• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Fish were the first to fuck

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Study indicates fish were the first to fuck. I wonder whether other sea creatures like sotong performed these sexual acts then too?

Cheers!

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2014-10/20/c_133727743.htm

Ancient fish first to have sex: study

English.news.cn 2014-10-20 08:14:54


SYDNEY, Oct. 20 (Xinhua) -- Scientists have discovered the origins of sex through the study of ancient fish fossils, Nature magazine reported on Monday.
A team led by Australian palaeontologist John Long, from Flinders University in Adelaide, has discovered the time when sexual intercourse developed as a method of reproduction in 430 million-year-old armoured fishes called antiarch placoderms.
Fossils of these creatures show they were the first animals to develop specific male and female genitalia, allowing them to have internal sex. Before fishes developed sex organs both males and females shed their gametes in open water to fertilise.
Long said the sex organ of male antiarch placoderms was two big L-shaped claspers that were inserted into the female's tiny paired genital plates.
"When you look at the shape of these structures they can't possibly do anything in a missionary position," Long told Fairfax Media.
"The only way possible they can do it is sideways, square dance style, with their little arms entangled."
Long's team focused on newly discovered fossils, which suggested the sex act evolved much earlier than first believed.
"This is not just about bony structures on these fish, it's about the evolution of behaviour, of when sex first became fun," Long said.
"Why would something develop these big bony clasper things and place them inside a female unless they enjoyed the act."
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
That's the problem with evolution. Why I do not believe in evolution is the time dilemma.
So, the fish has sex organs...........but did it happen in one generation? If it does, then evolution
should fall apart, because evolution takes generations to evolve. But if it takes longer than a generation,
then the fish would become extinct, since it has not developed fully its sex organs.

The whole theory of evolution does not add up.

The following videos seem to prove Darwin's evolution theory, but actually it does not. Same dilemma, but even more complex, as it concerns 2 disparate organisms......one a moth, the other an orchid. The timeframe dillemma comes into play again. Did it take one generation for the moth to grow such a long tongue and did it take the same time for the flower such a long receptacle? And the next question to ask is why would a flower limits its pollination strategy to suit such a moth. If the moth becomes extinct, the flower will become extinct too. This is so not darwinian.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/OMVN1EWxfAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/iMz6lApJgu4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Top