Re: A Question about Sex
- From: Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Inez wrote:
The contributions of experts are certainly appreciated. I will try to
be as clear as possible and ask you to avoid unnecessarily
complicating the question. Perhaps we can drop considerations of
sexual reproduction as such for now and concentrate on the origin of a
first generation of sexually differentiated adults (whatever criteria
you think reasonable in establishing the existence of that state).
Mr. Norman giave you quite a bit of information which you dissmissed
with a quick "not what I'm looking for" and no hint as to where he'd
missed his mark. Can you not go back and tighten your question up a
bit for us?
Tell me the instance you're referring to, and I'll see what I can do.
Why do you think the question of sexual differentiation can be
seperated from considerations of sexual reproduction? Don't you think
it's likely that issues of sexual reproduction are what drove sexual
differentiation?
They're certainly connected. However, an explanation of one does not
necessarily constitute an explanation of both, and the question in the
OP asks for causes in terms of natural selection, not a mere narrative
sequence of resulting features.
.
- References:
- A Question about Sex
- From: Treus
- Re: A Question about Sex
- From: John Harshman
- Re: A Question about Sex
- From: Treus
- Re: A Question about Sex
- From: r norman
- Re: A Question about Sex
- From: Treus
- Re: A Question about Sex
- From: Inez
- A Question about Sex
- Prev by Date: Re: Important evolution question with immense religious implications
- Next by Date: In the News: Intelligent Design Group Identifies Failures of Darwinism
- Previous by thread: Re: A Question about Sex
- Next by thread: Re: A Question about Sex
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|