If only 1 egg cell is present for fertilization, then the output of the system must necessarily be 1 in number(i.e. 1 sperm cell + 1 egg cell = 1 zygote). Now, if we calculate the efficiency using numbers only, the system appears inefficient in that 500 million sperm cells were put in to get only one human being. But that is just like saying the process of planting maize is inefficient, since you may put in 15 seeds and get one plant.

What if we factor in their complexities? If the complexity of a mature sperm cell can be quantified, and termed X, you can imagine the magnitude of the complexity of a mature human being in terms of multiples of X. Factor that in and see if the system is still inefficient.

I say, therefore, that doing away with 500 million mature sperm cells to get one mature human being(composed of tens of trillions of cells) is not wasteful at all.

Sorry the answer is coming in fragments. That's the best I can do for now.

Bottom line is this: The human reproductive system is so inefficient that we eject 500,000,000 sperm cells to compete for 1 egg. If this was designed, it is the most underwhelming piece of engineering ever conceived. Such a designer, especially if marketed as omnipotent and omniscient, deserves not praise, but ridicule!

This statement seems to be ignorant of the fact that of the 500 million sperm cells released, only a handful get to the fallopian tube. The acidity of the vagina(which protects it from potential infections) kills many of the sperm cells, others get lost in the female reproductive tract. Others still are killed by the WBCs in the uterus which see the sperm cells as invaders. When the lucky ones locate the fallopian tube, they are first capacitated(in the isthmus) and then begin to make their way to the ampulla. Then again, in the ampulla, they must survive long enough to meet an egg. Can only one sperm beat all the odds to fertilize the egg? Can 10 million, for that matter?

DoctorAlien:


This statement seems to be ignorant of the fact that of the 500 million sperm cells released, only a handful get to the fallopian tube. The acidity of the vagina(which protects it from potential infections) kills many of the sperm cells, others get lost in the female reproductive tract. Others still are killed by the WBCs in the uterus which see the sperm cells as invaders. When the lucky ones locate the fallopian tube, they are first capacitated(in the isthmus) and then begin to make their way to the ampulla. Then again, in the ampulla, they must survive long enough to meet an egg. Can only one sperm beat all the odds to fertilize the egg? Can 10 million, for that matter?

It looks inefficient except if it was a design to filter off weak sperm cells especially if mutation is inevitable.

But shouldn't we also look at the Padlock and Key Phenomenon? The fact that a padlock which is different from a key perform a useful desirable function should indicate a design. Look at the Biological Tool for conception and tell me design is not a inclusive.

How many sperms are needed for conception? One or two. If there was no sexual activity, what benefit is the 300million minus one sperms. From the definition of waste (in this sense), we can determine efficiency/inefficiency.

DoctorAlien:
That is merely what you see as designed, which isn't true. One can also claim that design should produce a baby boy and a baby girl with each childbirth. Merely opinions.

First of all, it is disingenuous to quote me out of context. For full disclosure, here's what I wrote in context:

AgentOfAllah:

Your argument would make sense if it wasn't god that designed the whole process. I'm pretty sure a master designer should be able to make reproduction efficient enough that 1 sperm cell easily fertilises an egg cell without having to waste 499,999,999 cells.

Now, in its proper context, you will see that what is implied is that any designed process must be evaluated based on the function it promises to serve. If you believe sperms are purposefully designed, then you must also define the purpose for which they have been so designed. For all intents, this purpose is to fertilise eggs. So, the fact that 499,999,999 sperm cells will die out of 500,000,000 without fulfilling their promise is a functional observation not a whimsical opinion. For you to prove my evaluation wrong, you must show that the dead sperms served some purpose that necessitated their existence in the first place.

The potential of each sperm cell to fertilize the egg does not bear in calculating the efficiency of the system.

What do you think is the definition of efficiency?

Your definition of the true efficiency, E, as "the number of successfully fertilized eggs/number of ejected sperms" is a funny play of words. Okay, let's do it like this:

successfully fertilized egg = human being = ~37 trillion cells.

Efficiency, E = (37 000 000 000 000/500 000 000) x 100%.

There you have your efficiency.

Jeez! This is ridiculous! Are you serious?? You have several conceptual problems here, my friend. First of all, a sperm does not contribute a single cell to the developing zygote, nor does it contribute energetically to the process of cell division. All of this energy comes from the mother's yolk sac; an attached enclosure of nutrients. So, the 37 trillion cells have nothing to do with the sperm.

Now, back to efficiency. Efficiency is defined as the useful work per quantity of energy. The useful work of a sperm ends the moment fertilisation is over. At that point, that sperm ceases to exist. As such, the efficiency here, let's call it ejaculation efficiency, is a measure of how many sperms perform useful work, compared to how many sperms were ejected to perform that work. Clearly then, our efficiency is a function of:
(1) The act of fertilisation (useful work), and
(2) Number of ejected sperms (each being a quantum of energy).

DoctorAlien:
If only 1 egg cell is present for fertilization, then the output of the system must necessarily be 1 in number(i.e. 1 sperm cell + 1 egg cell = 1 zygote). Now, if we calculate the efficiency using numbers only, the system appears inefficient in that 500 million sperm cells were put in to get only one human being. But that is just like saying the process of planting maize is inefficient, since you may put in 15 seeds and get one plant.

What if we factor in their complexities? If the complexity of a mature sperm cell can be quantified, and termed X, you can imagine the magnitude of the complexity of a mature human being in terms of multiples of X. Factor that in and see if the system is still inefficient.

I say, therefore, that doing away with 500 million mature sperm cells to get one mature human being(composed of tens of trillions of cells) is not wasteful at all.

