Natural Selection

[SM-Count]

I'm saying if you have three strands or more of sex chroms (because there are three genders or more, in case you missed the entire point of the thread... which it looks like you did seeing as you're still using a mother and a father), instead of two strands of sex chroms there is more DNA to replicate. As for your example, that's not even close to what I'm talking about. Please re-read, comprehend, and stop using insensible examples to prove a point that is off target. I'm talking about damaged cells, not damaged DNA. DNA replicates when cell goes through mitosis and it does make errors. So the extra chromosome will result in more DNA being replicated, get it?

@NS
You don't have more than two parents because the only thing that would have more combination is the sex gene, all the other traits would be similar (all three genders would all have eyes, mouths, noses... etc. only difference is combination of sex genes, unless the third sex has tenticles or wings...). Too many sexes just makes it difficult to reproduce, two allows for natural selection and a nice Hardy-Weinberg curve for traits. More sexes wouldn't change the survival traits but would inhibit how people reproduce because of all the different sexes and limitations on which sex can mate with which sex. Two is just simple and allows for good spread of traits.
Basically, what Reise says below in more words than necessary...

[Reise]

Fools. More genders than 2 is inefficient.

Having 2 genders makes it easier for the species to propagate. In nature it would be more difficult to reproduce with more than 2 genders in the equation.

[Maniac]

to answer nuclear's question, yes, having more genders would give more genetic diversity to the offspring, which is a very good thing.

But, it increases the difficulty of producing offspring. Fertible homosapiens normally produce one offspring during labor, while other species can produce thousands of offpsrings, and our offpsrings dont sexually mature until about 13 years of age. We are already at a disadvantage as is, so therefore having 50 people ..... each other to produce a baby is very not advantageous to our survivial, so natural selection favors 2 geneders instead, anything more the law of dimishing return takes affect.

SM-Count, u clearly said "More combinations means more genes"... don't try to make up some lame excuse because u were wrong

[NuclearSilo]

i don't see why it causes the reproduction more difficult. If i produce an offspring with a gender A, doesn't mean I can't produce offspring sex with gender B?

[Xyzzzy]

I've always thought you were dense Silo, but this is ridiculous. You keep asking the same question over and over again, and when someone gives an answer, you give some bullshit argument for why there wrong. Guess what comes next? You ask the same question again. You have no idea what you're talking about, stop and think for two seconds.

[NuclearSilo]

I've always thought you were dense Silo, but this is ridiculous. You keep asking the same question over and over again, and when someone gives an answer, you give some bullshit argument for why there wrong. Guess what comes next? You ask the same question again. You have no idea what you're talking about, stop and think for two seconds.

natural selection? I got it.

[iGod]

i don't see why it causes the reproduction more difficult. If i produce an offspring with a gender A, doesn't mean I can't produce offspring sex with gender B?

Let's say there were 3 genders, then all 3 would be needed to be able to reproduce, let's say one gender supplies the eggs, the other fertilizies, and the 3rd stores the zygote... see how complicated and inefficient that is?

[Mirosuke]

Here we come again

Yup, Male and female. 2 genders. It's ok.
But why not one more? why not 4? or five?
Tell, what could happend to everything until now, if we had more genders?
That's interesting. Self production you say? Like the chickens productions? lol
They don't need another to 'create' a chic. They self-produce them.
And we are almost near in that. With artificial insemination maybe?
Idk, maybe its wrong. Since for the insemination we need a donator, and that implies another individual. Also, the one who going to 'produce', has to be female.
And why not males? why they cannot produce? lol don't know...
those are one of the infinite question of being a human.. (lol?)

and yeah, if we were more than 2 gender.. all of them will be necessary to produce another.

and what happens if a male have Female hormones? that's cracked up.

[dom]

I've always thought you were dense Silo, but this is ridiculous. You keep asking the same question over and over again, and when someone gives an answer, you give some bullshit argument for why there wrong. Guess what comes next? You ask the same question again. You have no idea what you're talking about, stop and think for two seconds.

natural selection? I got it.

Do me a favor:

Contact your spirits through your ouija board and ask them why I have nipples. I wonder what God was thinking (practical joke?).

[evilpeta]

I've always thought you were dense Silo, but this is ridiculous. You keep asking the same question over and over again, and when someone gives an answer, you give some bullshit argument for why there wrong. Guess what comes next? You ask the same question again. You have no idea what you're talking about, stop and think for two seconds.

natural selection? I got it.

Do me a favor:

Contact your spirits through your ouija board and ask them why I have nipples. I wonder what God was thinking (practical joke?).

straight from the ouija board:

"as embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay!

Nipples and breast tissue have no function as such except for perhaps protecting the heart and lungs from injury."

