Half your DNA came from your mommy and half from your daddy. So of course males and females will evolve at the same time

I think males and females evolve both together and to a lesser extent, separately. The idea we can only evolve in a singular and connected fashion is not entirely correct. The genome evolves constantly at multiple levels through a process of mutation and genetic drift and gene shuffling through meiosis. While males and females of a species must remain sufficiently connected to procreate, they definitely evolve independently within the constraints of genomic rules. To wit, male peacocks, silverback gorillas, humans, too, have sexual differences that are quite pronounced which serve to enhance procreative success.

Early aquatic Eukaryotes evolved by splitting at the cellular level and in some ways, that is what human sex cells still do. In a moist environment, cells split and recombine with the 23 genes of another individual's sex cells in order to trade resistance to diseases and parasites. It works so well we still function this way and the process is a direct reminder all life starts as one single cell and that we are, at root, colonies of symbiotic single celled organisms. 

The fact procreation is the gatekeeper of any organism's evolution means that any strange evolutionary quirk that might pull the sexes apart is an immediate failure. Only those genomic changes that enhance procreative success pass to the next generation. It's simple and relentless and indubitable. 

That's pretty much his arguments. All arguments from incredulity :

"In order for the human species to be here, a man and a woman would have had to evolve simultaneously and became equalled out at the same time.  (not sure what the hell equaled out means ? ? ) and technically it is too far out to think that we could have both had a male and female come into existence at the same time. The chances of the human race evolving into this intelligence is too far out to have happened without a creator."

It really is TOO dumb to respond to. But, he typed that out so smugly like he had gotten me, so I am gonna have some fun with this one.

 Well, this one would stump me. I would have to say I just don't know. Of course my lack of understanding doesn't mean that a god did it.

If you dig further I would like to understand.

My legacy god-soaked brain got this from the above posts.

It is a natural development that strengthened the species due to the merger of separate chromosomes. The same species started to mutate into complementary sex organs.

and/or different species became sexual partners

and/or it happened at the micro-organism level and continued from there.

Is all this guessing? Is there any real concrete evidence for the development of "viva la difference"?

I will take some time and read CJ articles. Don't want to get whacked with her ruler.  

Your YEC seems to have a misunderstanding of just how gradual the process is. They seem to think that there was one very massive mutation along many lines to create the diverse species. That's simply not what happens. I'll let Professor Farnsworth take over from here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU

Our parents are much like we are, and this is true of every single one of our ancestors. If you take a picture of a bonobo chimp, and of a human of the same right, in a similar position, and run some software on it so that it takes approximately one minute to 'fade' from one picture to the other, you will get a better idea of how the process works (while bonobo chimps are NOT OUR ANCESTORS, nor is any modern primate, they were likely rather similar based on the fossils we have found, and the similarity in our respective genomes). There was likely an ancestor that resembled every single frame (all 1440 frames) of this gradual morphing. That is how males and females evolved simultaneously. Very, slowly! If it happened quickly (suddenly, homo habilis gives birth to homo erectus BAM one shot) then reproductive isolation may be in the way of furthering that lineage. However, since there is no such quick change. 

EDIT - To add to this, whenever you view a drawing of the evolutionary lineage of any species, there are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, or more, generations between EACH one, and the change from parent to offspring is almost always very minor. 

Always remember: when dealing with creationists, talk.origins is your friend: http://www.talkorigins.org/

I'll let you practice searching the archives for this specific creationist claim and its rebuttal.

You may or may not be surprised to learn that this is one of those "Tide comes in, tide goes out", "How the fuck did they manage to misunderstand it to the point that the question literally makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view?"

Basically, the creationist so badly misconstrues evolution that they cannot even form questions of it that have anything at all to do with *actual* evolutionary theory.

To see this clearly, remember that a central part of evolutionary theory is the idea of universal common descent. All life, if you trace it back, came from a single ancestor.

