How does science explain the emergence of the two heterogeneous genders of male and female in anthropoids?

Question

I know this is rather simplistic, but what came first: man or woman? Or did they emerge simultaneously since both are required for regeneration? And, how did the first human baby nurture itself into maturity, since it was the first human and there was no other human to care for it? And, where did it come from; I mean, how did its human DNA mutate from a lesser anthropoid? It seems utterly impossible to have done this incredible feat, particularly since this doesn't happen today.

Answer 1

Read patois' answer:  It did not happen to hominids.  It happened a lot longer ago than that.

Give patois best answer!!

Answer 2

I've always believed in evolution from primates/monkeys.

i don't know how to answer your question, there must be an answer, but i don't think i or many others will know.

Answer 3

People say "read a book" because this answer is lengthy enough that it's difficult to explain adequately in this forum. For example, to learn how males and females developed, you should read The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. In a nutshell: there was only one  s*x, it reproduced like bacteria do, by dividing itself. Then some bacteria combined as they reproduced, natural selection resulted, so these had a big advantage over others. When sexually reproducing, it's to an individual's advantage to "cheat" by giving fewer nutrients to the offspring, and  therefore being able to make more offspring. If two "cheaters" combine, the offspring won't have enough nutrients to survive. But if a "cheater" and another, who gives a lot of nutrients to the offspring, combine, then that offspring may have reproductive success. Eventually, this resulted in males ("cheaters" who give little nutrients to offspring) and females ("generous" ones who give a lot of nutrients).

There was no "first" human baby--it was continuous evolution from our ape-like ancestors till today. The DNA mutated via natural mutation and natural selection--the same evolutionary forces that DO happen just  like this, today.

Answer 4

s*x began 3 - 4 billion years ago.  

1. Hot earth.  All water vapor.  No life. http://www.seaes.manchester.ac.uk/resear...

2. 4.4 billion years ago Earth cooled enough for some water vapor to liquefy.  Certain inorganic molecules form organic molecules ( nucleic acid, amino acids, proteinoids, etc.) that formed protocell molecular structures capable of chemically copying themselves.  Proteinoid membranes from pyrite or clay formed cells around the molecular structure capable of replicating itself.  These were called prokaryotic LIFE.

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Astro/Gifs/...

3.  3 billion years ago a common ancestor of all plants / animals / fungus emerged from ongoing adaptation and natural selection.  It was a one celled organism like a bacteria.  A eukaryotic LIFE.  Eukaryotic LIFE continued to branch and differentiate.  s*x, as a part of the ever more sophisticated replication process emerged in some of those single-cell organisms.

4.  s*x emerged as a survival mechanism.  It gives a sexed species greater genetic variation and hybrid vigor, all related to how chromosomes are blended and how they are back ups,  "double -up" and mask the other sets flaws, etc.

5. 2 billion years ago plants and animals (very primitive organisms still) seperated and their last common ancestor died.

6. 1 billion years ago the chordata branch or phylum of life lost its common ancestor.  Humans are in this phylum.

7. 470 million years ago the vertebrates lost their common ancestor.  Humans are vertebrates.

8. 420 million years ago humans parted family trees with fish bloodlines.

9. 370 million years ago we parted company with frog bloodlines.

10. 320 million years ago we parted company with all reptile and bird bloodlines.  Humans are mammals.  We don't lay eggs on the outside of our bodies.

11. 100 million years ago we parted company (evolved differently from) insectivors (modern moles, hedgehogs)

12.  65 million years ago we evolved away from the lines leading to whales, bats, horses cows elephants, etc.

13. 40 million years ago we parted company with lemurid bloodlines.

14. 35 million years ago (approximately) the last common ancestor of anthropoids died and human bloodlines parted company from other anthropoid bloodlines (gorilla, chimpanzees, etc.) http://www.whyevolution.com/skeleton.gif

15. Hominidae, the family in the Animal Kingdom that humans hail down in blood along, contiued to differentiate.

16. Homo, the genus of our bloodline continued to differentiate.

17. Homo sapiens, the species we belong to continued to differentiate.

18.  And, ta da, here we are as a subspecies Homo sapien sapien, and there's been s*x for us in our bloodline through 3 million years of evolution.

Answer 5

The fact that it "seems utterly impossible" to YOU has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Evolution is a fact. There are mountains of evidence.... literally.

The bible is so thin on corroborating evidence, its even questionable whether Jesus and Moses even actually lived.

Answer 6

The two sexes didn't begin 3 or 4 billion years ago but it did begin long before the first vertebrates.  We are not significantly different in that regard from all other mammals.  There is sexual dimorphism (males different than females) in every mammal and virtually all vertebrates.  Humans evolved over time from something different.  There was not an exact point where an ape gave birth to a human.  They just became more and more like us and what is human is an arbitrary line.

Answer 7

Slow evolution over millions of years. The first human was probably the result of a few random mutations that eventually took hold.

Answer 8

Are you trying to suggest that some form of all-knowing, all-powerful supreme being created the first humans, nurtured them and then cast them upon the earth to procreate? If so, I think you might be on to something.

Answer 9

For 'what came first, male or female':

Kondrashov, Alexey S., 1997. Evolutionary genetics of life cycles. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 391-435.

Read it yourself (and its references and their references and so on) if you are going to dismiss any summary anyone takes the trouble to write as "speculation" because you are utterly ignorant of the science behind it and think that scientists are somehow stupid.

As to your further questions, ie. that you have zero, not even a 10 seconds education on evolution, start here (if you have the guts):

Answer 10

Oy.  Where to start.

The asexual creature came first.  After undergoing mutations, it divided into male and female, an evolutionary advantage because it allows for the different combinations of genetics as passed down through offspring.  The offspring, over millions and millions of years and many many many intermediate species and branches, failures, and successes, eventually begats an anthropoid with a brain capable of learning beyond instinct.  Millions of years, genetic variation, and natural selection bring forth a new species, homo sapiens (us).  A human baby did not just pop into existance from no where.  It was an offspring taken care of by its parents.   This took eons.

As for "this doesn't happen today" well DUH.  Evolution of the human scale is not observable by a single generation.  If you want to see evolution in your lifetime, you must look at the microscopic level.  Treatment resistant bacteria are now more and more common, because they have evolved small mutations in their genetics that allow them to survive our medicines.  

Take the time to read an actual biology book to educate yourself on the theory of evolution and basic genetics.

Answer 11

no baby or child ever was able to mature without the help and the guidance of a mature parent to take care of it meaning that the egg did not come first, the chicken was always there, how? by evolution from simplistic creatures to advanced creatures, that is the way it is and any other thought on it would be ignorance

Answer 12

God created them male and female, ...

On the age of the universe, the problem is the red-shift, while true in principle, is a theory when applied to stars.  Stars will show a spectrum.  Some appear to be blue shifted, I stress appear.  Also these waves occur in steps, there are not continuous varieties in the wave lengths.  I am not entirely knowledgeable in this area, but more research should be done.

Good question.

Answer 13

It's possible, just read more books :)

Or at least a wikipedia article.

I'm too lazy to explain it here.

Answer 14

That's why people have religion. Now I am not going to be biased because people need to make their own choices in life but this is one reason why I have turned to religion. People get angry with me when I bring it up but it is a theory just like the big bang theory (which i do think is kind of funny.) I am not saying to take this path but maybe look into it, because it does have some answers to questions science can't answer, just as science has answers that religion can't answer. But has anybody thought that maybe the two co-inside with each other? Just throwing that up lol

- iBob