Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
112 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Phat (2 members, 110 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,087 Year: 6,199/6,534 Month: 392/650 Week: 162/278 Day: 2/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Asexual to sexual reproduction? How?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 78 (368698)
12-09-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by timothy44
12-09-2006 4:25 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
quote:
No need to carry on our "dialogue".

I agree that this is clearly pointless.

However, I will be game if and when you decide that you want to discuss the issue.


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 59 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 4:25 PM timothy44 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Brian, posted 12-09-2006 4:42 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4274 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 62 of 78 (368699)
12-09-2006 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Chiroptera
12-09-2006 4:37 PM


Re: Be sure to read and debate in good faith
Looks like my wish for more creationist oddballs to sign up is beginning to come true!!!

There is a Santa Claus.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 4:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 5:11 PM Brian has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 78 (368706)
12-09-2006 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Brian
12-09-2006 4:42 PM


I am so jealous.
Yeah, but I didn't reel him in very well, did I? You, on the other hand, look like you're going to have fun. I wish I knew Biblical archaeology, too.


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 62 by Brian, posted 12-09-2006 4:42 PM Brian has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 1618 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 64 of 78 (368728)
12-09-2006 7:00 PM


AS long as you all realize you are probably talking to Ken D again...and the wiki articles he is referencing are probably his also.

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2006 7:32 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 78 (368732)
12-09-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by AdminAsgara
12-09-2006 7:00 PM


Because of this post? Yeah, I sort of thought of kendemyer, too, when I saw that. But are there more definite signs that this is kendemeyer?

But I've missed kendemeyer. He's welcome back as far as I'm concerned (even if the new ID would be a violation of rules).

Added by edit:

Okay. Now I'm convinced.

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 64 by AdminAsgara, posted 12-09-2006 7:00 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 66 of 78 (368738)
12-09-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by timothy44
12-09-2006 4:25 PM


We do not debate web sites.
You've been asked to explain the referenced material in your own words. A reasonable question was asked about it.

If you do not wish to discuss these things then don't copy them to here.

If you do not wish to discuss in good faith you will not be posting anything for very long.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by timothy44, posted 12-09-2006 4:25 PM timothy44 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by miosim, posted 04-18-2007 4:58 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
miosim
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 57
From: NH, USA
Joined: 04-07-2007


Message 67 of 78 (395995)
04-18-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by AdminNosy
12-09-2006 8:41 PM


WHY DO TWO SEXES EXIST?
I never had problem to accept evolution, but in the same time I never was comfortable the way it is often explained. So I may understand some concern, had expressed not by creationists only, about limited explanatory ability of natural selection mechanism. Many years ago, my interests in theoretical biology led me to one controversial hypothesis about DNA molecule genetic activity, which if correct, among other things, should explain the sex emergence phenomenon. Below is an essay devoted to this investigation.
.
WHY DO TWO SEXES EXIST?
.
All Children are believers in world harmony. To them, everything is beautifully created and for a reason -the sun is to catch sunbeams in a mirror, the wind is to blow the sails of toy-ships, and night provides an opportunity for dreams. Perhaps, a cub once shared a similar belief. Winnie the Pooh, the popular animated cartoon series critter, did. One day, while sitting under a tree, he thought about the bees, which lived in the tree and their destination to collect honey. Because he also believed in a supreme purpose, he quickly found his answer: "The bees are destined to collect honey for me, Winnie the Pooh." This realization encouraged him into action, but there were consequences that Winnie the Pooh, stung all over, will remember for a long time.

In spite of very impressive achievements in evolution Biology, many problems still lack the answers and some of them do not have even approach for resolution. However if we assume that a supreme purpose is the driving force for evolution, the question "What is it for?" will help to find an answer. This is why the Philosophy of Supreme Purpose prompts some biologists to look for a predestination of all natural events. They tried to find purposes even in case of some animals eat their own posterity, or when certain worm embryo destroys its mother's body. Even death, due to aging, was found by these scientists to be a greatly advantageous adaptation, which emerged during evolution. However, evolution is a development that does not happen without mistakes or defects and may not be a show case of a total harmony and so, we should not always ask the question "What is it for?" when studying Nature.

One of the main phenomenons of life is propagation. Regardless endless consideration biologists have given to this phenomenon; one aspect of it does not give them any rest - what are two sexes for? Many scientists suggest that this question hasn't had an answer, until now.

In the 1930’s, it seems that the answer about "unknown goals" was found. Ronald Fisher, owner of a London insurance agency, the father of mathematical statistics and population genetics, demonstrated that sexual propagation combines advantageous inheritances of both parents, therefore accelerating evolution. The diversity of inheriting combinations gives to the species evolutionary flexibility, which is the capability to change quickly. "However the interbreeding of hermaphrodite organisms, as in some worms, yields double the combination that heterosexual organisms do" - the scientist of Armenia Institute of Genetics, Vachtang Geodakjan objected. He questioned: "Why didn't Nature follow that way." He also believed in a supreme purpose of two-sex existence and proposed a hypothesis about distribution of evolutionary roles: for the male "design and test" of new varieties and for female, to save the best ones. This was one of the most elegant and convincing scientific theory I ever read.

However, the history of the sexes starts with accounts of the earliest life on Earth. It means that the roles between "him" and "her" were designated already, when only microbes totally dominated the planetary surface. What for did nature decide to distribute evolutionary roles to microbes? I asked, as I used to… yet the all-over-sting physiognomy of Winnie the Pooh reappears. His methodology and unfortunate experience prompt me to look into different direction by asking another question: Why in the process of evolution two sexes may emerge and where is the source for sexual differences? For this reason, we arrive at the cellular level of organism, where the mystery of all living things is hidden.
.
HYPOTHESYS
.
Many years ago, my interests in the theoretical biology led me to one controversial hypothesis about DNA molecule genetic activity. As reader may know, the double strand DNA molecule contains one DNA strand inherited from the parental DNA and one newly synthesized DNA strand. Both strands carry genetic information, however according to my hypothesis only one, newly synthesized strand are genetically active in the double stranded DNA molecule. As a result, two sister DNA molecules (emerged as result of single DNA autoreplication), having identical genetic code, should have a very dramatic difference in genetic expression because they have different newly synthesized DNA strands.

Unfortunately, this hypothesis contradicts one of the essential paradigms of molecular biology that identical DNA molecules must have identical genetic activity. We should respect the paradigm, but I could not understand how this paradigm was verified, i.e. how the genetic activity pattern of single DNA molecules was determined. Even the modern methods, because of low resolution, are unable to determine a single DNA molecule genetic activity and therefore the cumulative genetic activity pattern of "DNA soup", consisting at least of thousands or even millions DNA molecules, is tested instead. Regardless my reservation, I still expected to find plenty evidences to support this paradigm, yet despite a thorough literary search and numerous discussions with experts in the field, I came upon an unexpected result: nobody could uncover any proof, regardless of a general confidence in their existence. This irresistible simple paradigm seems to be self-evident.

I have continued developing this controversial idea that seems to contradict not only Paradigm, but common sense also. According to this hypothesis, only the newly synthesized DNA strand is genetically active, but genes on the "old" DNA strand are blocked from genetic expression. As a result, our hypothetical cell has limited access to its own genetic code. Because to survive, a cell needs all the genetic information it contains, the fate of our hypothetical cell and this idea accordingly, seems to be doomed.

However, I argue that cell may not worry about genetic information if it has the products of this information available. For example, sister cells may obtain all necessary genetic products by inheriting them from a parental cell. These products for a while may provide them not only with vital capacity, but also make them practically indistinguishable. Nonetheless, parental ingredients, like any other ingredient, become consumed and "our" cell must start another cycle of auto-replication to refill the missing genetic products. Looks like "our" cells propagate, not because they "worry" about future generations, but because they worry about they own vital capacity.
I have been allays puzzled by the supreme purpose of propagation. Cell division is a dramatic event because during that time, the cell is most prone to injury. However, it is widely accepted that the cell must sacrifice its own interests and propagate in order to "pay its debt" to species welfare. It is why I was glad to find out that cell division might serve not the species interests only, but the cell’s interests also, providing cells with a vital capacity. Dependence of "our" cell on propagation must have forced their breeding and eventually, this might have caused the predominant spreading of those cells, compared to the cells, which are organized in a more "advisable" manner: i.e. whose survival doesn't depend on autoreplication. Thus, "our" cells may have been the main materials for evolutionary steps that followed and they must have been the brick, which had been laid in basis of the living Nature of our planet.

Under conditions of low temperature or starvation, the cells cannot grow and auto-replicate themselves. So, under this condition, our hypothetical cell must die after parental product’s depletion. By the way, there are numerous observations (but no explanation) of massive cell deaths occurring during a long artificial block of cell auto-reproduction. What should “our”cells do to survive in this circumstance? Fortunately, there is an escape. If under such conditions, the cells of the opposite type (having complementary active DNA) merge with each other, the resulting cell can generate a complete set of necessary genetic products and is capable of survival. There is an interesting similarity between the cells of our model and well-studied single-cell eukaryotic organisms. In their populations, each cell produces two sister cells of opposite type and as a result, the population consists of two type cells. Under conditions preventing cell growth and auto-replication, the cells of opposite types merge to start the most ancient rituals, referred as the sexual process.

Sexual reproduction (when the new generation carries the mixed genetic material from both parents) was a significant evolutionary step because it has provided the genetic variety of species. However, I think that, in the beginning, cell merging was divorced from reproduction and had served only for cell survival during unfavorable environmental conditions. Sex emerged, because cell-merging process led to recombination of genetic material, which probably, had been occurred primarily randomly. During evolutionary stages, recombination proved its advantage and has become more regular in character. However, even now we can often observe cell couples, who neglect their evolution roles. These couples go through conjugation, but like a reminder of past times, they do not mix their genetic material and don't form a family (zygote).

According to our model, the DNA molecule can be regarded as the simplest family. In this family, "male" and "female" complement strands co-exist, but only one of them works while the other strand is kept dormant. DNA molecules in which the "male" strand works we’ll call the "patriarchal" DNA and the opposite type of DNA molecule in which the "female" strand works - "matriarchal" one. According to our model, DNA replication results in both, "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" DNA. During cell division they move to different cells and determine "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" types of the sister (better to say, sister and brother) cells and thus provide the numerical equality of both sexes.

It is well known that two complementary DNA strands carry unequal amount of genetic information. Therefore, the "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" cells are unequal in respect to amount genetic information they can access. Because the shortage of "active" genes make cell more depended on auto replication the cells, which engage fewer genes, have to divide more frequently and in such a way provide mostly the reproduction of the population. As expected, this role better fits "matriarchal" cells. In turn the cells of opposite "patriarchal" type that engage majority of genes should have slower division rate and therefore represents the majority of the cell population. Therefore these cells must have become the main material for future evolution experiments and natural selection. In such a way, nature might have distributed the evolution roles between "Her" and "Him."
.
IMPLICATION FOR MULTI-CELLULAR ORGANISM
.
Nature has made an enormous step from a single cell to the highest level of organization and finally, Adam and Eve enter this wonder world. This famous couple first faced the challenge of sex, but no deep understanding of the problem was achieved at that time. The first success was obtained much later, thanks to the chromosome theory. According to this theory, an infant’s sex is definitely determined by a distinct sex-chromosome pair when the women’s X-chromosome joins with the man’s X- or Y-chromosomes. Depending on the combination XX or XY, the parents delight in a girl or boy. This theory has been proved by a good deal of facts, but there are number of examples, which are exceptions. For instance, the genetic factors of sex in plants often depend upon surrounding conditions and in some animals (for example media Crenomytilus grayanus dunker) depends on age. Experiments on fruit flies revealed that not only sex chromosomes, but also other chromosomes could determine sex, independently from the zygote’s sexual constitution. Another very important factor for sexual differentiation is the sexual hormone. By injecting female hormone into a chicken embryo, it is forced to become a female, even by its chromosomal constitution, it was destined to become a male. When it hatches, this artificial female cannot be distinguished from an ordinary, "normal" female. In the beginning of this century, the idea of organism bio-potentiality was formulated. According to this idea, an organism has inclinations for both, male and female sexes, with determination occurring during development. For example, in the beginning stages of embryo development, human gonads of both sexes are non-distinguishable. Such gonads contain two main structures – the cortex and medulla. During development of male embryos, the cortex degenerates, and the medulla forms a testicle. In female embryos, a medulla degenerates, and the cortex forms an ovary. Based on the idea of bio-potentiality and our model, we can build a speculate scenario of an organism sex development.

The plan that determines our organic development is ready when the sex cells of our parents merge and the zygote is formed. The zygote starts dividing and soon millions of cells, genetically identical "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" cells evolve that are determine male and female properties of an embryo. On early stages of organism development, the number of "patriarchal" and "matriarchal" cells should be near to equal, that is actually a root of hermaphroditism. The sexual development must be caused by numerical prevalence of one of two cell types that achieved by discontinue division and proceed to specialization by one of the cell type while the cells of opposite type continue to divide. In the male organism the "patriarchal" cells prevail and perform most of the duty, but the "matriarchal" ones are responsible for organism growth. In the female organism, the "matriarchal" cells prevail and perform most duties, but the "patriarchal" are responsible for organism growth. The magnitude of numerical prevalence of one cell type determines the degree of sex expression that, as we know, has a wide spectrum.

The numerical ratio of two cell types can be changed only through cell division and specialization. These processes have a maximum rate on the early stages of development and therefore, this is the best time for sex to be changed. The older an organism, the slower the division rate and the smaller the chance to succeed in sexual changes.

Cell division and specialization can be affected by various factors: temperature, radiation, organic and inorganic compounds, etc. It is why these factors can change the numerical representation of both cell types and influence the process of sex determination. Plants or cold-blooded organisms are sensitive to surrounding factors that may play notable role influencing sex determinations. In turn, warm-blooded organisms are shielded from these factors by regulatory mechanisms that maintain internal homeostasis. Therefore the influence of the environment on the sex determinations in warm-blooded organisms is practically eliminated. In this case, the sex constitution of the zygote can be the only remaining factor, which influences the numerical ratio of both cell types and determine the sex of an organism.

In the process of organism development, the growth rate is the highest on the early stages and gradually decelerated with age. That reduces a need in dividing cells (mostly represented by cell type that cannot proceed to specialization) and therefore their surplus must have occurred. The highest surplus level of unemployment dividing cells must have been reached up to the moment of sexual maturity because at that time the decelerating of the growth rate is the greatest. At that time, the critical level of unemployed dividing cells may threaten the integrity of the organism and to prevent this…
…What could have happened in an organism during that dramatic period is another, not written yet, story that shed light on a mystery of Sex.

Edited by miosim, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by AdminNosy, posted 12-09-2006 8:41 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2007 7:02 PM miosim has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4348 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 68 of 78 (396050)
04-18-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by miosim
04-18-2007 4:58 PM


Re: WHY DO TWO SEXES EXIST?
I began to think that a new statistically testable division of sexuality was possible on reading:


Click to enlarge

and thinking:


Click to enlarge

.

I have diagrammed the thought with this:


Click to enlarge

If true that would involve untangling the lines I drew with a computer program here:


Click to enlarge

untwisting according to some simulation like:


Click to enlarge

It seems to me that the medieval imagination that permited humans to draw plants like:


Click to enlarge

and


Click to enlarge

necessitate via the statistical extension within a form constrained in part by the work I overlayed here:


Click to enlarge

into inverting Gould’s diagram


Click to enlarge

into its real on(so says Brad):


Click to enlarge

Unfortunately, I do not get the time to really work on this idea much.

In this way the vertical delinations above would become transformed by the idea of sex into the horizontal ones here during gene expression.


Click to enlarge

Alternatively
http://aexion.org/sectorseven.aspx
(assuming I am not simply just plain wrong), the reason that I am slow on working it out may be that haptic touch sense is macrothermodyanmically required to "sense" this notion, i.e. pictures just wont work but differences of feel between right and left do...?)

On this view sex is not from asexual to bisexual but our confusion about it comes from wrong ways of thinking about the parent-offspring relation within the anscestor-descendent one. So, where Goldschmidt, for genetic exemplar, was wont to speak of systemic mutation and chemicallly induced phenocopies, we need a new symmetric representation but one that is not sexually visualized once the rod of the image is 'erected' and yet is always topologically unquie for each diploid-polyploid shape differences and thus within different "patterns" of chromosomes and their parts TO the expression thus expereinced a different but not asexual notion of the origin of bisexuality may arise.
Unfortunately, the difference of the shapes of letter signs continue to refuse a simple image of this, provisonaly symbol.


Click for full size image

I find that sex may become from the difference of crystal forms of viruses rather than the behavior of microbes. But that is just me.

Edited by Brad McFall, : link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by miosim, posted 04-18-2007 4:58 PM miosim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by miosim, posted 04-19-2007 10:50 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 71 by miosim, posted 04-19-2007 10:51 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 2:50 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 73 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 4:30 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 75 by Damouse, posted 10-11-2007 9:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 69 of 78 (396091)
04-18-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eledhan
09-20-2005 11:04 AM


Mitosis & Meiosis
When I was corresponding with a particularly dishonest creationist, he would throw at me "unanswerable questions", one which he worded as something like "So explain how mitosis animals gave rise to meiosis animals." I had to assume that he was asking for how asexual reproduction could have evolved into sexual reproduction. Here's what I told him:

So, what would it take for asexual organisms to become sexual organisms?
Here is what it looks like to me:
1. Meiosis.
2. Getting the gametes together.
3. Development.

That looks about like it to me. Can you think of anything else?

OK, first some basics. Asexual reproduction can involve a lot more than simple cell division, mitosis. When we deal with multi-cellular organisms, we also deal with development through cell growth (ie, mitosis) and cell differentiation. It also turns out that a log of multi-cellular organisms use asexual reproduction. Some, like hydrae, use budding, in which some of its cells start growing and differentiating into "baby"hydrae. Some plants, like strawberries, send out runners which put down roots and become more strawberry plants. Other plants use cloning, in which twigs (Greek "klon") from the plant will grow new copies of that plant. Mushrooms and ferns reproduce asexually with spores.

Interestingly, in the case of ferns, the spores asexually produce the SEXUAL version of the fern, which then produce seeds for the next fern sexually. In addition, most of the examples given above also use sexual reproduction. Therefore, we have a number of organisms which are not entirely sexual or asexual. Maybe we could call them "bisexual". No, I think that term is already taken .

At any rate, we find through living examples that many organisms can use both sexual and asexual reproduction. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assume that as a species is developing sexual reproduction, it can continue to reproduce asexually. The transition can work without killing off the species.

Next, thanks to your question, development is already taken care of. It is pre-existing in the asexual organisms and would only need minor modification normally needed in the evolution of a new species. There is nothing new that would need to be developed here.

Next comes the question of meiosis. We already covered this one, so I'll just repeat it here.

Mitosis is the process by which a single cell grows, duplicates its genetic material, then pulls the two sets of chromosomes to either side and finally splits in two, yielding two cells where there had been one. Mitosis consists of seven or nine (the actual number escapes me at present) distinct phases. Mitosis is used by single-celled animals for reproduction. To my knowledge, single-celled organisms and colonies of undifferentiated cells only use mitosis to reproduce and some multi-celled organisms (ie, with bodies consisting of tissues of differentiated cells) effectively use mitosis to reproduce the entire animal through asexual means, though most use sexual reproduction either in addition or in place of asexual reproduction, as covered above.

However, the individual cells of multi-celled animals continue to use mitosis to reproduce themselves. Also, some multi-celled animals capable of regeneration can effective create duplicates of themselves if they are cut in pieces; eg, flatworms and starfish. Therefore, we find mitosis still present and working in animals that reproduce via meiosis.

Meiosis is the process of producing gametes, AKA "germ cells", each of which contain half of the chromosomes of the original cells. Then two gametes from two different individuals combine to form a cell with a complete set of genetic material, which then uses mitosis to produce more cells, which develop into the embryo, then into the fetus. That process is known as development.

Well, it turns out that meiosis is a variation of mitosis, in effect a crippled form, since some steps appear to be missing. First a definition: a "polar body" is a packet of genetic material without the normally-associated cytoplasm. Remembering back to biology class over 20 years ago, the gametes-to-be use mitosis to produce some copies, but then they undergo division before they duplicate any genetic material or cytoplasm. What results in the male are four polar bodies which become sperm and in the female three polar bodies which are discarded and one cell with half its chromosomes, an ovum.

So going from mitosis to meiosis does not appear to be that great of a step. No insurmountable problems here.

Again, I offer the URL of a page which compares mitosis and meiosis:
[http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/Biology/mod2/mitosis/meiosis.htm].
A graphical comparison linked to this page (and displayed on the page in smaller format) is at [http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/Biology/mod2/mitosis/mandm.htm].
It is pretty much as I had remembered it, even though I had forgotten some of the details over the past two decades.

Getting the gametes together is the last part. Since our hypothetical ancestral form would inhabit the sea, we have plenty of examples of how this could be accomplished. Many, if not most, aquatic organisms release either their sperm or their eggs or even both into the water. Simple as that. That would establish a method for gamete delivery that would work until more efficient methods could evolve.

So, Bill. I don't see any show-stoppers here. Do you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eledhan, posted 09-20-2005 11:04 AM Eledhan has not replied

  
miosim
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 57
From: NH, USA
Joined: 04-07-2007


Message 70 of 78 (396237)
04-19-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
04-18-2007 7:02 PM


Re: WHY DO TWO SEXES EXIST?
Deleted message

Edited by miosim, : posted by mistake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2007 7:02 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
miosim
Member (Idle past 4993 days)
Posts: 57
From: NH, USA
Joined: 04-07-2007


Message 71 of 78 (396238)
04-19-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
04-18-2007 7:02 PM


Re: WHY DO TWO SEXES EXIST?
I find that sex may become from the difference of crystal forms of viruses rather than the behavior of microbes. But that is just me.