So, if all life comes from a single ancestor, and we are all its descendants, then you can literally walk back on your family tree from where you are right now, back through time right to the origin of the Last Universal Common Ancestor (aka 'LUCA', and incidentally not ADAM). So, if we are *talking about evolutionary theory*, then males and females *must* have shared a common ancestor. So they *must* have *split* from this common ancestor to become males and females.

The creationist still has in his/her mind that all 'kinds' were created separately, and, yeah, maybe there's some 'micro' evolution after that, but fundamentally, each 'kind' was created by God from *nothing*, and certainly not from a common ancestor.

The creationist literally believes in the Adam and Eve story. Yes, I know it sounds retarded, but yes, they literally believe it.

So, creationist sees two saplings growing into two trees, and doesn't think it makes sense that they would at some point combine together to form a 'new kind' of tree from two completely separately created tree 'kinds'. Thus, "How did males and females evolve so perfectly in synch that they could mate? Shouldn't each 'kind' have evolved in a completely unplanned way, so that the odds of being able to combine together at some point are so ridiculously small that it's incredible anyone would actually believe that?"

The creationist fails to understand that the theory of evolution is not about two (or three, or a million) saplings joining together, but instead is about all life today being the outer leaves of a single tree that goes back through time to the origin of life from a single 'seed' cell. (And, in fact, this metaphor I've given is itself an oversimplification in order to save some time and typing effort on my part.)

Male and female sexes of modern species *split* from each other way the fuck back when sexual reproduction first evolved in single celled plants and animals. In fact, I'm not sure of the exact details, but I'm pretty sure it has evolved multiple times more or less independently, although that number is thought to be fairly small (certainly less than twenty; probably closer to five-ish).

From this single-celled sexually reproducing ancestral species, evolution proceeded to introduce more and more differences between the two different (but completely intertwined and interdependent) lineages of sexual reproductive cells. This is called sexual dimorphism, and if the creationist hasn't heard that term (guaranteed), then they forfeit the right to be taken seriously in their self-imposed ignorance.

Basically, creationist, understand evolution before you claim to know it is wrong. Read a book. Watch a video. Wake up to reality.

Also, learn about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect so you can stop proving it repeatedly. (Actually, ironically, by learning about it and subsequently stopping from spewing confident ignorance, they would in fact be adding additional support to it.)

I recall reading a study which suggested that multiple genders was the result of a virus.

People like this are only worth responding to in public, when there's a good sized audience. They are so ridiculously ignorant that you can never convince them, short of isolating them and de-brainwashing them, a finicky and time consuming process at best. Best you can do is illustrate their ignorance for the audience, hence ensuring there is one.

I have read CJ articles.

First Article
http://www.livescience.com/7613-origin-sex-pinned.html

Second Article
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/10/29/63100.htm

The second one one I liked better due to its detail. The second one actually disagrees with the first one on when the sex chromosome developed. The second one was written in 1999 and the first in 2008. So the first one wasn't up on the news. The articles clearly state this is a lot of guess work. I think the second article indicates they looked at fossils with DNA but I think soft tissue surviving 300m years is unlikely, so I don't know what they are actually referring to. Anyone that could address that would be helpful. I know there some soft tissue that can go back to early man but seems quite a stretch to go back 300m years.

I have clipped significant statements from each article below and it prompts me to ask questions rather than satisfies my curiosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

170 million years ago was the earliest salamanders, newts, cryptoclidid & elasmosaurid plesiosaurs, and cladotherian mammals. Saurodpod dinosaurs diversify. The latter was a large animal/dinosaur. I think sexes would have been sorted out by then. The article is not clear what species the sex division occurred just somewhere between 166 and 145 million years. Were the cladotheria mammals hermaphrodites? Did they reproduce asexually?

I don't see any evidence that a human hermaphrodite could impregnate themselves. Is a human hermaphrodite vestigial evidence like a tail, or a genetic aberration, like a third arm?

