Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Asexual to sexual reproduction? How?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 31 of 78 (365629)
11-23-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Difficult to resolve
The prevailing theory about evolution asserts that simple organisms first proliferated by asexual reproduction -- a self-replicator. Why then would nature select new organisms that had to mate, one male, and one female in order to do that which is much more difficult to achieve, as far as survival is concerned, if nature, in fact, selects the most optimal organism?
Maybe you should read through the thread first NJ. If you already have and this is what you come up with then I fear you failed to understand a lot of it.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 78 (365630)
11-23-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 4:10 PM


When you start with a false assumption it is hard to get a correct result.
Why then would nature select new organisms that had to mate, one male, and one female in order to do that which is much more difficult to achieve, as far as survival is concerned, if nature, in fact, selects the most optimal organism?
The problem is that no one except Biblical Creationists suggests that nature selects the most optimal organism or method. In fact all of the evidence is that that is NOT what happens or has happened.
What pases the filter is not what is optimal, or even PDG, but what works.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 78 (365636)
11-23-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 4:10 PM


not difficult to resolve
Here is a quote from Message 4.
crashfrog writes:
asexual organisms -> asexual organisms with a mechanism for gene transfer (the vast majority of today's unicellular life) -> asexual organisms that require gene transfer to reproduce (sexual now, but hermaphroditic) -> sexual hermaphrodites, now evolved to multicellularity, where the offspring gestates internally, incurring a biological cost of resources and vulnerability -> sexual hermaphrodites with a biological mechanism to determine which gets to gestate the offfspring -> sexual hermaphrodites where some individuals have phenotypical structures to aid internal gestation -> sexual, sexed organisms where one organism is fated, congenially, to bear offspring and the other to provide necessary genetic material.
A different story altogether, not requiring the sudden emergence of opposite genders that happen to meet. Message 6 expands on crash's post, if you want a little more detail. Read on some more to get some more interesting tidbits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hawks
Member (Idle past 6147 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 34 of 78 (365637)
11-23-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Difficult to resolve
quote:
The organism that first evolved sex organs must have had those glands in place in order to produce offspring.
No, for example, the population of organisms that first evolved sex might have been single-celled.
quote:
It needs a suitor of the opposite sex.
No, it is not difficult to conceive "that members of the same sex" can mate and exchange genetic information.
The rest of your post more or less repeats the above statements and deserve no further attention, apart from this one:
quote:
You can call that an argument of incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility.
I'd call it an argument from ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 35 of 78 (365644)
11-23-2006 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Difficult to resolve
quote:
What kind of staggering odds would it be for a population of asexual organisms to evolve two separate, but compatible sexes, simultaneously in order to create the sex glands perfectly operable in a male, and also simultaneously evolve a female partner for the male with all of her sex organs in perfect operation?
Consider that male and female were not initially present. There was no gender, each organism just had a single sex organ that allowed for gene transfer. This isn't so hard to believe, or all that improbable. Every barnacle comes equipped with male and female organs, and procreates through mutual penetration. And flowers have a pistol and stamen, the male and female reproductive components.
Later, the organs differentiated into male and female components. How this differentiation happens is I think a much more challenging and interesting question, in particular why this differentiation had been selected for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 36 of 78 (365651)
11-23-2006 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-23-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Difficult to resolve
A host of organisms from a certain population had to basically devolve from asexual reproduction but had to now evolve both a male and a female, virtually simultaneously, with all of their sexual organs intact just to proliferate sexual reproduction, much less, to have the population survive. That's inconcievable!
If it is inconcievable, why did you waste time writing that post to concieve it?
lets analise your logic
1. you declare (without proof) that the only way it could have happened was some terribly akward combination of improbable events.
2. you note the fact that this combination of events is so improbable as to be inconcievable (I agree with that much).
3. finally you coclude that it could not have happened (conviniently forgetting the fact that it might have happened in a way different from the one described by you)
Do you really expect that kind of argument to take flight around here?
You can call that an argument of incredulity, but I call it an argument from sensibility.
I would call it an strawman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-23-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 78 (365725)
11-24-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
09-20-2005 11:19 PM


It does not matter how rare an event was when it has happened.
But this is what were trying to ascertain. We surmise that if a Designer has no role in the universe that certainly, at some point, there would have to have been some evolution from asexual to sexual.
Adding {numbers\qualifiers} to make the rarity event seem even more highly improbable is just the argument from incredulity, and is nothing less than the inability of the {incredulous person} to be as ingenious as nature {is\was}.
Its being realistic. Its a perfectly good question. I have asked the question why nature would have selected sex over asexual reproduction. The answer that I usually get back, is, "Its too costly." Well, lets look at it from both perspectives. Surely there are some draw backs of sexual reproduction. In a static population there is usually only one offspring per set of parents survives to adulthood. But surely, then, asexual reproduction is twice as fast as sexual reproduction, requires less energy to expend, and would obviously be more efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. How much easier is binary fission than developing two separate sex organs that has to go through alot of things just to mate. Then you have long periods of gestation, added to that that only 50% of each parent will pass on their genes. How, then, is sexual reproduction less costly than asexual propagation?

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2005 11:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Wounded King, posted 11-24-2006 11:29 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2006 10:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 38 of 78 (365730)
11-24-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2006 11:00 AM


I have asked the question why nature would have selected sex over asexual reproduction.
You make this sound as if it was an absolute and final decision. There are really only a small proportion of organisms which are obligately sexual and a smaller number that have 2 distinct sexes.
Natural selection will favour different strategies in different environments. While a sexual strategy may be preferable in some circumstances an asexual one may be favoured in others.
In a static population there is usually only one offspring per set of parents survives to adulthood.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? In a sexual population obvioudly one offspring per 'set' of parents would give a rate below replacement and lead not to a static population but to a declining one. An asexual population could be static if every organism only had one offspring but only provided none of the offspring ever died.
Your statement seems to have no connection to any population we might actually find in the real world.
From this initial specious assumption you then build a whole fanciful tower of straw.
The answer that I usually get back, is, "Its too costly."
Could you show where anyone on this site has given you that answer, because it is too vague to be useful. It may be true in certain circumstances but it obviously isn't in all or we would not see the vast umbers of asexually reproducing organisms that we do.
How much easier is binary fission than developing two separate sex organs that has to go through a lot of things just to mate.
You do realise that not all asexually reproducing organisms are unicellular I hope, binary fission is not the only form of asexual reproduction.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2006 11:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by platypus, posted 11-25-2006 5:23 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 78 (365742)
11-24-2006 11:59 AM


Hermaphrodite to sexes
My assessment would be:
In a hermaphroditic species it can be an advantage to be male. Males invest fewer resources in the reproductive process itself, so a successful male can produce more offspring than a hermaphrodite.
But once there are a lot of males around it becomes an advantage to be female. When competition for the male half of the reproductive equation is fierce it can pay to stop competing in that arena and become purely female.
So when the species is predominantly hermaphrodite there is an advantage to specialising in the male role. As the proportion of males goes up the advantage of performing as a male goes down, until it becomes worth ceasing to invest resources in it at all and specialise as a female. (And if the proportion fo males goes down the advantage of beign male goes back up).
Of course this is hypothetical and I don't claim any special knwoeldge but this view is plausible based on what I do know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by platypus, posted 11-25-2006 5:16 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 46 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-26-2006 8:34 AM PaulK has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 40 of 78 (365910)
11-25-2006 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by PaulK
11-24-2006 11:59 AM


Re: Hermaphrodite to sexes
PaulK,
My understanding is that current theory says something very similar to what you say, except that it is more male biased. Males began producing more reproductive partners, and eventually began this arms race towards who could produce the greatest number of sperm. Of course, this meant reducing the size of the sperm, because with smaller sperm, there is less of an energy investment, and more total sperm. Since sperm became so small, females needed to compensate by making their eggs larger, so that a combination of egg and sperm would be big enough and have enough energy to produce a viable offspring. Thus, big egg, small numerous sperm.
Personally, I don't like this argument. But under your argument, it is still unclear where and how a difference in sexes becomes able to genetically propogate in a stable pattern into future generations, since you allow for the population to change and correct itself if the proportion of males and females becomes imbalanced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2006 11:59 AM PaulK has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 41 of 78 (365912)
11-25-2006 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Wounded King
11-24-2006 11:29 AM


quote:
I have asked the question why nature would have selected sex over asexual reproduction.
Let me emphasize Wounded King's point- the majority of life on earth is asexual. In sheer numbers and total mass, bacteria rule the world. A very small percentage of the world procreates through sex, it just happens to be the proportion we see on a regular basis.
A better question is why nature selected sexual reproduction for the big organisms that we see day to day. Perhaps it is that at large sizes, sexual reproduction is less costly, more efficient, or a natural consequence of other features structural features. Think of what it would take for a bear to split into two in the same way that an amoeba splits into two when it reproduces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Wounded King, posted 11-24-2006 11:29 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 42 of 78 (365921)
11-25-2006 9:37 AM


LM decides you are old enough for "the talk"
I found this thread rather late, but feel I must step in. The evolution of sex is very interesting to me and has been part of my academic career. In reading through this thread I have seen a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides regarding both the origin and terms involved in the evolution of sexual systems. My Masters thesis was on the evolution of crustacean sexual systems. As part of that I was required to review an enormous body of literature on the evolution of sex, varying sexual systems, etc. I am in no way trying to insult prior posters on this thread, just trying to clarify some info. I apologize for the length of this post, but am going to start from the beginning. What is sex?
Sex, by definition, is the coupling of two haploid cells. In advanced multicellular species, like us, this involves the coming together of sperm and egg, each containing half of the genes of the parent to form a new individual. But sex precedes multicelluarity. Sex began with unicellular organisms. Bacterial exchange of DNA has been discussed so I am not going to talk about it but am going to focus on eukaryotic sexual reproduction. I am going to discuss true sex and how it happens. We have a wonderfully diverse world of protists (protoctysts to botanists out there) that show every stage of sexual reproduction.
The most primitive eukaryotes are in the kingdom Protista (or Protoctista). Unlike most animals, plants, and fungi, a good number of protists spend their lives as haploid, possessing only one set of chromosomes. Most of these reproduce mitotically, doubling their chromosomes to the diploid number then splitting to form 2 haploid individuals. This is really all of the hardware needed for sex.
Early Sex
In some protists that do not have sex (only asexually reproduce) it has been observed that these will consume each other during times of starvation. Usually one individual will envelop the other. In these species it has been observed that sometimes the nucleus of the eater will fuse with the nucleus of its dinner, forming a short-term diploid individual! As these creature ”want’ to be haploid, this fusion causes the cell to divide into two individuals. Now the individuals that form are not the same as before, some mixing occurs. Now the cannibal in this scenario is the loser. It went for a meal, and instead returned as a slightly different being. Now for the would-be food the situation was a win. True it is not exactly unharmed, but it went from a zero survival chance to escaping relatively intact. It is not hard to imagine how in a population that faced starvation often would select for those individuals who could survive being eaten in this way. In the protists where this system is observed it is relatively rare (not the cannibalism, but being able to survive it) as these live in the gut of termites. A termite’s gut is a fairly benign place. What is described here is sexual in nature but not true sex. It might better be described as accidental sex.
The next level of sex observed in protists is much more common. This one occurs in many well-known protists. In this case two haploid individuals fuse with each other (but with no pretense of trying to consume the other). Their nuclei fuse to form the diploid phase. This diploid may then split into two new individuals, both with jumbled genes from the original. In some the diploid form undergoes mitosis before returning to the haploid phase, making 4 individuals out of two. But why do this? One advantage in some forms is that the diploid phase is resistant to environmental stresses. In Chlamydomonas, discussed below, the diploid stage is called a zygospore and forms when the cells are faced with (guess what?) starvation, drying, osmotic stress, cold, heat, etc. The zygospore remains diploid and protected by thick wall. When conditions return to normal the cells shed the cell wall, mitose, then split into the haploid phase.
With Chlamydomonas and relatives we start seeing something unique and wonderful. Instead of just any two random individuals being able to come together they come in two slightly different morphotypes, called Mt+ and Mt-. While not male and female, these morphotypes exhibit some of the characteristics seen in true male and female gametes.
Sex and multicelluarity
Multicellular organisms have probably evolved multiple times within the protists, plants, animals, and fungi. The simplest form of this involves cloned identical cells in balls, sheets, clusters, etc. Obviously every cell cannot fuse with another individual’s cells. It makes biological sense for some cells from the group detach and find another such cell to fuse with. A very common trend in multicellular organisms is to have the ”mature’ form be entirely diploid. Haploid cells are only those which are destined to fuse with another cell, thus being true gametes. The advantage of this is that the individual genotype is not lost (remember when these single cells fused and separate neither daughter cell was exactly the same as the parents). This way only a few cells are ”sacrificed’ while the rest remain pure.
So, we now have a multicellular diploid organism that is capable of producing haploid products that can leave and fuse with others. So what factors lead to separate sexes? Sperm, as you know, are essentially a haploid nucleus with a motile apparatus. Eggs are a haploid nucleus surrounded by varying amounts of cytoplasm and typically organelles that keep the cell running for a long time (sperm are nearly always short lived). The question is, what makes it advantageous to have this system rather than relatively identical gametes (called isogamy).
When two gametes fuse to form a haploid individual, more than just the nuclei fuse. The cytoplasm and organelles also mix. In species like Chlamydomonas this starts a ”war’ within the cell. The nuclear DNA plays nice and fuses, but the organelles compete (only so much room) and eventually the organelles (mitochondria and chloroplasts) of one or the other parents dominate. As these have their own DNA the winner is the parent cell who gets of their nuclear DNA spread and all of their cytoplasmic DNA spread. So two selective winning scenarios arise. One, make your gametes as big as possible to hold as much cytoplasmic DNA as possible. But there is a limit to how big these can be. The other is to ”accept’ the losing scenario and make your gametes as small as possible and just go for spreading your nuclear DNA.
So there will be a strong selective force on some members of a species to have small gametes, and others to have large ones. Because size of gametes limits mobility, selection also favors the small gametes to become more motile. So now we have true sperm and eggs.
Derivations of the new sexual system
This is where I hope to not offend previous posters. Hermaphrodites (possessing male and female gametes) are not ancestral to gonochoristic (possessing only male or female gametes) species. The primitive (least derived) system in all multicellular species is gonochory. We find this throughout multicellular Eukaryotes.
In animals (the group I study) this is a constant. Wherever we find hermaphroditism it is secondarily derived from true gonochory. In mollusks we find that all primitive mollusks are obligate gonochores, while advanced forms (such as pulmonates or land snails and slugs) are hermaphrodites. In pulmonates we hit the ultimate advancement, the ability to self-cross. This is, that in a pinch they can combine their own sperm and eggs.
In crustaceans we see the same trend. In nearly all crustacean groups gonochory is the rule. In primitive Crustacea, like barnacles, we see many examples of obligate outcrossing hermaphrodites (meaning they cannot self fertilize). But in that group we also see an amazing thing called pseudohermaphroditism. This is where the main population (visible) is female. Males exist only as larvae and parasitize females to become only an internal testis producing sperm. I believe that this will be found to be the rule rather than the exception in future research in barnacles. Someone (I am not going to look) made a comment that "All barnacles do..." I am sorry to report that there is nothing ALL barnacles do, espcially sexually.
In decapod crustaceans gonochory tends to rule. All true crabs (Infraorder Brachyura) are obligate gonochores, as are lobsters and crayfish (infraorders Palinura and Astacidea). In true shrimps (Infraorder Caridea) we start seeing variations of this. Sequential hermaphroditism has evolved several times in shrimp lineages. This is where individuals start as one sex and change to another with time. In many shrimp it is starting as males then turning female when large. This is called protandry. It makes good biological sense. Sperm is ”cheap’, you can make a lot of it when very small. Eggs are expensive, the bigger you are, the more you can hold (shrimp, like all pleocyemate decapods, brood their young on the female’s abdomen). So because of this shrimp commonly start life as small males then change to female as they mature. In an increasing number of one group of shrimp it is apparent that they do this but also keep male function, becoming simultaneous hermaphrodites!
Some refs: (first two are mine)
Baldwin AP (2002). Behind the green operculum: the sex lives of mollusks. Of Sea and Shore Magazine 25(1): 17-19.
Baldwin AP and Bauer RT. (2003). Growth, survivorship, life-span, and sex change in the hermaphroditic shrimp Lysmata wurdemanni (Decapoda: Caridean: Hippolytidae). Marine Biology 143: 157-166.
Margulis L and Sagan D (1997). What is sex? Simon and Schuster Editions. New York, New York. 256 pp.
Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Clarified 'decapods' as 'pleocyemate decapods'. I was wrong to claim all decapods as the dendrobranchiate decapods do not brood embryos.

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2006 4:22 PM Lithodid-Man has replied
 Message 44 by platypus, posted 11-25-2006 6:19 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 78 (365970)
11-25-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Lithodid-Man
11-25-2006 9:37 AM


Re: LM decides you are old enough for "the talk"
quote:
In reading through this thread I have seen a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides regarding both the origin and terms involved in the evolution of sexual systems.
Good post, L-Man, and a valuable contribution to the subject. You have been given a well deserved Post of the Month nomination.
However, to be fair to the previous posters, I should try to write a brief post in support of their attempts to show that the evolution of sexual reproduction is possible.
The question started with the claim (implied if not explicit), "It is impossible for sexual reproduction to evolve because there is no way it could have happened through natural selection acting on small changes."
The counter to this argument is simply to come up with a scenario by which sexual reproduction may evolve that is plausible with what is known. It doesn't have to be the correct scenario, especially since the correct scenario may be unknown or since it may have been assumed that the correct scenario cannot have been elucidated by contemporary science. I do this all the time: often someone will try to "disprove" evolution by showing that some feature is beyond the capabilities of natural selection to produce. If I cannot find a proposed scenario anywhere, then I will usually attempt to make one up, simply to show that, yes, it is possible, and therefore it is not foolish to assume that the feature is a product of evolution.
However, it is always better to have the best possible explanation, as well-confirmed as possible by current scientific standards, and so I appreciate your contribution. I just want to make sure that the previous posters don't feel that their attempts at an explanation aren't appreciated.
Added by edit:
quote:
I am in no way trying to insult prior posters on this thread, just trying to clarify some info.
I just want to make sure it's understood that I am not thinking that you are belittling the previous posters, L-man.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-25-2006 9:37 AM Lithodid-Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-25-2006 10:17 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 44 of 78 (365984)
11-25-2006 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Lithodid-Man
11-25-2006 9:37 AM


Re: LM decides you are old enough for "the talk"
Great post L-man, I for one didn't really know this back ground, it was nice to have an "expert" come in and relay the true account.
One question- I know you hadn't studied this, but what is the sequence of events for plant sexuality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-25-2006 9:37 AM Lithodid-Man has not replied

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 45 of 78 (366001)
11-25-2006 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Chiroptera
11-25-2006 4:22 PM


Thanks Chiro
Chiro writes:
However, to be fair to the previous posters, I should try to write a brief post in support of their attempts to show that the evolution of sexual reproduction is possible.
Thank you for making that point and it is well taken! I did understand the purpose of the explanatory posts and in no way intended to diminish prior contributions. My goal was mainly to show the relationship between asexual reproduction, gonochory, and hermaphroditism. And thanks to you and all who made such nice comments about my post!

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
"A Fish Called Wanda"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 11-25-2006 4:22 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024