3 ms·

>you missed just a small detail No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproducti

by araneae 16y ago

>you missed just a small detail No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproduction, and only reproduced asexually, there would not be two sexes. If something like two sexes arose in a species (i.e. one that is good at math and one that was good at cooking), it would speciate, because each "sex" would just keep changing individually; evolution is a chaotic process. Sexes only exist where there is sexual reproduction. The question of why two sexes exist is absolutely about why sexual reproduction exists; two sexes exist BECAUSE sexual reproduction exists, and sexual reproduction exists BECAUSE it confers some evolutionary advantage. In fact, your confusion about this connection actually illustrates why you argument is wrong. IF it were possible for a species to evolve to be "strong" AND division of skills produced produced "strength" THEN you would expect to see asexual species with "sexes." But you don't. >thank you. That clearly settles our discussion why women haven't been successful You made a completely fallacious argument as some sort of absurd appeal to the naturalistic as evidence of your claim. Showing that the claim is blatantly false repudiates that claim, so it's relevant to our discussion. I'm honestly flabbergasted that you would say something like "I'm right because it's natural" when you clearly have a extremely poor understanding of nature. >her mother demonstrated a level of rationality no man can even dream to achieve Apparently your version of rational discourse is to respond to a claim that repudiates your claim (women were, in fact, actively discouraged from doing math) by insulting women. I rest my case.

VladRussian 16y ago
>No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproduction, and only reproduced asexually, there would not be two sexes. If something like two sexes arose in a species (i.e. one that is good at math and one that was good at cooking), it would speciate, because each "sex" would just keep changing individually; evolution is a chaotic process. Sexes only exist where there is sexual reproduction. The question of why two sexes exist is absolutely about why sexual reproduction exists; two sexes exist BECAUSE sexual reproduction exists, and sexual reproduction exists BECAUSE it confers some evolutionary advantage. your post again confirms my point. You're very good a "housekeeping" of facts, yet you miss the ability to analytically transcend beyond the mere set of facts. The sexual reproduction is the _mean_ of keeping 2 sexes from speciating, and not a _goal_ of the 2 sex existence. The 2 sex specialization inside 1 species is what confers primary evolutionary advantage. >IF it were possible for a species to evolve to be "strong" AND division of skills produced produced "strength" THEN you would expect to see asexual species with "sexes." But you don't. because without sexual reproduction the speciating happens. Sexual reproduction is a necessary mean for keeping of (and not a goal of development of) specialization without triggering speciating.
- araneae 16y ago
  >The sexual reproduction is the _mean_ of keeping 2 sexes from speciating, and not a _goal_ of the 2 sex existence. So your hypothesis of why sexual reproduction exists is to prevent speciation. Tell that to an evolutionary biologist and they will laugh in your face. Wait... you already did that. I'm laughing. If you're actually interested in this topic, you can read the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproductio... But of course, you're not interested. You have something invested in the idea that men and women have different skills, so you invented your silly theory that evolution made men and women specialize in different spheres because it made the species stronger. And you kept on following the trajectory of the argument until it brought us to this absurdity. The irony is that if you actually understood biology, you could easily make an appeal to the natural without inventing this dumb theory. You could have mentioned that males in many species develop specialized traits in order to attract females; human males could have such traits. In Belig's ground squirrels, only the males outbreed, and as such are the only ones that spend extensive time outside of burrows. Consequently they have superior navigation skills to the females who never leave their burrows. A difference like this could be responsible for differences in male and female human abilities. And there are a million more such valid arguments. But you did what most people did. You rationalized. You had an opinion, and then you invented something to support it. Sadly, you knew almost no biology. If you did, you wouldn't have missed the basic principle of the theory of natural selection: the variants which propagate themselves the most are the ones that you see go to fixation. There is nothing that drives a species to be strong; rather, individuals that are strong reproduce themselves. Your basic problem is that you're thinking about evolution tautologically. Evolution can't predict that if one species turned into two, then both species would die out, so therefore it must develop sexual reproduction. Whatever drove those two species to speciate would still drive them to speciate. And then they would go extinct. A lot of species go extinct. Your theory requires that sexual reproduction emerges completely independently of an evolutionary pressure- which is ridiculously improbable- and then continue to exist even though it confers no advantage. This is absurd for any number of reasons, not least of which is that an asexual organism can produce 2x the number of copies of itself as a sexual organism. (When sexual organisms reproduce, only half of their genes get passed onto their offspring; this is hugely inefficient.)

by araneae 16y ago

VladRussian 16y ago

>No, I did not. The existence of two sexes is only because of sexual reproduction. If organisms did not have sexual reproduction, and only reproduced asexually, there would not be two sexes. If something like two sexes arose in a species (i.e. one that is good at math and one that was good at cooking), it would speciate, because each "sex" would just keep changing individually; evolution is a chaotic process. Sexes only exist where there is sexual reproduction. The question of why two sexes exist is absolutely about why sexual reproduction exists; two sexes exist BECAUSE sexual reproduction exists, and sexual reproduction exists BECAUSE it confers some evolutionary advantage. your post again confirms my point. You're very good a "housekeeping" of facts, yet you miss the ability to analytically transcend beyond the mere set of facts. The sexual reproduction is the _mean_ of keeping 2 sexes from speciating, and not a _goal_ of the 2 sex existence. The 2 sex specialization inside 1 species is what confers primary evolutionary advantage. >IF it were possible for a species to evolve to be "strong" AND division of skills produced produced "strength" THEN you would expect to see asexual species with "sexes." But you don't. because without sexual reproduction the speciating happens. Sexual reproduction is a necessary mean for keeping of (and not a goal of development of) specialization without triggering speciating.

araneae 16y ago
>The sexual reproduction is the _mean_ of keeping 2 sexes from speciating, and not a _goal_ of the 2 sex existence. So your hypothesis of why sexual reproduction exists is to prevent speciation. Tell that to an evolutionary biologist and they will laugh in your face. Wait... you already did that. I'm laughing. If you're actually interested in this topic, you can read the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproductio... But of course, you're not interested. You have something invested in the idea that men and women have different skills, so you invented your silly theory that evolution made men and women specialize in different spheres because it made the species stronger. And you kept on following the trajectory of the argument until it brought us to this absurdity. The irony is that if you actually understood biology, you could easily make an appeal to the natural without inventing this dumb theory. You could have mentioned that males in many species develop specialized traits in order to attract females; human males could have such traits. In Belig's ground squirrels, only the males outbreed, and as such are the only ones that spend extensive time outside of burrows. Consequently they have superior navigation skills to the females who never leave their burrows. A difference like this could be responsible for differences in male and female human abilities. And there are a million more such valid arguments. But you did what most people did. You rationalized. You had an opinion, and then you invented something to support it. Sadly, you knew almost no biology. If you did, you wouldn't have missed the basic principle of the theory of natural selection: the variants which propagate themselves the most are the ones that you see go to fixation. There is nothing that drives a species to be strong; rather, individuals that are strong reproduce themselves. Your basic problem is that you're thinking about evolution tautologically. Evolution can't predict that if one species turned into two, then both species would die out, so therefore it must develop sexual reproduction. Whatever drove those two species to speciate would still drive them to speciate. And then they would go extinct. A lot of species go extinct. Your theory requires that sexual reproduction emerges completely independently of an evolutionary pressure- which is ridiculously improbable- and then continue to exist even though it confers no advantage. This is absurd for any number of reasons, not least of which is that an asexual organism can produce 2x the number of copies of itself as a sexual organism. (When sexual organisms reproduce, only half of their genes get passed onto their offspring; this is hugely inefficient.)