At what point was everything reproducing asexually? I know that the naughty bits and soft tissue don't fossilize well, so we may never know.

Those plants and animals that are male and female do they all carry the X and Y chromosomes or is there another way to make this separation?

Mammals has always been male/female, right? Even the name "mammal" indicates that.

19 genes are shared between X & Y. Is that confirmation bias? If I matched the X gene to an entirely different chromosome other than Y would I see any matching?

AtheistExtremist wrote about how male/females evolve separately. I think that is through sexual selection (vs natural selection) and I would expect all that separate info would be on the X or Y chromosome. We are the "same" on the other chromosomes.

So the solid stuff IMO is evolution has overwhelming evidence in its favor. Life started from a single cell and asexually split. Now we have male and females. However, we still have organisms that don't need male/female counterparts, probably some plants. Not sure if there is a reptiles or such that can reproduce asexually. There are some species that do swap the male/female sexual roles (not just the stereotypical roles). So this would seem a better way to debate a theist. We can't go back and convincingly prove this is when there was a male and female sex began (They do fit together very well which seems odd to me even now how they arose). But pointing to life and seeing how it doesn't follow strict male/female roles is a way to question "Why would a male God create this kind of confusion?". A theist would probably just go to the devil did it and be satisfied.

I don't think this is a very good spot to debate evolution with a theist. I would say the science isn't in and arguing like it is is not conducive to convincing them. There appears to be way too much guess work and only someone who believes in evolution would find it somewhat satisfying. I am trying to think if there is something on the theist side that is considered by them a similar guess work. Maybe how did Noah get 2 unclean/7 clean animals and fresh water fish on the Ark and how did he maintain them for a year. How did the fresh water come back and how did he place the fish back into all the fresh water lakes? If as a nonbeliever, I debated that to determine whether I believed in Jehovah/Jesus I would get lost in the weeds and remain unconvinced.

Harley,
Have you had any progress with that guy?

Think of it this way, I'm sure there were mutation of both male and female variety that mutated in such a way as to not be compatible with their respective opposite sex.  Those mutated individuals were unable to propagate their DNA and hence didn't evolve.  Only those that remained compatible with the opposite sex were able to continue.

Asking how we can possible have evolved to be compatible with the opposite sex is idiotic.  The short answer is that we couldn't have evolved otherwise.  It's analogous with asking how we could have evolved to breathe Oxygen...  or drink water...  there is no special reason for it, but the alternative is a not very conductive to your continuity.

I won't go through point by point, but I will try to answer a couple of questions.

You all are correct, sex evolution is very complex because it has happened many times in many species, plant and animal.  Animals of all types - from what I have read - evolved sexes once, very early on, and I believe, all animals are related to that one very early ancestor.  Snails can be hermaphroditic - with sex organs at opposite ends of the snail - and they "69" to breed.  (Apologies to the squeamish for being crude and I won't go any further with that idea-image.)  As I stated, aphids are parthenogenic which is not uncommon in the insects.  And you have bees and ants and such which breed sexually one time, then the queen produces daughters until she is ready to breed again when she produces males.  The female apparently "stores" the male offspring until the environmental conditions trigger male births.

I wouldn't have a clue about cladotheria mammals and whether they were hermaphroditic. 

Well, my funky reading habits are helpful here.  I read Freaks by Daniel Pratt Mannix this summer.  He was a sword swallower and personally knew many of the people in the side shows of the 30s - 50s.  The book is very positive and about the people, not their disabilities.  He talked about the hermaphrodites in the shows.  Most of them were "grifters", that is people who faked the disability.  From his descriptions, the fakes would be laughed out of the tent today.  But occasionally, you would see someone who was truly hermaphrodite.

Hermaphrodites are now medically called intersex.  http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm has some information on the various abnormalities.  Note that these people often have hormonal problems, not chromosomal.  Whether they could have children or not would depend, I would imagine since the article does not specifically address it, on the internal organs and whether the external configurations cooperate. 

