Mamals-I've thought about his for years

Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1483
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Mamals-I've thought about his for years

This mainly applies to mammals , I think.

The male has nipples. Could it be that at some point a didtant ancestor was Asexual. It seems to me that at some time it had to be. The male and female parts split away.

Yes-no?

If yes, when would you suppose that happened, whilst still in the waters or on land.

I have no ideas other then whats stated.

Maybe just when entering the mamal stage, but both would have to have evolved at the same rate-even though being separte. I posed this to the Bio Smurf along time ago, but no answer other then speculations.

I'm reasonably sure there was a split.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1483
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm not

refering to, or thinking of, anything biblical in this case.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12840
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It is absolutely certain

It is absolutely certain that our ancient ancestors were not sexual the way we are (penis and vagina). In fact, the living cells that we are made of aren't sexual. They divide and become two cells. Nothing remotely sexual about that.

Sex only appears in multicellular creatures, and even then it doesn't always happen.

I vaguely recall reading a paper or two about the rise of sex as a method of reproduction on Earth, but I can't recall much in the way of details. I'd recommend you research it if you find it interesting enough.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
as i recall from distant

as i recall from distant memories of high school biology, humans, and perhaps mammals in general, begin developing as females. it's sort of our default. only later in the development is the male element introduced. yes, i'm well aware i haven't used proper terminology at all. anyhow, it may explain male nipples.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1483
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's one thing

I was pondering. (amoung many others). At some time the maleand female split from a single union. But, after they evolve to be compatable at all stages of evolution. In this case, the pair is evolving alond side each other remaining compatable. What's interesting in this regard, wouldn't they evolve each along their own paths and loose simularity. They didn't take seperate evolutionary pathways. If they did they would be drastically different then each other today. What's amazing is, the split creates two seperate persons, each of their own volitions. (personal will). That means that evolution acted the same on both even tho being seperate.

I'm thinking that all life started from one common beginning of a singular biostructure and all life from that beginning goes it's ways to form everything other. I'm looking at everything beginning with a plant, and the plant at some point changing to flesh, and flesh then taking off into each's direction.

I got off on this (again) while sitting under the Oak Tree in my yard to watch the birds and chipmunks. The Oak lets off the male flower after polination and they drop off afterward (because it's spring). So I got to thinking this once again. When contemplating a flower and how they reprodice it seems similer to the same structure as we have for reproduction, but of course more-so basically. The pollin travels down a small tube to set the process in motion. The same with mammals. The sperm travels down a small tube to encounter the egg cell. The structure of both female apparatus is the same. So, I got to comtemplating that our ancestor may have been a plant that changed genetics to cause things to go in our direction. As you can see i'm not up to snuff on biology or evolution, but simularities may mean common ancestor.

How likely is it that a plant evolved to flesh as both work off of DNA. Would the DNA of plants combine with ours in a lab, and if so then all DNA is of the same origin or it wouldn't be possible. That's my thinking and may not be actual processes. It's likely as I understand it that plants came first, or at least after the single cell. If the DNA can be combined then it's likely our ancester was a plant. I find it hard to see that many different things developed on their own in the primeval pool.

At some time the Male and female splitt to form two seperates. That also means all other males and females from bugs to whales.

This is what happens when someone retires and has alot of time to mull.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I was

Old Seer wrote:

I was pondering. (amoung many others). At some time the maleand female split from a single union. But, after they evolve to be compatable at all stages of evolution. In this case, the pair is evolving alond side each other remaining compatable. What's interesting in this regard, wouldn't they evolve each along their own paths and loose simularity. They didn't take seperate evolutionary pathways. If they did they would be drastically different then each other today. What's amazing is, the split creates two seperate persons, each of their own volitions. (personal will). That means that evolution acted the same on both even tho being seperate.

I'm thinking that all life started from one common beginning of a singular biostructure and all life from that beginning goes it's ways to form everything other. I'm looking at everything beginning with a plant, and the plant at some point changing to flesh, and flesh then taking off into each's direction.

I got off on this (again) while sitting under the Oak Tree in my yard to watch the birds and chipmunks. The Oak lets off the male flower after polination and they drop off afterward (because it's spring). So I got to thinking this once again. When contemplating a flower and how they reprodice it seems similer to the same structure as we have for reproduction, but of course more-so basically. The pollin travels down a small tube to set the process in motion. The same with mammals. The sperm travels down a small tube to encounter the egg cell. The structure of both female apparatus is the same. So, I got to comtemplating that our ancestor may have been a plant that changed genetics to cause things to go in our direction. As you can see i'm not up to snuff on biology or evolution, but simularities may mean common ancestor.

