
Many species faced extinction so why didn't they evolved to have male species to give birth?
But this will never happen because God designed only a female can give birth!! (Genesis chapter)
Really, it is sad for someone to ignore the creator Jesus Christ.
If you think evolution is true, then can you explain why only the female gender can reproduce??
85 comments
> They say species pass on genes to ensure the survival of their kind.....so is it not faster and better if both gender can give birth instead of just one?? If both can give birth, then genes are passed to a faster rate and it could also improve the survival rate of the species.
There are haploid organisms. Most are plants, fungi and other not particularly genetically complex things.
If the chromosome copies come from two sources (i.e., aside of the gametes, most of the organism's cells are diploid), there's greater genetic variance; traits that show up in parents inherit to the the offspring. Also, it helps to combat chromosome defects and genetic disease: in haploid organisms, all of the genetic defects appear as is, while diploid organisms have redundant copies of the genes in question. So, diploidy actually improves the organism's chances of survival.
(I know this, and I'm not a biologist. I'm a bloody programmer. I was awake in the biology classes and can use Wikipedia, dammit. Why can't you?)
...because God designed only a female can give birth!!
Did you know male sea horses are the ones who give birth? The female lays her eggs in the male where they are then fertilised, and when small sea horses are ready to pop out, they do so. From the male.
And if we put up this hypothetical scenario where sex gets both the male and the female pregnant, then they would be very helpless during that pregnancy. Have you ever seen a pregnant woman close to giving birth? Now imagine all adults of a species running about like that... in nature.
Yes, I do know that humans don't breed every year, but most animals do.
And if emperor penguins were to do something retarded like have both the males and the females lay eggs, then they'd surely all die out since they are dependant on having two parents take care of one egg. One more egg, and either the parents would die of starvation because noone came to take over the incubation for them, or they'd neglect at least one of the eggs, making both of them laying completely pointless.
In fairness, while he probably has no idea he's done it, he has touched on an issue that puzzled biologists for a long time. The existence of different sexes makes reproduction massively inefficient, and it's only relatively recently that solid evidence has been found for the Red Queen hypothesis (mainly in snails - look into it, it's really awesome). As WWWWolf says, he could have just used wikipedia and worked it out himself, but for a fundie this is actually a pretty intelligent question.
I love the argument "If evolution is true, then why can't we ... ?" The people who use that argument never stop to think that it can easily be changed to "If we're intelligently designed, then why didn't the intelligent designer equip us to ... ?"
Male seahorses give birth, if I remember correctly. So I assume you'll be renouncing your faith now?
Oh, and your post is retarded, kid. Read a fucking book.
Even if we assume that both genders giving birth is optimal (it's not), evolution doesn't always give us an optimal 'design'. For example, the vertibrate eye has a blind spot because the optic nerve passes through the retina, great apes have a defective vitamin C gene, humans often have back problems because of the use of a quadrupedal body plan for bipedal motion, etc. And while some hermaphrodic species have all members being capable of reproduction, most don't because they haven't evolved a successful strategy using that and in some cases (as #1200491 pointed out with his Emperor penguin example) this would be detrimental to a species without a major overhaul to both their environment and their behavior.
@Dicrocoelium- It might have been a decent question, if he had actually asked it as a question, but to him it was a rhetorical question used to set up his preaching of the non-answer of "god did it" and is supposed to be a "Gotcha!" question rather than a legitimate inquiry.
Having only one sex able to bear young appears to be the optimum setup for a number of reasons:
It reduces the number of individuals who are burdened with gestation in half.
It requires a gene shuffling in every offspring, which allows for greater selection of favorable traits.
It encourages male protection drive - to ensure female safety during reproductive span, as well as access to females.
Just my tuppence
1/ First, animal are neglectable fraction of Earth's lifeform. Therefore gender is irrelevant as far as bacteria, Archaea, Fungi are concerned.
2/Second, for reproduction, male do their part to. Have you ever heard of spermatozoid ?
3/Hermaphroditic animal ?
4/ You fail biology forever.
"Really, it is sad for someone to ignore the creator Jesus Christ."
Umm, he's not the creator, God was. Are you sure you're a christian?
"If Evolution is true, then why only females can give birth?"
If Creation is true, then if God can make things come to life (Adam & Eve; Jesus making Lazarus come to life), why can't human males?
Non sequitur, much?
Doctor Whom, I love that kind of question myself, it insinuates the idea that evolution has a plan.
Fair enough, for a creationist, they like to think that everything has a plan but evolution is more of a 'best fit' sort of beast.
One word: Seahorses.
One more word: Earthworms.
And if both genders did develop the ability to give birth, you fundies would be harping about how evil those gay animals are and how it goes against God's plan.
You don't just evolve something because it is needed.
