I know I ask the oddest questions, but they all have relevance for me at this stage of my journey.
This is only if you believe in evolution.
What came first?
1. Unisex
2. Female
3. Male
Do we know?
Why did two sexes develop. Other species are able to reproduce without two distinct sexes, why did mamals develop this path? Is it purley evolution and if so, what was the purpose of two sexes?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Jun 10 2010, 09:28 AM)
I know I ask the oddest questions, but they all have relevance for me at this stage of my journey.
This is only if you believe in evolution.
What came first?
1. Unisex
2. Female
3. Male
Do we know?
Why did two sexes develop. Other species are able to reproduce without two distinct sexes, why did mamals develop this path? Is it purley evolution and if so, what was the purpose of two sexes?
Not sure what you mean by 'purpose' but we can at least confidently assume that we can expect to find advantages for those animals that use the 2 sex method, because it's successful. What do you suppose those advantages would be?
This is only if you believe in evolution.
What came first?
1. Unisex
2. Female
3. Male
Do we know?
Why did two sexes develop. Other species are able to reproduce without two distinct sexes, why did mamals develop this path? Is it purley evolution and if so, what was the purpose of two sexes?
Not sure what you mean by 'purpose' but we can at least confidently assume that we can expect to find advantages for those animals that use the 2 sex method, because it's successful. What do you suppose those advantages would be?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 10 2010, 10:29 AM)
Not sure what you mean by 'purpose' but we can at least confidently assume that we can expect to find advantages for those animals that use the 2 sex method, because it's successful. What do you suppose those advantages would be?
I think this is why I ask the question. What is the advantage of two sexes? If we were able to reproduce singularily, why the evolution into sexes.
I kinda picture it like this. A single sexed organism existed. A genetic deformity occured creating an opposite/distinctive sex. This new "sexed" organism had to have been able to interact with the unisex organism, or it would have died out. Why did the unisex organism accept this interaction when it did not need it?
To me it seems that dual sexes are a less to do with procreation, and more to do with physical contact.
I think this is why I ask the question. What is the advantage of two sexes? If we were able to reproduce singularily, why the evolution into sexes.
I kinda picture it like this. A single sexed organism existed. A genetic deformity occured creating an opposite/distinctive sex. This new "sexed" organism had to have been able to interact with the unisex organism, or it would have died out. Why did the unisex organism accept this interaction when it did not need it?
To me it seems that dual sexes are a less to do with procreation, and more to do with physical contact.
QUOTE
To me it seems that dual sexes are a less to do with procreation, and more to do with physical contact.
Nope.
Dual sexes has to do with genetic variability and competition.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Jun 10 2010, 11:00 AM)
I think this is why I ask the question. What is the advantage of two sexes? If we were able to reproduce singularily, why the evolution into sexes.
I kinda picture it like this. A single sexed organism existed. A genetic deformity occured creating an opposite/distinctive sex. This new "sexed" organism had to have been able to interact with the unisex organism, or it would have died out. Why did the unisex organism accept this interaction when it did not need it?
I don't know. I'm not sure the question makes sense.
QUOTE
To me it seems that dual sexes are a less to do with procreation, and more to do with physical contact.
How would thisif true explain male/female trees for instance?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Jun 10 2010, 04:28 AM)
I know I ask the oddest questions, but they all have relevance for me at this stage of my journey.
This is only if you believe in evolution.
What came first?
1. Unisex
2. Female
3. Male
Do we know?
Why did two sexes develop. Other species are able to reproduce without two distinct sexes, why did mamals develop this path? Is it purley evolution and if so, what was the purpose of two sexes?
Sexual reproduction evolved a long time before mammals came on the scene.
I would think that the primary advantage is increased genetic diversity in a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction
This is only if you believe in evolution.
What came first?
1. Unisex
2. Female
3. Male
Do we know?
Why did two sexes develop. Other species are able to reproduce without two distinct sexes, why did mamals develop this path? Is it purley evolution and if so, what was the purpose of two sexes?
Sexual reproduction evolved a long time before mammals came on the scene.
I would think that the primary advantage is increased genetic diversity in a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction
One is light, needing mass. The other is mass, needing time. Neither, they were coupled from the beginning to have sex. Hmmm.
