The Evolution of sex

Now that is question!!Is there some way to think about sex synthetically or is it purely a part of our analytic capability?I hate it that EVC moves on before I can leisurely develop a topic so you will need to press me with some kind of extraordinary endurance but I will respond in a particular direction and to a particular end if pressed.I am begging to think indeed that the traditional symbols 0+ and <-0 before: goes some what to show that individually while not an atom sex might be combinations of atoms that reflect different kinds of 1-D relations with "male" being less symmetrical than female when not at rest (in the physics sense).The neat thing about ferns' sex is that I think some graphs about the different gene frequencies in haploids vs. diploids might indicate via the 1-D affects actual phenotype differences(not charms) of the heart shaped form which water mediates fusion of the different kinds of gametes in these plants.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2006 06:14 PM

Ok I will start with the plants before trying to see if sex is not merely analytic. The synthesis is much vaguer to me but I have thought about it.The line of sexual demarcation that I intend to denote is found on page 57 of Evolution and the Genetics of Populations
EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright
chapter 3(Systematic Change of Gene Frequency: Sinlge Loci)
there, anyone with eyes can see two different cross lines. If my view is NOT off topic then male "sperm" is litterally redisplayable from that graph COMING OUT of the upper left corner thanks to water flowing "down"(?that is the question) to the lower right corner with the condition being that unstable and stable changes ( in the difference of phases of diploid and haploid survivals) in the haploid phenotype are divided by the difference of unions of gametes over time.Once I get the visualization over, I will move on to discuss how the correlation shadows of relative correlations remand sexual differences BOTH in the distance WITHIN this graph and between any two given gametes IF RANDOMLY breeding. Water aside from tending to go "down" would tend to give random sperm directions, so a Hardy Weinberg starting point will not be put off in the begining of the -
discussion.The prothallium does justice to Darwin's notion of a "brancH" in any plurivocal sense.
http://gecko.gc.maricopa.edu/~lsola/NonFlwr/fern105.htm
As a preview read Weyl on symmetry or be prepared for me to refer to it.
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/865.htmlI wouldnt be saying that it is a problem with expressing different "phenotypes" but that the correlation beween phenotype and geneotype seperate geometrically (sexually) INTO the actual fern diploid form irreversibly including charms of fern morphology. Above is my first expression between the one dimensional kind of symmetry I have consistently represented as "+" here on EvC and meiosis and inbreeding. Interestingly I had implicated heat and electricity contra Darwin (see thread
http://EvC Forum: A proof against ID and Creationism -->EvC Forum: A proof against ID and Creationism
)and inbreeding vs meiosis. Since this representation (it is about a year old)I was able to collapse the horizontal presentation in this figure. More later.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-28-2006 09:04 AM

The Principles of Heredity by LH SynderThis is a book my Grandfather used to teach (genetics, (I suppose)) with . in the 50s. Here is page 355-6:

quote:

---

The modern development of genetics with its discovery of sex chromosomes, sex-linked, sex-influenced, and sex-limited genes, and the phenomenon of genic balance, has made it a necessity to include problems of sex determination and sex differentiation in any adequate review of heredity. Two problems are involved. First, why does one individual or one part of an individual develop into a male, another individual or part of an individual into a female? Second, why are different characteristics associated with the two sexes?

​

In regard to the first problem that of sex determination, there have in the past been two prevailing theories. One theory, built around the discovery of sex chromosomes, stated that sex, was unalterably determined by some internal chromosomal mechanism. The other theory, built around the demonstrated possibility of “sex reversal,” stated that sex was determined by environmental factors such as food, light, metabolic rate, and others. Today we know that neither of these alone is adequate to answer the question of ex determination. As is so often the case in science, a merging of the valid essentials of two or more hypotheses has furnished a nearer approach to the truth.

---

For me which parts make up which individuals all depend on how the perpendicular is “mentally” dropped (see thumbnails in
EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright
).

I think it is justthat the diploid form just IS the haploid form differentially sexualized.This is a little hard to explain unless I start to dissect the sexs down to the largest atom aggregates they might be explained in. This would be the synthetic part whereas so far I only was trying to say something that does not remand any changes in knowledge. I might be wrong on the visualization as this depends somewhat on fern speciation but using the complex plane to situate my lexicology does not detract from my projection and pinpoints the relations I intended.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-29-2006 05:26 PM

Great question!!Dont let Marks' binaryness nor other babblevcfish detract from your posts as you have no problem comprehending any questions as far as I can see. You are moving a bit faster than me so you will have to wait while I put together a little bit more information.Yes, that is the question about the motility of the sperm but since the sperm could twist left OR right and still approach whatever the line is to the egg symmetrically (given the general prothallus shape) AND this is only a matter of one allele's potential stability or instablity the falsification would appear not in the sperm anatomy etc but in possible non symmetric traits in the diploid.I will have to discuss the visualization a bit more, please give me a day or so, as we are using something that is a bit overly morphological, on account of the analogy to strucutres in math without knowing the details themselves but because I suspect I am not and was not mistaken when I wrote:

quote:

---

Actually I think I am finding in reading this volume of Wright that organonically but not mathematically gametes and zygotes can be differently approached, not that there is some conflation between linkage groups and indiviually Mendelized transmissions.