Evolution is ad hoc. It works with what is already there.
And I was under the impression that sea horse males technically birth their children.
For explanations as to why only female mammals give birth and not male mammals, please go to biology class.
...because God designed only a female can give birth!!
Did you know male sea horses are the ones who give birth? The female lays her eggs in the male where they are then fertilised, and when small sea horses are ready to pop out, they do so. From the male.
And if we put up this hypothetical scenario where sex gets both the male and the female pregnant, then they would be very helpless during that pregnancy. Have you ever seen a pregnant woman close to giving birth? Now imagine all adults of a species running about like that... in nature.
Yes, I do know that humans don't breed every year, but most animals do.
And if emperor penguins were to do something retarded like have both the males and the females lay eggs, then they'd surely all die out since they are dependant on having two parents take care of one egg. One more egg, and either the parents would die of starvation because noone came to take over the incubation for them, or they'd neglect at least one of the eggs, making both of them laying completely pointless.
First, some animals can do both - earthworms, for example, each have both sexes (but they don't have sex with themselves - they find another worm and the corresponding parts hook up).
Second, sexual reproduction is favored by evolution because it allows exchanging and mixing genes.
Third, since it takes two to reproduce anyway, there's probably not much advantage to having both able to give birth.
Fourth, with some animals, males are relatively rare, especially when food supplies are short. It wouldn't be an advantage to have males tied up with carrying babies.
@John
"First, some animals can do both - earthworms, for example, each have both sexes (but they don't have sex with themselves - they find another worm and the corresponding parts hook up)."
'Silvio Berlusconi's the sort of man who, if you told him to 'go fuck himself', he'd give it a try.'
-Frankie Boyle
If you think evolution is true, then can you explain why only the female gender can reproduce??
I think evolution is true, but I can't explain why only the female gender can reproduce. No one can. Males also reproduce.
But this will never happen because God designed only a female can give birth!!
So is your argument "evolution is wrong because it isn't smarter than God?" Because if God created life, He obviously didn't think male mammals giving birth was such a hot idea either.
Well, for starters, that's what "gender" means. A lot of species are not gendered at all--snails and worms are hermaphrodites, and most protists and bacteria have no gender or sexual reproduction at all!
Why, it's almost as though sexual reproduction evolved over time , with the DNA donors (male) and incubators (female) becoming gradually more specialized over time!
If you are an adult, then why aren't you able to form complete sentences?
A pregnant female is very vulnerable, and in the latter stages she's ungainly. She needs someone to guard her and help her.
If both can give birth, then both can also die in childbirth. It's more efficient for one male to be able to impregnate many females, than for both sexes to be "occupied" for nine months.
And there are species where the male carry the offspring, actually.
I thought God was the creator, not Jesus.
Easy: you don't put all your eggs in one basket. Males have the sperm-bank and the ejaculating device, females have the incubator and the ovaries. Both are needed and both need to take care of each other.
Oh, and I don't think evolution is "true". It's an established fact, end of story.
Wow, that's a bunch of stupid. Umm, I know that you will not take a biology class because of evilution but you really, really, really need one.
Before you grow up and get married - find a kind person to teach you about sex.
Of course, last but not least, EVOLUTION AND REPRODUCTION DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
@ Doctor Whom - Awesome, never thought to say that.
@ EMT420 - just blew Dr. Pepper out my nose. Thanks.
Because evolution TRIES to optimize, but rarely succeeds. It typically has to settle for "good enough". That said, sexual reproduction actually has the advantage over asexual reproduction in that it allows for far greater genetic variance.
Here's what I want to know: why did your brilliant genius God not think of that? Why didn't HE optimize the situation like that?
reads like a little kid who found proof evolution isn't real.
quite simply, asexual reproduction provides little in the way of genetic variation, which can lead to a species becoming extinct, because it cannot adapt, or just evolving very slowly, because there is no genetic variation.
there are some species who reproduce asexually, but i don't think any of them are complex species. the most complex i believe would be a worm. each successive generation is actually a clone of the previous generation. think about what that does to a species' ability to change as a whole.
Mammals don't work that way. Besides, if guys could give birth, they'd have to have pms and menopause and stuff. I do not know a single man who wishes for these things.
I do know a few transgender people though and that's kind of a different story.
Edit: Wait, I thought Jesus happened /after/ creation happened...Did he create the universe retroactively or what?
Bdelloid rotifers - haven't had sex for 25 million years...
Leopard Slugs - When two leopard slugs want to reproduce. they hang upside down from a thread of mucus, extrude their enormous penises from their heads, and entwine their penises in a long spiral. After they both ejaculate, they both turn up pregnant... Deal with it.
Better stil, watch it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhVi4Z6CjZk
Many species faced extinction so why didn't they evolved to have male species to give birth?