In humans, multiple sex chromosomes - XXXX, XXY, YY - are rare, but do happen.  Persons with these disorders may have severe deformities and are often or usually sterile.

Hard to answer this question.  Do you mean - without mixing genetic material?  Even single-cell critters manage to mix genetic material at least occasionally.  No naughty bits required.  Mixing/sharing material has likely occurred since the very first replicating molecules.  And I know it occurs in pond algae - we studied them in high school.  The algae strands line up, match cell walls, then the walls open and the chromosomes intermingle.  Exchanging genetic material is so successful because it gives the critter a huge advantage.

Horticulturists call this self-pollinating.  The plants have male and female flowers, the male flowers can and often do pollinate the female flowers.  Some of the female flowers may be cross-pollinated by wind blown or insect carried pollen.

Snails have male organs at one end and female at the other with the appropriate separation of gametes.  I believe this is the strategy by other hemaphroditic organisms, but I have not bothered to look it up.

Yes.

No, 19 genes is not confirmation bias, only random chance during the evolutionary process.  And no, the X chromosome would not match other chromosomes except in very short sections that are called "codons" - a combination of three nucleic acids.  Since there are only 4 nucleic acids, there are a limited number of codons.  However, genes may be - and often are - hundreds of codons long.  So exact matches along the entire length of a gene are extremely uncommon even between paired genes.  The genes on an X are not found on other chromosomes.

That would be correct as far as I know.  Male/female differences are the influence of our X and Y chromosomes rather than any of the other chromosomes.

I agree that debating a theist on any science topic is usually a waste of time and energy.  Most of the questions - not just sex - are extremely complex.  There isn't a sound bite answer.  That is why I usually make disparaging remarks about attending a few classes at a community college or at least doing some reading.  And not just Behe.  Who may be an okay biochemist, but he isn't a cell biologist or an evolutionary biologist.  (If any one wants to know, Behe's last published article in a peer reviewed journal did point out some interesting correlations in type and frequency of mutations.  Got some good support from other biologists/biochemists.  Just to show if good science is done, it doesn't matter what the beliefs are of the person doing the science.)  The creationists usually won't bother to read and learn.  So your suggestion of asking other unanswerable questions is also a good idea.

I believe you would be correct. The religious attempt to pull many unrelated fields into evolution. The only commonality between them really is their incompatibility with most, or perhaps all, holy books. The school of "6 types of evolution" which I've seen spouted by Kent Hovind, and in a Chick tract (which referenced Hovind in its current iteration, but I'm not sure if the original pre-dated Hovind or not, so I'm unsure of the origin of that lie). The first 4 have nothing to do with evolution at all (I'm trying to be brief, so read up if you like. It tries to pull cosmology, abiogenesis, and the formation of heavy elements into the mix). Hovind is a complete nut...and in prison for fraud.

The last 2 in his spiel are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. It's all evolution. Genes mix, and they occasionally mutate. If a sexually reproducing species is completely isolated reproductively, after many generations, they will no longer be able to reproduce with one another if re-united after a large number of generations of genetic change (speciation). It has been observed and documented in a lab that this does happen with, I believe, insects (our own lifespans are a little too short to properly experiment on anything with a longer life-span..but it could be possible in the future to reach a conclusion were experiments to begin now). I fully recommend at least skimming through some info on speciation (as a lot of people find it even difficult to define what divides one species from another). Creationists love to use the word "kind" and state adamantly that each animal reproduces after its "kind". If you can demonstrate that after many generations of isolation from a common ancestor, all of a sudden something is of a different "kind" (unable to reproduce), you have won the argument (whether your opponent admits it or not). You have demonstrated what they refer to as "macro-evolution"....at least that's what they seem to mean by it. 

I don't have the time right now, but I am looking forward to properly reading CJ's whole post after a brief skim-through.