[dom]

Do me a favor:

Contact your spirits through your ouija board and ask them why I have nipples. I wonder what God was thinking (practical joke?).

straight from the ouija board:

"as embryos men and women have similar tissues and body parts. If anything the embryo follows a 'female template'. That is why nipples are present in both sexes. It is the effect of the genes, the Y chromosome and the hormone testosterone that brings about the changes and masculinises the embryo. Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles. Because nipples are there before this process begins the nipples stay!

Nipples and breast tissue have no function as such except for perhaps protecting the heart and lungs from injury."

Thanks for the partial answer, but only the ouija can give us insight into why God's rationale. Unless, of course, it is something too complicated to be understood by our simple human minds; in which case I will just submit.

[pipigrande]

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...

I was tired when I opened your thread. Got sleepy when I finished reading your question.

I was just going to post a fast and 'simple' answer so you could understand. But I decided to read a little bit about others replies and saw this one:

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.

XemnasXD already wrote what I wanted to write.

Going to bed...

[Priam]

Fools. More genders than 2 is inefficient.

Having 2 genders makes it easier for the species to propagate. In nature it would be more difficult to reproduce with more than 2 genders in the equation.

That.

Silo, jezus.

[takolin]

Ok I'm not going to read 3 pages of this.
I'll hop on from here.

Yes I might have reposted something that's been said. Forgive me.


With 1 gender you lack genetic diversion. All the "kids" would be equal to their "parents". The sad thing about equality in species is that if an illness kills 1 person, everyone who's the same dies as well.

The only way that this can be solved is by mutating fast to create diversity. Sadly if a human would mutate as fast as a bacteria we'd all die from cancer because the more you divide, the more likely that you'll suffer DNA damage which tends to be bad. It can work out for the best but don't get your hopes up.

Another thing that gives a bacteria the ability to mutate as fast as they want without killing the population is because the lack of "communication" in a colony. If a bacteria underwent a bad mutation it dies > no biggy. If it undergoes a good one, it'll proliferate and the colony will go faster. If a human does the same, we'd all be dead.


About your ant remark:

You have both female and male ants. The ratio is off because only females work and go out, but male ants fertilize the queen in order for her to lay eggs.

[XemnasXD]

natural selection? I got it.

Do me a favor:

Contact your spirits through your ouija board and ask them why I have nipples. I wonder what God was thinking (practical joke?).

Men are just modified women.

[rek]

I've always thought you were dense Silo, but this is ridiculous. You keep asking the same question over and over again, and when someone gives an answer, you give some bullshit argument for why there wrong. Guess what comes next? You ask the same question again. You have no idea what you're talking about, stop and think for two seconds.

natural selection? I got it.

Jesus Christ..

Natural selection is more than just two words. Understand the concept, then come back and talk shit.

Everyone in this thread thinks your either trolling, or your actually this stupid.

[woutR]

Ok since nuclear asks this question over and over again, there is no 3rd gender because this would severely impede the reproduction progress.

It is much harder to find 2 suitable people to mate with. Our population would develop a lot slower and so would our immunities and other important developments.

A 3 gender species would need to create a lot more offspring to be viable, seeing as 3 genders are needed to reproduce. Whereas with a 2 gender species less people are needed = more efficient reproduction = faster adjustments = superior.
The entire concept behind Natural Selection is that the inferior species die out and the species that can adapt the best stay on top. This is called survival of the fittest, if your species take more time to develop and adjust, it is very likely it will disappear.

So the answer to your question was just within the simple basics of Natural Selection, actually the core. Species that adapt and do it fast survive, species that don't die out. This is why there is no 3 gender human species, or any other 3 gender species.(Correct me if wrong, afaik there is no 3 gender species)

[NuclearSilo]

So the answer to your question was just within the simple basics of Natural Selection, actually the core. Species that adapt and do it fast survive, species that don't die out. This is why there is no 3 gender human species, or any other 3 gender species.(Correct me if wrong, afaik there is no 3 gender species)

So how can you judge smt if it doesn't even exist?

[rek]

So the answer to your question was just within the simple basics of Natural Selection, actually the core. Species that adapt and do it fast survive, species that don't die out. This is why there is no 3 gender human species, or any other 3 gender species.(Correct me if wrong, afaik there is no 3 gender species)

So how can you judge smt if it doesn't even exist?

No, it already has been judged, and it failed. Thats why it doesn't exist.

[XemnasXD]

why is the entire OTL still feeding the troll...

[.curve]

why is the entire OTL still feeding the troll...

Seriously...I was annoyed after reading like 3 of his posts.

[rek]

Ill just lock this now.

Either he's trolling, or he's retarded.