How likely is it that a plant evolved to flesh as both work off of DNA. Would the DNA of plants combine with ours in a lab, and if so then all DNA is of the same origin or it wouldn't be possible. That's my thinking and may not be actual processes. It's likely as I understand it that plants came first, or at least after the single cell. If the DNA can be combined then it's likely our ancester was a plant. I find it hard to see that many different things developed on their own in the primeval pool.

At some time the Male and female splitt to form two seperates. That also means all other males and females from bugs to whales.

This is what happens when someone retires and has alot of time to mull.

Chemically, there is no difference between animal and plant DNA. The only differences are the order and the number of chromosomes. Animal DNA can be fused to plant DNA in a lab(or vice versa), we've done it.  The prevailing opinion among people who study it is that all life had a single origin, though there are a few theories that consider multiple starts. The theories involving multiple starts tend to consider plants and animals to have the same ancestors, but attempt to explain the very different makeup of viruses. There was a thread I got pretty deep into researching this topic, I will try to find it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12840
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:I was

Old Seer wrote:

I was pondering. (amoung many others). At some time the maleand female split from a single union. But, after they evolve to be compatable at all stages of evolution. In this case, the pair is evolving alond side each other remaining compatable. What's interesting in this regard, wouldn't they evolve each along their own paths and loose simularity. They didn't take seperate evolutionary pathways. If they did they would be drastically different then each other today. What's amazing is, the split creates two seperate persons, each of their own volitions. (personal will). That means that evolution acted the same on both even tho being seperate.

I'm thinking that all life started from one common beginning of a singular biostructure and all life from that beginning goes it's ways to form everything other. I'm looking at everything beginning with a plant, and the plant at some point changing to flesh, and flesh then taking off into each's direction.

I got off on this (again) while sitting under the Oak Tree in my yard to watch the birds and chipmunks. The Oak lets off the male flower after polination and they drop off afterward (because it's spring). So I got to thinking this once again. When contemplating a flower and how they reprodice it seems similer to the same structure as we have for reproduction, but of course more-so basically. The pollin travels down a small tube to set the process in motion. The same with mammals. The sperm travels down a small tube to encounter the egg cell. The structure of both female apparatus is the same. So, I got to comtemplating that our ancestor may have been a plant that changed genetics to cause things to go in our direction. As you can see i'm not up to snuff on biology or evolution, but simularities may mean common ancestor.

How likely is it that a plant evolved to flesh as both work off of DNA. Would the DNA of plants combine with ours in a lab, and if so then all DNA is of the same origin or it wouldn't be possible. That's my thinking and may not be actual processes. It's likely as I understand it that plants came first, or at least after the single cell. If the DNA can be combined then it's likely our ancester was a plant. I find it hard to see that many different things developed on their own in the primeval pool.

At some time the Male and female splitt to form two seperates. That also means all other males and females from bugs to whales.

This is what happens when someone retires and has alot of time to mull.

Well once you depend on sex for reproduction, you must remain compatible with the opposite sex or go extinct. If any species reliant on sex started to evolve the sexes in incompatible directions, the species would die.

There are significant differences between male and female, in some species more than others. But they are still and will always be the same species. There's definite limits on how different they can be without dying out.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1483
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
That's fairly along

with what I was thinking. I don't see why that different types couldn't develop in the primal pool. maybe that's the difference from normal (as we understand it) to viruses.. maybe they are a different development line. But I think it would be more that life came from one single ancester.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1483
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
It's a given

that if the pair evolved differently life would die out. There's seems to be some kind of link that keeps the pair evolving together. Something is carrying along the the genetic compatibility. Maybe it's a co-habitation thing. If we hang together we evolve together. But that would incorporate something more then just genetics. Something like George Washington stated, we hang together or we hang seperatly.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12840
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Viruses don't reproduce.

Viruses don't reproduce. They are like tiny machines that rewrite the programming of a cell so instead of splitting like a cell normally does, it instead starts building viruses until it bursts and sends them flying in all directions.

Viruses are a key reason we have as yet been unable to define life. By all accepted definitions, a fire is alive and a virus isn't. But viruses are alive, and fire is not. Thus the definition of life is inadequate and simply wrong. It works generally, but it doesn't always work.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1483
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think I figured out

why the male-female didn't evolve in different directions after the split. Any slight change in genetics contributing to evolving would be passed to the offspring. Lets say for instance, a slight evolutionary change in one isn't enough change to matter drastically as evolution is a slow process. The small change being passed to offspring keeps the male-female generations in line with the paired genetics. That means that neither can go off on thier own,  each offspring is in line with changes of both by inheiriting traits from both making the evolving process stable. 

You relayed to me something I didn't know about viruses, in how they multiply. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth