Silkroad Online Forums

If everything exist, every species, without the hand of God involves, why human (and most animals) is divided in 2 kinds: male and female. Why the number 2, and not 3 or 4? Why don't exist a kind of human that is self-production? I mean it don't need other kind to create a baby...

Sorry, i dunno.Ask God.

NuclearSilo wrote:Why don't exist a kind of human that is self-production?

lol... because of natural selection.

I think the most funny thing I've ever seen creationists do was say to evolutionists "How do you know, you weren't there?". 'Cause the question they got asked right back was, "How do you know the stuff in the Bible is true? You weren't there". They shut up, lol.

And I can only tell you that there are two sexes vs one, due to genetic diversity for offspring. No clue what to say about vs three or four lol.

well, there was the zerg and protoss, but we found females much more attractive.

because asexual reproduction is boring?

I mean, we don't want to be sponges now do we?

Having 3 or 4 genders would make reproducing so much more complex, species with more than 2 genders would probably go extinct very fast. Balancing the # of every gender would probably mess everything up

There are animals (fish) and flowers that have only 1 gender though.

dom wrote:

NuclearSilo wrote:Why don't exist a kind of human that is self-production?

lol... because of natural selection.

It's not that it's a selection, but it never existed. Why would 2 genders have more advantage than 1 gender or 3 genders? With 1 gender, won't the population grows faster? For example the ants, with more population, they can build faster and more home, find more food, no?

I was taught that the selection is done because species want to adapt with the environment. And we know that both 1 gender and 2 genders exist in this world. But what's the disadvantage of 1 gender, and why 2 genders expend larger? Because of the secret chemical formula of love through "sex"?

NuclearSilo wrote:

dom wrote:

NuclearSilo wrote:Why don't exist a kind of human that is self-production?

lol... because of natural selection.

It's not that it's a selection, but it never existed. Why would 2 genders have more advantage than 1 gender or 3 genders? With 1 gender, won't the population grows faster? For example the ants, with more population, they can build faster and more home, find more food, no?

I was taught that the selection is done because species want to adapt with the environment. And we know that both 1 gender and 2 genders exist in this world. But what's the disadvantage of 1 gender, and why 2 genders expend larger? Because of the secret chemical formula of love through "sex"?

Because of natural selection.

If you don't understand this statement you should go educate yourself. There is no need for justification if you understand the concept.

because of natural selection, having male and female is the "optimal" way for the human being to survive in this envirenment in order to reproduce itself. what silo asks, if i get it correctly, is WHY is it optimal to have human beings only in male and female. if you respond by saying "natural selection" it's like someone asking why is "2+2=4"? and you responding, because of mathematics, that's rather vague. i don't like biology nor philosophy, so i will skip the fun.

dom wrote:Because of natural selection.

If you don't understand this statement you should go educate yourself. There is no need for justification if you understand the concept.

Then why would the nature select 2 genders?

having male and female is the "optimal" way for the human being to survive in this envirenment in order to reproduce itself

Explain why it's the optimal then?

oh god read the full post, don't make mee, i hate this subject.
just wanted to clear that up

If i understand correctly from all the answers above, they are:
"The nature selects it because it's the optimal way"
"It's the optimal way because the nature selects it"

Oh God, how i like theses kinds of answer

NuclearSilo wrote:If i understand correctly from all the answers above, they are:
"The nature selects it because it's the optimal way"
"It's the optimal way because the nature selects it"

Oh God, how i like theses kinds of answer

So look up why it is the optimal way.

.curve wrote:So look up why it is the optimal way.

Because the nature selects it?

NuclearSilo wrote:

.curve wrote:So look up why it is the optimal way.

Because the nature selects it?

I don't know. You make a thread asking why. We give you a reason why, and then you ask for more clarification. We have set the basic premise for you to further look into the subject on your own. Get to work if you're so interested.