QUOTE (sdogv+Jun 10 2010, 04:40 PM)
One is light, needing mass. The other is mass, needing time. Neither, they were coupled from the beginning to have sex. Hmmm.
Have you considered that all binary concepts can be gendered? There are psychological studies done asking people about every possible binary pair and people are always able to associate one as masculine and the other as feminine. This is due to the fact that gender is one of first binary distinctions learned by young children. Man/Woman and good/bad, and from those two everything else is susceptible to associative meaning-making, including light/mass but also things like dog/cat, left/right, hear/see, think/act, mind/body, theoretical/practical, up/down, inside/outside, private/public, past/future, etc etc.
Have you considered that all binary concepts can be gendered? There are psychological studies done asking people about every possible binary pair and people are always able to associate one as masculine and the other as feminine. This is due to the fact that gender is one of first binary distinctions learned by young children. Man/Woman and good/bad, and from those two everything else is susceptible to associative meaning-making, including light/mass but also things like dog/cat, left/right, hear/see, think/act, mind/body, theoretical/practical, up/down, inside/outside, private/public, past/future, etc etc.
Yep, as Buckminster Fuller said, "Unity is plural, at a minimum, TWO!"
so applies to lots of things. electrons/protons, metals/non-metals, etc.
Light and mass communicate to make up the whole shebang. Each by itself is homosexual, but together, definitely heterosexual. Just like human males are "kind" of feminine and females are "kind" of masculine. Light definitely came first, errr... from mass. oh oh.
so applies to lots of things. electrons/protons, metals/non-metals, etc.
Light and mass communicate to make up the whole shebang. Each by itself is homosexual, but together, definitely heterosexual. Just like human males are "kind" of feminine and females are "kind" of masculine. Light definitely came first, errr... from mass. oh oh.
QUOTE (sdogv+Jun 10 2010, 09:17 PM)
Yep, as Buckminster Fuller said, "Unity is plural, at a minimum, TWO!"
so applies to lots of things. electrons/protons, metals/non-metals, etc.
Light and mass communicate to make up the whole shebang. Each by itself is homosexual, but together, definitely heterosexual. Just like human males are "kind" of feminine and females are "kind" of masculine. Light definitely came first, errr... from mass. oh oh.
Do you say this because in the bible it says that first there was the heavens and Earth (matter coagulating away from other matter) and only then was light created . . .
Or do you say it because a certain amount of matter has to coagulate to achieve sufficient gravitational force to result in fusion?
What if mass is the result of miniscule patterns of contained recursive energy?
so applies to lots of things. electrons/protons, metals/non-metals, etc.
Light and mass communicate to make up the whole shebang. Each by itself is homosexual, but together, definitely heterosexual. Just like human males are "kind" of feminine and females are "kind" of masculine. Light definitely came first, errr... from mass. oh oh.
Do you say this because in the bible it says that first there was the heavens and Earth (matter coagulating away from other matter) and only then was light created . . .
Or do you say it because a certain amount of matter has to coagulate to achieve sufficient gravitational force to result in fusion?
What if mass is the result of miniscule patterns of contained recursive energy?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jun 10 2010, 10:48 PM)
Do you say this because in the bible it says that first there was the heavens and Earth (matter coagulating away from other matter) and only then was light created . . .
Or do you say it because a certain amount of matter has to coagulate to achieve sufficient gravitational force to result in fusion?
What if mass is the result of miniscule patterns of contained recursive energy?
Bible is not a good "physics" reference, but certainly IF the ancient idea of panpsychism (everything has a form of consciousness, an awareness, or need) is applicable, then there is a state of physical and chemical kinetic and thermodynamic equilibrium between light and mass. Photons (light) "need" a surface of mass to evidence their existence, while mass "needs" time to exist for this to happen. What a marriage! Each needs the other for different reasons.
Biological life, a form of energy, is roughly proportional to mass. And mass itself is energy from Einstein E=Mc^2 so that Newtonian Gravity constant times Planck constant can eliminate the reality of mass, such that it can become units of m^3/sec^2, not Kg, i.e. c^2 times a length (wave?)