THE MAN IS NOT A SEPARATE SPECIES FROM THE WOMAN. IF THIS WERE THE CASE, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BREED. BECAUSE THEY'D BE SEPARATE SPECIES.
Yeah, I know I'm focusing on the wrong thing here, but I honestly think my brain has passed its stupid quota for the day. Like, just when you think they couldn't get worse, they do. The mind boggles.
EDIT: Ooh, a new level of fail:
Really, it is sad for someone to ignore the creator Jesus Christ.
Dear commenter: please reread this Bible you profess to believe in. I know Jesus Christ is God, but God as God the father is completely different from God as Jesus Christ.
Short version: Jesus. Was. Not. In. Genesis.
Teleology is FAIL, damn it.
Theology fail here too, possibly--I guess the commutative property when applied to a tripartite deity implies that each part is responsible for the activities of each of the others, but odd.
Vocabulary fail, too, since gender is social and not directly to do with whether one can breed.
Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Just go to your local community college and take a simple Biology 101 class, you'll get your answer in the first week.
My FSM, I swear they think they are so smart with these attempts to do a "gotcha" question, only to ask a question a that high schooler would know the answer.
I'm usually not the facepalm type, but...well...
*Facepalm*
You people...it's almost like you are trying to piss off anyone who has an high school knowledge of biology.
It's a bit like asking why only dogs can bark.
There is an interesting question in there (how come two sexes appeared), but it's phrased so badly that it is really just asking why a certain tautology is true.
Basically female and male designate two different reproductive strategies. The former is investing heavily in a few offspring, the latter is investing little in individual offspring but trying to maximize its number. It's only normal that out of this configuration the female would come out as the birthing sex. It's the exceptions that are far more interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy
But I guess it is too much asked for this person to think about this.
@WWWWolf
"(I know this, and I'm not a biologist. I'm a bloody programmer. I was awake in the biology classes and can use Wikipedia, dammit. Why can't you?)"
Lol, I feel the exact same way when I explain stuff about biology to people, and especially about the Wikipedia thing when I explain pretty much anything else to people. But yeah, the fact that I was awake in biology class makes me feel pretty pro when it comes to this sort of thing. I can't imagine what it must be like to be ignorant of what goes on in the reproduction process.
Part 1
1. If Evolution is true, then why only females can give birth?
Your Argument Fails, Exhibit A: There are simpler creatures (bacteria, fungi, lower plants, protozoans, etc.) that can reproduce asexually, i.e. without sexual intercourse. That also means that they don't have genders. So the whole premise of your argument falls flat anyway.
2. Female mammals give birth. They say species pass on genes to ensure the survival of their kind ... If both can give birth, then genes are passed to a faster rate and it could also improve the survival rate of the species.
Your Argument Fails, Exhibit B: The downfall of producing asexually is that no genetic variation arises from that. The less genetic variation within a species/population/what-have-you, the less the chance of survival. Why? Because if some pathogen or other change comes along that doesn't favour a particular trait, and everyone has that trait, then they're all going down; but if there are a bunch of different traits in the population, then only a few are going down. More variation means more chances that at least a few individuals will have the traits necessary for survival.
Part 2
3. Many species faced extinction so why didn't they evolved to have male species to give birth?
But this will never happen because God designed only a female can give birth!! (Genesis chapter)
Your Argument Fails, Exhibit C: Evolution doesn't work with a goal or a grand design in mind. It can't be like, "Oh, this species is going extinct, maybe I should give them the ability to reproduce asexually." Evolution can only act on traits that already exist. The only way a complex species could "evolve" asexual reproduction would be if some sort of mutation made this possible; and such a mutation, or string of mutations, would be extremely unlikely to occur; there are many mechanisms that drive asexual reproduction, which complex organisms do not have.
It would take a very precise mutation, or a very precise string of mutations, to make a complex organism capable of asexual reproduction. It's so unlikely that, as a matter of fact, if complex species were able to asexually reproduce, that would point more towards an intelligent designer than to natural selection.
What I love about these "if evolution is real, then why can't we...?" arguments is that they often present situations that would be more likely under an intelligent designer anyway. They don't realize just how squarely they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Biology 101, because the difference in the genetic makeup makes the possibility of the surviving offsprings even stronger, since they can face more easily the challenges of life. If women and men had kids in the same way, it would mean that they would have exactly the same ways to face the hardships and, if one hardship can destroy one of the individuals, the other will be destroyed too. See?
Some critters contain both male and female in one animal. But without the variations incurred by having two parties participate, then creatures would have a much harder time EVOLVING. Apparently god had that "mix-and-match for the sake of evolution" in mind, d'ya think?
"If Evolution is true, then why only females can give birth?"
image
@SeekerLancer
I had forgotten about that one, now I'm laughing twice as hard.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.