Were Adam and Eve ever even married?

[SGOS]

In that case, both Adam and Eve had the same genetic makeup - meaning they both had XY sex Chromosomes, since Adam came first.
...

They didn't have chromosomes back then.  They were just like modeling clay with life.  Chromosomes didn't arrive until early in the 20th century, or was that DNA?  Whatever; Adam and Eve didn't have DNA either.

[PilatesQuestion]

@Fidel_Castronaut: I am posing a philosophical question. I'm not very good with science, you see.

[Mermaid]

I'm just posing a philosophical question as to why male and female creatures exist as opposed to only one gender.

Because that was the form of reproducing that survived.
That is how natural selection works.
To put it incredibly simply.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

So why don't we all asexually reproduce?

Most likely because once you get above the level of bacteria, asexual reproduction slows down adaptation. (Bacteria are so small they can swap DNA directly.) Creatures that began reproducing sexually brought this exchange of information back into play; this way, if some offspring were ill-adapted to a changing environment, others might be sufficiently different to carry on.

As for why whiptail lizards went back to a semi-asexual system, I couldn't tell you until I decide to do more research.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

@Fidel_Castronaut: I am posing a philosophical question. I'm not very good with science, you see.

So why are you responding with incredulity when I and other posters direct you to the evidence that answers your questions?

"I don't know what I think of art but I hate it". It's disingenuous.

[ApostateLois]

Why males and females? Why not one gender that can produce offspring asexually or something?

There are loads of creatures that do reproduce this way, and not all of them are of the more primitive varieties. A female komodo dragon can lay eggs without ever having access to a male lizard. //http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/dec/21/uknews As for "Why male and female?" The question is intriguing, but difficult to answer. We don't have any other life-covered worlds for comparison, so it is hard to answer questions of the "why X instead of Z?" variety. It would be nice if we could explore a planet where asexual reproduction is the norm, and compare its evolutionary history to our own to see how, where, and why they differed. But this will probably never happen.

[Colanth]

@Fidel_Castronaut: I am posing a philosophical question. I'm not very good with science, you see.

Simple (and terribly overly simplistic) explanation of evolution (and, yes, it's a tuatology):

What works tends to continue to work and what doesn't work tends to stop.

IOW, once sex (or any attribute) has evolved (by whatever means, and there are many), if it works better - for that particular species, in that particular environment, at that particular time - it tends to increase as a trait carried by a larger proportion of the species over generations.

For instance, while many plants reproduce sexually (pollen-carriers like bees carry pollen from one plant to another), some plants still reproduce asexually, because for THAT species asexual reproduction costs less.  ("Cost" in this case is how much of the energy of living the individual has to "pay" for the characteristic and how much that prevents it from investing that cost into other characteristics.)  If you're really interested in becoming better with this particular science, Dawkins' "Greatest Show on Earth" explains evolution pretty well for someone who isn't a biologist.  (And it's pretty interesting reading for someone who already knows how evolution works.)

BTW, evolution is usually baby steps.  A dandelion seed doesn't grow into a monkey.  The first "sexual" organism could also reproduce asexually.  Its offspring were all capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction.  (This makes the Christian question "who did it mate with" trivial.)  Since most plants still are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction (many plants produce their sexual parts at different times, but you can still fertilize a plant with its own pollen), and the original sexual ancestor is the ancestor of plants as well as animals, we know that the original sexual ancestor was capable of both.

All of this holds true for many questions about evolution.  What works, works, is the way I phrase it for those who understand evolution.  It explains many, many things.  (Why men have nipples and women have orgasms, for example, or why women still have breasts even though we don't [most of us] live in extreme heat, or need fat stored for famine.  The overwhelming bias toward right-handedness.  And religion.)

[Colanth]

As for "Why male and female?" The question is intriguing, but difficult to answer. We don't have any other life-covered worlds for comparison

We have ours, Lois, so we know the benefits of asexual reproduction and those of sexual reproduction.  The only real question is the exact mechanism by which sex arose.  (I mean that on a molecular level.)  Why it continued in a lot of species (not most - the vast majority of biomass on Earth reproduces asexually)?  Because it gave those species overwhelming advantages.

[PilatesQuestion]

@Fidel_Castronaut: I am posing a philosophical question. I'm not very good with science, you see.

So why are you responding with incredulity when I and other posters direct you to the evidence that answers your questions?

"I don't know what I think of art but I hate it". It's disingenuous.

I never said I hated science at all. It's just not my cup of tea, so to speak.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

@Fidel_Castronaut: I am posing a philosophical question. I'm not very good with science, you see.

So why are you responding with incredulity when I and other posters direct you to the evidence that answers your questions?

"I don't know what I think of art but I hate it". It's disingenuous.

I never said I hated science at all. It's just not my cup of tea, so to speak.

Well, to be honest, whether it's your cup of tea or not is kind of irrelevant.

You began by asking 'scientific' questions about scientific theories and reality or perceptions thereof. To quote:

Could someone refresh my memory of where humanity's ancestor came from, according to Darwinism? Thanks! :-D

&

So how did the first Homo figure out how to reproduce?

There's no other way to explain said reality that has evidence backing it up other than the scientific method. My accusation of incredulity on your part stems from the fact that, when others posters respond to your questions with the rudiments of an explanation rooted in scientific observation, you don't offer any opinion on it, rather respond with a further question that bares little relevance to the prior one.

Maybe this was intentional, maybe it wasn't. But you can't start by posing a scientific question then move the goalposts onto talking about a philosophical question instead when non was posed.

If you want to talk about the philosophy of the scientific method, or on the numerous theories you are clearly thinking about, then do so. If you want to learn more about the theory of evolution and how it explains how life evolved and continues to evolve, then try and do some of the learning yourself instead of asking anonymous goons on an internet forum.

Like I said before, the internet is here, and it's your friend. Start on WIKI, and move onto more advanced literature if you take an interest. Hell, look at some of the bibliographies on WIKI for articles and books written by people who study it, and go from there.

Your current stance, as above, is that you think evolution is bogus, hence why you asking questions about is equally bogus and disingenuous.