Or do you say it because a certain amount of matter has to coagulate to achieve sufficient gravitational force to result in fusion?
What if mass is the result of miniscule patterns of contained recursive energy?
Bible is not a good "physics" reference, but certainly IF the ancient idea of panpsychism (everything has a form of consciousness, an awareness, or need) is applicable, then there is a state of physical and chemical kinetic and thermodynamic equilibrium between light and mass. Photons (light) "need" a surface of mass to evidence their existence, while mass "needs" time to exist for this to happen. What a marriage! Each needs the other for different reasons.
Biological life, a form of energy, is roughly proportional to mass. And mass itself is energy from Einstein E=Mc^2 so that Newtonian Gravity constant times Planck constant can eliminate the reality of mass, such that it can become units of m^3/sec^2, not Kg, i.e. c^2 times a length (wave?)
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Jun 10 2010, 04:38 PM)
Sexual reproduction evolved a long time before mammals came on the scene.
I would think that the primary advantage is increased genetic diversity in a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction
I am talking about way before mamals existed. I am talking about when the first "living" organism decided to move away from being unisex. Organisms such as bacteria.
The question is, which came first. I ask this question from a scientific point of view. Has it been determined through fossils, if the first organisms were unisex, male or female. (as we define them today). From my research, they were unisex or asexual. Even though these single celled organisms (such as bacteria) reproduced asexually, they developed more complex reproductive structures to help with the dispersal of the newly formed organism (cell splitting).
To me this indicates, that there were first unisex organisms, then female organisms who developed mainly becuase it was easier for them to disperse their offspring, and in all likelihood, the unisex organism, then developed into the male organism.
So my conclusion is:
1. Unisex
2. Female
3. Male
The reason I am even contemplating this question, is that it makes me wonder if men and woman are not their closest relatives. I know men and woman are classified as the same species, but woman seem to be an evolution from the unisex organism, and therefore technically , woman are mens closest relatives and vica versa.
This is why men and woman compete with each other so much. It is our instinct, it is part of a continuous evolutionary struggle.
I think this is what Rob meant when he said
I would think that the primary advantage is increased genetic diversity in a species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction
I am talking about way before mamals existed. I am talking about when the first "living" organism decided to move away from being unisex. Organisms such as bacteria.
The question is, which came first. I ask this question from a scientific point of view. Has it been determined through fossils, if the first organisms were unisex, male or female. (as we define them today). From my research, they were unisex or asexual. Even though these single celled organisms (such as bacteria) reproduced asexually, they developed more complex reproductive structures to help with the dispersal of the newly formed organism (cell splitting).
To me this indicates, that there were first unisex organisms, then female organisms who developed mainly becuase it was easier for them to disperse their offspring, and in all likelihood, the unisex organism, then developed into the male organism.
So my conclusion is:
1. Unisex
2. Female
3. Male
The reason I am even contemplating this question, is that it makes me wonder if men and woman are not their closest relatives. I know men and woman are classified as the same species, but woman seem to be an evolution from the unisex organism, and therefore technically , woman are mens closest relatives and vica versa.
This is why men and woman compete with each other so much. It is our instinct, it is part of a continuous evolutionary struggle.
I think this is what Rob meant when he said
QUOTE
Dual sexes has to do with genetic variability and competition.
The struggle between the sexes, seems to have had a major impact on the evolution of humans.
Given a choice between immortality minus sex and sex minus immortalty, a survey found men preffered the later. I dont know about women prefference though. Does this somehw explain the fall from Eden? Whoever said marriage is the price men pay for sex while sex is the price women pay for marriage should target women in this survey.
QUOTE (boit+Jun 13 2010, 09:23 AM)
Given a choice between immortality minus sex and sex minus immortalty, a survey found men preffered the later. I dont know about women prefference though. Does this somehw explain the fall from Eden? Whoever said marriage is the price men pay for sex while sex is the price women pay for marriage should target women in this survey.
I am with the later. Who would want to live forever. Life would have no meaning, plus the other benefit of the later is pretty cool too.
I am with the later. Who would want to live forever. Life would have no meaning, plus the other benefit of the later is pretty cool too.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 13 2010, 09:36 AM)
I am with the later. Who would want to live forever. Life would have no meaning, plus the other benefit of the later is pretty cool too.
