Starting to get into evolution... have a question?

[Brian O'Conner]

Concerning sexual reproduction, Did both male and females evolve at exactly the same time or at different times?

So lets say the female evolved 100,000 before male how would they procreate? I mean biologically wouldn't they be too different to conceive?

If it was a simultaneous evolution how rare would that be or what I'm thinking is there was some outside event to cause them to evolve at the same time?

Everything else on I'm fine on but I just can't find a good explanation on how it works

 

[newarkhiphop]

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Robbie3000]

They evolve at the same time. Both sexes seek out a mate with a desirable trait. Overtime they become a new species.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

But what came first, the chicken or the egg.

 

[newarkhiphop]

But what came first, the chicken or the egg.

a chicken that made its own eggs.

 

[Brian O'Conner]

They evolve at the same time. Both sexes seek out a mate with a desirable trait. Overtime they become a new species.

Can you expand on that?

If the primate ancestor gave birth to a human, does that human mate with primates? I thought that was impossible. How do they find other humans? wouldn't its parent look at the new species as deformed or foreign thus abandon it? I'm trying to wrap my head around this

 

[Robbie3000]

Can you expand on that?

If the primate ancestor gave birth to a human, does that human mate with primates? I thought that was impossible. How do they find other humans? wouldn't its parent look at the new species as deformed or foreign thus abandon it? I'm trying to wrap my head around this

I renounce my acceptance of the theory of Evolution. I can't refute this logic. Thanks friend.

 

[daze23]

If the primate ancestor gave birth to a human...

you can't look at it like that. it was a very slow changes that happened many generations. not a big change that happened over 1 generation

 

[Serious]

 

[Shogun]

Scientists are still trying to fill in some of the gaps. We think we have a solid understanding now, but it seems inevitable that a new discovery will be made that alters our understanding.

sometimes you just gotta accept the fact that we'll never fully understand things that took place hundreds of thousands of years ago.



unless the flux capacitor really works

 

[daze23]

Scientists are still trying to fill in some of the gaps. We think we have a solid understanding now, but it seems inevitable that a new discovery will be made that alters our understanding.

sometimes you just gotta accept the fact that we'll never fully understand things that took place hundreds of thousands of years ago.

what? pretty much every "new discovery" bolsters our understanding

and there's plenty of evidence. you don't gotta just "accept" anything

 

[Shogun]

what? pretty much every "new discovery" bolsters our understanding

When did I say that?

and there's plenty of evidence. you don't gotta just "accept" anything

So you're under the impression that you have an exact understanding of events that took place hundreds of thousand of years ago?

any scientist worth a damn would disagree with you

 

[daze23]

When did I say that?

So you're under the impression that you have an exact understanding of events that took place hundreds of thousand of years ago?

any scientist worth a damn would disagree with you

no, my point was that you don't "just gotta accept" anything. especially when we're talking about a concept, and not the exact details

I understand you want to move the bar to "fully understanding" something. but that's a moot point for me, because I can play the semantics game and say we can never "fully understand" anything

 

[Shogun]

no, my point was that you don't "just gotta accept" anything. especially when we're talking about a concept, and not the exact details

I understand you want to move the bar to "fully understanding" something. but that's a moot point for me, because I can play the semantics game and say we can never "fully understand" anything

why you so mad?

I disagree with you, kick rocks breh.

 

[daze23]

why you so mad?

I disagree with you, kick rocks breh.

You’ve Lost Your Temper So I Don’t Have To Listen To You Anymore

This one is particularly effective because it really pushes home a sense of futility and hopelessness to the Marginalised Person™. Remember they should never get the impression they can win one of these arguments, because you should be consistently implying that there was never anything to argue over to begin with.

If you’ve been following the steps correctly so far, by this point any reasonable person is going to be feeling pretty angry. This anger could lead to them being more aggressive and abrasive. The Marginalised Person™ has possibly even decided that you’re simply too obnoxious to waste patience on and is venting their sense of frustration.

This is when you whip this step out!

You can use it to disregard everything they’ve said to you and just not deal with the issue, in particular ignoring your prior behaviour that led to the anger. Conventions of social conduct hold civil discourse as the ideal at all times. When people get angry, it gives you a convenient “out” without having to concede to any of their objections or acknowledge their pain.

Furthermore, with this one you can make it seem as though you were ready and willing to listen, but then they ruined it. This way you can leave them with the sense that if only they’d been a good little Marginalised Person™ and toed the line, then they may have won someone over to the cause!

It just adds a particular distaste to the whole affair that no derailing should be without!

@88m3