I ask for more clarification just to make sure that you are 100% right about what you said. I know you are not biologist nor scientist so i can't expect much from 2 words "natural selection" and "optimal way"

Reproduction by single sexed organisms limits the amount of genetic variation and genetic mutations in the offspring. Less variations and mutations lead to less adaptations. Adaptation and evolution happen because of genetic mutations, the mutations that help are bred into the population while the mutations that don't, die out eventually. Think of it this way, single sexed reproduction is like a long line of inbreeding, with very little new genetic material. But seriously, you need to go read more about the subject, it's very clear from your posts you have no idea what you're talking about. At least bring something to table if you want an argument about creationism vs. evolution.

religious-based reasons why male and female were meant to be for human beings
http://www.allsaints-stl.org/Why%20Male ... 202008.pdf

if you want a more scientific response as to why male and female, this might be a good start
http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/ ... &id=611563

also
http://bovination.com/cbs/whyMaleAndFemale.jsp

Organisms that can self produces on this planet are normally much simpler organism than humans that reproduces easily, have a shorter lifespan, and despite mass production, don't disrupt equilibrium.

Humans are much more complex than these organisms, if could try to imagine the human body with both male and female organs you can see it gets kind of messy. There are numerous advantages to a duo sex species especially as they get further complicated. If you take the time to think of them im sure even you can come up with a few. A species with anymore than 2 sexes while possible is just further complicating the task and nature is admittedly very lazy. This isn't to say a species with 3 sexes could not exist its just saying that a species with 3 sexes is much more complicated than a species with 1 or 2 sexes.


Even with all that said if you want to know the scientific reason of why humans have 2 sexes then its simply because that's the way we turned out. Evolution is a slow, tricky, and very random process and even if you trace the origin of the mutation that first split the earliest life forms into 2 sexes you probably wouldn't find a meaningful cause other than because it just happened. That's the way simple mutations tend to work....

Yes, but no matter if they are immune or not immune, they're still male or female. It's not possible to give born to a 3rd gender!?
For example a gender doesn't have sperms nor egg, or a gender has both sperms and egg

Lol, I'm happy, I don't want to have a baby everytime I fap.

There would be no room for adaptation as we'd all be clones if we reproduced asexually..

NuclearSilo wrote:Yes, but no matter if they are immune or not immune, they're still male or female. It's not possible to give born to a 3rd gender!?
For example a gender doesn't have sperms nor egg, or a gender has both sperms and egg

Are you really that dense?

What would be the purpose of a third gender? To produce inferior offspring that rival those of incestuous nature?

Durr durr. I gots a question for teh evilutionists. wer does i ask it? to anonamous ppl fcours!

I've seen you question natural selection numerous times in this forum and they all have been answered sufficiently. Yet here you are again, raising questions that have already been answered elsewhere - on a more credible source at that.

Why don't you take people's advice here and actually look up answers first before posing your problems on an anonymous crowd with hardly any credibility on evolutionary biology, let alone on any scientific field.

Maybe that's the reason why you keep coming back. Though armed with the right answers to your questions, we're just faceless unknown people to you. I certainly would feel the same as well. But unlike you, I don't post my inquiries online right away.

Go read a book. Go ask an expert. Go take a course.

It's all about coincidence.

NuclearSilo wrote:Yes, but no matter if they are immune or not immune, they're still male or female. It's not possible to give born to a 3rd gender!?
For example a gender doesn't have sperms nor egg, or a gender has both sperms and egg

Because of natural selection.

Having two genders solves the issue of genetic diversity and allows the population to take small steps towards adaptation.

You ask incredibly dense questions. It is insulting for someone, in a stance of pseudo-intellectualism, to try to provoke reaction by posting nonsensical shit like "why not havs 3 gendarS??!".

Before you try to disprove a theory, or even question it, you should be in measure to understand the simple mechanics of the system. By asking why we don't have 3 genders, you are proving that you don't understand the fundamental concepts that build up to the theory of evolution.

It's simple:

We are not asexual because it did not offer the genetic variation needed to evolve to the complex creatures that we have become.

We are not hemaphrodites because we are complex organisms whose needs can't be satisfied by a single parent.

Furthermore, hemaphrodites are born every year. Natural selection assures that their genes will not be propagated.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=17&id=266

Before insulting all of us with your mild provocations, maybe you should consult a book. Or even in your case, a Ouija board.

dom wrote:Before insulting all of us with your mild provocations, maybe you should consult a book. Or even in your case, a Ouija board.

Fckin lold