3 ms·
>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 reproducti
by 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.)
- VladRussian 16y ago>Tell that to an evolutionary biologist and they will laugh in your face. Wait... you already did that. I'm laughing. Evolutionary biology, compare to lets say mathematics where my roots are, has a very large part which is "interpretation" and which is very susceptible to whatever is dictated by the current authority in the science (and/or by political climate). With regard to laughing - how about evolution biologists who thinks that evolution, a large statistical dynamic system process, has produced different bodies for males and females (or are you going to argue that as well?) efficiently reflecting specialization, and ignored for the reason of PolitCorrectness another available degree of freedom extremely important in the context of the specialization - mental abilities, brain (especially considering that for K-selection behavioral/mental characteristics may be playing comparable or even more important role than pure physical body characteristics) > Consequently they have superior navigation skills to the females who never leave their burrows. For many, many generations ... Are you, as evolutionary biologist, saying that female squirrels have the same abilities to develop such navigational skills? When did they develop them? While never using? Let suppose they did develop them in some past. Thus we can suppose the abilities are just dormant now. May be the female squirrels also have dormant penises?
- araneae 16y ago>- how about evolution biologists who thinks that evolution, a large statistical dynamic system process, has produced different bodies for males and females (or are you going to argue that as well?) efficiently reflecting specialization, and ignored for the reason of PolitCorrectness another available degree of freedom extremely important in the context of the specialization I actually have no idea what the sentence actually said, but somewhere in there I think you're implying that some evolutionary biologists for reasons of political correctness believe that male and female human brains are identical. Like I said, most humans rationalize. I have no excuse for them. But in my experience, the stereotype is the opposite, see: http://xkcd.com/775/ http://xkcd.com/775/ >For many, many generations ... Are you, as evolutionary biologist, saying that female squirrels have the same abilities to develop such navigational skills? Um. If the burrows were passed along paternally instead of maternally, and it was the female squirrels that moved about and the male squirrels that stayed in their borrows, I would expect that, yes? I'm not really sure what your point is. Or why you're talking about squirrel penis. Surely you don't think that male and female specializations are the same across species, do you? Because if so, let me see you wiggle your chest air sack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage_grouse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sage_grouse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0M8pZnNlnI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0M8pZnNlnI