Sorry the answer is coming in fragments. That's the best I can do for now.

You don't understand the meaning of efficiency. Please read my response to your preceding comment.

DoctorAlien:

This statement seems to be ignorant of the fact that of the 500 million sperm cells released, only a handful get to the fallopian tube. The acidity of the vagina(which protects it from potential infections) kills many of the sperm cells, others get lost in the female reproductive tract. Others still are killed by the WBCs in the uterus which see the sperm cells as invaders. When the lucky ones locate the fallopian tube, they are first capacitated(in the isthmus) and then begin to make their way to the ampulla. Then again, in the ampulla, they must survive long enough to meet an egg. Can only one sperm beat all the odds to fertilize the egg? Can 10 million, for that matter?

This is diversionary, and does not change anything. Allow me to paint the picture for you again: We are to understand that this system was wholly designed and executed by an infinitely brilliant creator. It speaks to the competency of this creator, that humans, with their limited intelligence, have been able to develop systems that can discriminate between, and sort different types of sperm cells, with > 85% efficiency, yet this supposedly brilliant entity is unable to create the female reproductive tract to discriminate between useful sperm cells and hostile cells. Can you imagine that? Human brilliance is ripe enough to enable us preferentially select zygote gender, meanwhile, an infinitely brilliant creator has to compensate for poor design by forcing the testes to manufacture 100's of millions more cells than is actually required per fertilisation event.

AgentOfAllah,

A sperm contributes the haploid number of chromosomes to the zygote. Indeed, the 500 million sperm cells in question can be seen as 500 million sets of the haploid number of chromosomes.

Contrary to your claim, the 37 trillion cells have everything to do with the sperm. Without the sperm cell contributing its haploid number of chromosomes, the 37 trillion cells won't be.

Arguing along the same line, the key word here is "mature". Mature, man. We did away with 500 million cells which have undergone full development(and can no longer develop further) to get what? A single cell(zygote). What if we allow the single cell(zygote) undergo full development? We have 37 trillion cells.

Very efficient, man.

AgentOfAllah,

The sperm technically does not "cease to exist", as its haploid number of chromosomes(which is its functional essence) can be found in the zygote.

I disagree with your claim that the useful work of a sperm cell ends immediately fertilization is over. Indeed, fertilization is simply fusing two sets of the haploid number of chromosomes(one from the sperm and one from the egg) to form a diploid number of chromosomes(zygote). The haploid number of chromosomes which the sperm cell contributes to the zygote continues to do "useful work" in participating in the process of replication. I say, therefore, that a sperm cell exists for the chromosomes contained in its head to replicate in union with the chromosomes of an egg cell. The work continues till we have 37 trillion cells.

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

A sperm contributes the haploid number of chromosomes to the zygote. Indeed, the 500 million sperm cells in question can be seen as 500 million sets of the haploid number of chromosomes.

Contrary to your claim, the 37 trillion cells have everything to do with the sperm. Without the sperm cell contributing its haploid number of chromosomes, the 37 trillion cells won't be.

Arguing along the same line, the key word here is "mature". Mature, man. We did away with 500 million cells which have undergone full development(and can no longer develop further) to get what? A single cell(zygote). What if we allow the single cell(zygote) undergo full development? We have 37 trillion cells.

Very efficient, man.

So, I imagine it's these chromosomes that power the evolution of the zygote, abi?

DoctorAlien:
AgentOfAllah,

The sperm technically does not "cease to exist", as its haploid number of chromosomes(which is its functional essence) can be found in the zygote.

I disagree with your claim that the useful work of a sperm cell ends immediately fertilization is over. Indeed, fertilization is simply fusing two sets of the haploid number of chromosomes(one from the sperm and one from the egg) to form a diploid number of chromosomes(zygote). The haploid number of chromosomes which the sperm cell contributes to the zygote continues to do "useful work" in participating in the process of replication. The work continues till we have 37 trillion cells.

Abeg komot dia! I prefer to stick with the biological definition of a sperm, not this your nyama-nyama redefinition that seeks to misattribute energy from other phenomena to an all-powerful sperm cell.

I will only accept your redefinition on 2 conditions:

(1) You have to accept that it is applicable to only you.
(2) You also have to accept that half of your brain is sperm cells.

Reproduction is actually one of the strong points of evolution. You can trace the increase in complexity of reproductive systems from lower organisms to higher ones with similarities shown in their processes. Irreducible complexity, as exemplified by you describing perfect ovaries in the human female, has been debunked over and over again.

Seun:

Sexual reproduction started long before we came into the picture. All creatures that reproduce sexually such as humans, monkeys, rats, insects, and maybe even plants, inherited the ability to reproduce sexually from a very primitive common ancestor. Prior to that, our ancestors reproduced by cloning themselves, like most microbes do today. Some of them developed the ability to exchange DNA fragments in order to gain useful traits from each other, e..g the ability to process new types of food, as many microbes are capable of today. This DNA exchange process got better and better and became what is known today as sexual reproduction. Over time, our primitive ancestors lost the ability to clone themselves and became completely dependent on sexual reproduction. We (people, spiders, & beans) just inherited it.

The fact that the sperm and eggs of human beings are compatible isn't remarkable since we would not be here otherwise. The interesting thing is that the sperm and eggs of species that have a common ancestor can cease to be compatible with each other over time. This is part of what is known as "speciation" and it's the reason why nature is so diverse. Without speciation there would be very few distinct species.

My answer to your question based on my current knowledge. For better info, go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction

Seun

I would like to discuss something with you.

Quote me when you see this

Narldon:

Seu
I would like to discuss something with you.
Quote me when you see this

Loooooool, I bend if he quote you