You could be right, but I didn’t understand the explanation of your idea. Unfortunately without clear (that often means simple) way to communicate, nobody would benefit regardless correctness of an idea.

I do actually trace the cause of sex origin to viruses, but in my opinion, it wouldn’t add much to this discussion.

Edited by miosim, : provided a quotation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2007 7:02 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 782 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 78 (396285)
04-19-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
04-18-2007 7:02 PM


Re: WHY DO TWO SEXES EXIST?
It's like gazing into the eye of madness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2007 7:02 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4835 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 73 of 78 (396329)
04-19-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
04-18-2007 7:02 PM


INSANITY
Brad, You're insane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2007 7:02 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2007 7:26 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4348 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 78 (396378)
04-19-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by fallacycop
04-19-2007 4:30 PM


INSANITY? please clarifiy
quote:
from asexual reproduction
Eledhan OP

quote:
Asexual reproduction only takes one parent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

TO
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_(disambiguation)

quote:
Bisexual species, in biology, one that has members of two different distinct sexes (e.g. humans), opposed to unisexual (only one sex present, always females).


as in the OP
quote:
into bisexual reproduction if evolution is true? Can any evolutionist explain this to me? Heck, I'll even take a Creationists theory on how it could have happened

Dear Fallacycop

You will have to be more specific.
What really do you mean by "insanity". Did you assume that only via phatoms rather than images nor propositions was it "birthed" in me??
If it does not relate to this thread please address it here
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1808&m=1
(I am more than happy to air any concern about me you may have)
When I spoke of "erection of an image", I was not letting my imagination 'run' wild. I think Crashfrog said it. There is a Jeckel-Hyde aspect.
I had in mind rather specifically the use of the colored rods on the sides of voynich
http://www.voynich.nu/
papers


Click to enlarge

as a scheme for what Gould wrote as De Vries' "fluctuating variation"

Click to enlarge

only on my handling of the color scheme there would be explantory room missed by Stephen between 'mutational' and 'fluctuating' variation precisely where Gould was interested in the different views of Bateson and Goldschmidt. I took the higher level on the rod as being a "symbol" or "mnemonic" for the serially dipicted "plants" across the page. This permits me to ideationally visualize quite algebraically the "rotation" of Gould's image as I did(in the dispute over neutral evolution and phenotypes). I will explain more of this as I address the specifics of viruses non-fluid forms and the topic of this thread in response to others.

The crucial image comparison that I have left off of the internet so far is this:


Click to enlarge

and


Click to enlarge

This curvature is in PRINCIPIA TAXANOMICA (in Spanish) which I depicted here:
http://axiompanbiog.com/panbioglnks.aspx

Which is where logically my mind goes while (it) indicates a possible statistical division not noticed apparently available for observation. Reducing this comparison of images to the propositions of the "origin" of sex is however not one of mediate occurrance as there is some aspect of empricial geometry in the former that is lacking in the latter.

If being able to think within infinity makes you say I am insane then there will be nothing I can do to change your mind. I am fuctionin in society, working and paying for my survival and not crossing the law, so I do not know what else would be required. It would be unwise however for you not to change if you really didnt understand what I was trying to communicate.

I finally can read Bertrand Russell in my own voice. He never really tried to read Cantor for what in Kant Cantor was trying to apply. Of course no one after Russell even came that close. Biological descent with modification remands this attention insofar as geodesics do not inscribe the tracks of life. This will be obvious if any life is every discovered off Earth. Till then we confuse the difference of geometry and algebra where psychology was the experience as Russell was able to say but we can do differently today. If pressured by EvCers I may even be lead to bring the ideas round to the speciation of Amblystoma but it would be unwise for me to second guess this , where I have not written.

Edited by Brad McFall, : image placement


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 4:30 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4221 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 75 of 78 (427533)
10-11-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
04-18-2007 7:02 PM


Re: WHY DO TWO SEXES EXIST?
That was amazing.

Its like OWNING the eye of madness.


This statement is false.

Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 04-18-2007 7:02 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 10-12-2007 6:52 PM Damouse has not replied
 Message 77 by Equinox, posted 10-16-2007 12:34 PM Damouse has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022