Damn computer logged me out.
This is my comment.
Damn computer logged me out.
This is my comment.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 13 2010, 09:36 AM)
I am with the later. Who would want to live forever. Life would have no meaning, plus the other benefit of the later is pretty cool too.
Am with you there. I won't mind 72 black eyed dark haired sexperienced virgins in the other life though. It is this life that sucks if one contemplates living forever.
Am with you there. I won't mind 72 black eyed dark haired sexperienced virgins in the other life though. It is this life that sucks if one contemplates living forever.
QUOTE (boit+Jun 13 2010, 10:00 AM)
Am with you there. I won't mind 72 black eyed dark haired sexperienced virgins in the other life though. It is this life that sucks if one contemplates living forever.
Just always remember to stipulate that it must be female "experienced" virgins, unless you swing da other way.
Just always remember to stipulate that it must be female "experienced" virgins, unless you swing da other way.
In the harsh past, it made evolutionary sense to have one partner wired to protect the other. The other alternative would have been to lay eggs but this has it disadvantage. With the current highly automated world, the male species is in danger of being genetically engineered out. For emotional connection ladies will just watch the same soap over and over ad infinutum. They really don't need sex. They'll rather have emotion satisfaction sans sex than the other way round.
QUOTE (boit+Jun 13 2010, 06:09 PM)
In the harsh past, it made evolutionary sense to have one partner wired to protect the other. The other alternative would have been to lay eggs but this has it disadvantage. With the current highly automated world, the male species is in danger of being genetically engineered out. For emotional connection ladies will just watch the same soap over and over ad infinutum. They really don't need sex. They'll rather have emotion satisfaction sans sex than the other way round.
Mmmmm we obviously know different woman.
Mmmmm we obviously know different woman.
Reptiles were given the best deal. Some species of gecko can self fertilized when the male sex is scarce and revert to normal sexual reproduction when the male is available. The dinos could have the female change to male if the cohort were all females. Amazing! I'll elect to be the male if i reincarnate a dino in another world. Males though are unable to switch sex. Who's the weaker sex now? 
QUOTE (boit+Jun 13 2010, 06:26 PM)
Reptiles were given the best deal. Some species of gecko can self fertilized when the male sex is scarce and revert to normal sexual reproduction when the male is available. The dinos could have the female change to male if the cohort were all females. Amazing! I'll elect to be the male if i reincarnate a dino in another world. Males though are unable to switch sex. Who's the weaker sex now?
This example gives new meaning to the phrase go f#@k yourself.
Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/...0195-7/abstract
This example gives new meaning to the phrase go f#@k yourself.
Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/...0195-7/abstract
first came mickey mouse
ivan came as the second.
QUOTE (M00se1989+Jun 19 2010, 05:51 PM)
unisex.... obviously... had to start somewhere. had to be the same...and that doesn't mean that we should be the same either...everything=everything
Okay bright one, take a shot at the other questions, they are the hard ones.
And don't be too different, or you are likely to fall of a cliff=And don't be too different, or you are likely to fall of a cliff
Okay bright one, take a shot at the other questions, they are the hard ones.
QUOTE
Why did two sexes develop? Other species are able to reproduce without two distinct sexes, why did mamals develop this path? Is it purley evolution and if so, what was the purpose of two sexes?
And don't be too different, or you are likely to fall of a cliff=And don't be too different, or you are likely to fall of a cliff
QUOTE (boit+Jun 13 2010, 06:26 PM)
Reptiles were given the best deal. Some species of gecko can self fertilized when the male sex is scarce and revert to normal sexual reproduction when the male is available. The dinos could have the female change to male if the cohort were all females. Amazing! I'll elect to be the male if i reincarnate a dino in another world. Males though are unable to switch sex. Who's the weaker sex now?
How can you say that females can switch sex and become males and then claim that males are a weaker sex? How can males be weaker if they are metamorphosized females?!? That's like saying that butterflies can't transform into caterpillars so they are weaker than caterpillars. They're friggin' caterpillars with wings! . . . and very pretty ones I might add
The ironic thing is that even though you are able to conceptualize the idea of females becoming males in geckos, you don't seem to be able to see human sexual differences as merely functional differences for the purpose of facilitating gene hybridization in offspring.