---

@http://EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright -->EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright
differential sexualization is dependent and consequent and not formative (relative to some amount of DNA to possibly also falsify this idea)on the CORRELATION between zygotes and gametes in terms of overal gene combinations no matter how frequently. If it is true that the thought is divided instructively but not mathematically (it could if biophyics is not biochemistry) differently among gametes (sexually) than unions (zygotes) provided water does have the most randomization force during theeffects of gametic unions (neither the prothallus shape nor the sperm turn radius,seems to block this condition)than the amount of non random sperm directions still gives the starting point of the egg and the sperm as the same place. This is the same "requirement" of Mendel when he symbolized seeds and pollen by the division symbol"/".Yes I think we can take the analysis a little bit further. I will try to explain this again a little differnly later. You DO understand the >80% of what Holmes has claimed in the past in what I am saying. Of course I might/could and someday will be wrong(not today)!! The "+" in the above tumbnail expresses how to see how the molecules would relate to a kind of 1-Dsymmetry that is irrespective of direction. I now however consider this preliminary vision to remand the female connection over the male whether in plants or animals. If this paramount issues is correct then the circle in the last figuration above is a precursor to the form of sexuality as expressed by DIFFERENT chromosomes. This consideration must be qualified by an understanding of Wright's position on "harmony" and his complaint about Fisher's use of advatageous and deletierious mutations
(see pages added at http://EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright -->EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright
)
. My grandfather's thesis was already within this understanding or lack of it but if for instance Will Provine's classes at Cornell was the modern standard this very BIOLOGICAL presuposition to communication would be lost as soon as the first mark was put on the black board.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-30-2006 02:41 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-30-2006 02:46 PM

I tend to think more continuously like;

where any deviation from Wolfram's approach comes from interpreting this:

quote:

---

Topology by Hocking and Young Dover Publications 1961

---

in terms of Wolfram's- (facing page)

quote:

---

Wolfram % A New Kind Of Science

---

It would be nice if the original poster "harped" in, so that we could know just what the poster was after. The use of MATH leads me to discount some of the comparisions of Wolfram as sexualization could not be the same unions for higher plants than the gametes for ancestors OR lowerplants. Wolfram used the same idea of a subsitution system for them all. I doubt that. I am also not so sure how the infinity of the complex plane must be related to the curvatures(in topology-book extracted pics) necessarily though we did discuss sufficiency .This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-03-2006 07:12 AM

There are ways to avoid the c-word as impartial does not cross heteroshowvanism but I must show the mistaken misology in Spanier's span of molecular genetics and molecular biology presently as "hetero/sexism" was published in its' place. This can be done by substituting this figure of mine

, IN Spanier's use of 3 in one determinants figured near the end of her text:
for any circle on the cover of her book-

quote:

---

The true philosopher, therefore, must, as an independent thinker, make a free and independent, not a slavishly imitative, use of reason. Nor must it be dialectical, that is, a use of which aims only at giving to his knowledge an appearence of truth andwisdom. This is the business of the mere Sophist; but thoroughly inconsistent with the dignity of the philosopher, as one who knows and teaches Wisdom.

​

For science posseses an intrinsic real value only as it is an Organ of Wisdom. But as such, it is indispensible to Wisdom, so that one might well assert that Wisdom, without Science, is a mere shadow outline of a perfection to which we shall never attain.

​

He that hates science, and so much the more loves wisdom, is called a Misologist. Misology arises usually from a lack of scientific knowledge, and a certain kind of vainity combined therewith. Sometimes, however persons fall into error of misology who, at first, pursued the sciences with great dilligence and success, but at last found in all their knowledge no satisfaction.

---

quote:

---

I Kant. Introduction to Logic p 17 Philosophical Library New York

---

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-04-2006 02:36 PM

Could you give me a little better clue about what you mean by

quote:

---

the differentialisation is only sexual in the fact that the gametes are formalised

---

. Would the difference between formal and informal logical expressions express this or would a possibly changable attitude also be remandable?

The effect may be, hypothetically.