How can you say that females can switch sex and become males and then claim that males are a weaker sex? How can males be weaker if they are metamorphosized females?!? That's like saying that butterflies can't transform into caterpillars so they are weaker than caterpillars. They're friggin' caterpillars with wings! . . . and very pretty ones I might add
The ironic thing is that even though you are able to conceptualize the idea of females becoming males in geckos, you don't seem to be able to see human sexual differences as merely functional differences for the purpose of facilitating gene hybridization in offspring.
Oops! You're right LITT, I didn't think it through. As for genetic diversity lacking in self fertilized geckos, i knew about that from the very documentary i watched in natiol geographic and from the subject genetics that i was taught in high school and college.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Jun 20 2010, 12:55 AM)
The ironic thing is that even though you are able to conceptualize the idea of females becoming males in geckos, you don't seem to be able to see human sexual differences as merely functional differences for the purpose of facilitating gene hybridization in offspring.
Thanks LIT, I think you have given me the answer I was looking for. It is clearly the best evolutionary model, for a man and woman to mix their DNA to produce stronger offspring.
Boit quoted:
If the female gecko, self fertilises her egg, where is the mix of genetic DNA we are told of, that is so important to our species survival . Do the offspring in these self fertilised geckos live shorter, die earlier, have 9 legs instead of 4, or a random mix of all possibilities including stronger geckos, or just the same?
Weird gecko!
Thanks LIT, I think you have given me the answer I was looking for. It is clearly the best evolutionary model, for a man and woman to mix their DNA to produce stronger offspring.
Boit quoted:
QUOTE
Reptiles were given the best deal. Some species of gecko can self fertilized when the male sex is scarce and revert to normal sexual reproduction when the male is available. The dinos could have the female change to male if the cohort were all females.
And how is it, that the gecko, does not bear offspring that are genetically deformed. If the female gecko, self fertilises her egg, where is the mix of genetic DNA we are told of, that is so important to our species survival . Do the offspring in these self fertilised geckos live shorter, die earlier, have 9 legs instead of 4, or a random mix of all possibilities including stronger geckos, or just the same?
Weird gecko!
The offsprings have identical genetic makeup as the parent and therefore susceptible to same diseases. This method of fertilization isn't the best where there is in option. If it is possible to engineer a super breed gecko, Idon't know if this will produce super offsprings too. I have my doubts. Nature seems to abhor hoarding of DNA.
QUOTE (Capracus+Jun 19 2010, 12:28 PM)
This example gives new meaning to the phrase go f#@k yourself.
Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/...0195-7/abstract
After reading this Chimera hypothesis, I don't feel like thinking the Christians and Muslims are crazy to believe in the possibilty of an immaculate conception. What if Mary was this 46XX/46XY Superwoman? Maybe this phenomenon is common but ladies get married so we are never to know who really 'fathered' the child.
Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/...0195-7/abstract
After reading this Chimera hypothesis, I don't feel like thinking the Christians and Muslims are crazy to believe in the possibilty of an immaculate conception. What if Mary was this 46XX/46XY Superwoman? Maybe this phenomenon is common but ladies get married so we are never to know who really 'fathered' the child.
I don't know. I'm not sure the question makes sense.
QUOTE
After reading this Chimera hypothesis, I don't feel like thinking the Christians and Muslims are crazy to believe in the possibilty of an immaculate conception. What if Mary was this 46XX/46XY Superwoman?
The Immaculate Conception was not that Mary was conceived without a father. Mary had a father. It refers to the Roman Catholic tenet that Mary was conceived without the sin of Adam upon her so that Jesus could be born from an unstained mother - unstained from Original Sin. This was the main, tho not the only reason for the Protestant movement. They protested that no one could be born sans Original Sin without violating one of the basic tenets of the Bible. The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Mary not having a father; in RC theory, it took place long before Jesus' birth, and was a miracle of Divine Grace, not a result of pre-mammalian genetics.
The problem is just like after the first, the chicken egg, egg chicken after, confusing
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.