Why across almost life as we know it does it always involve a male fugging a female? Even plants do it. Why did gender evolve? Wouldn't it be simpler to just impregnate whoever?
Why across almost life as we know it does it always involve a male fugging a female? Even plants do it.
life succeeds by maximizing the rate of evolution. in tiny creatures that reproduce constantly, asexual reproduction is fine. animals that reproduce like one per year need systems to increase genetic variety, and male/female reproduction is one way to do this.
Nature decided that asexual reproduction was deleterious and not good for an organism in the long run to transfer genes
Through selective pressure and events led to sex between two distinct organisms that share the same dna makeup, in which you would refer to male and female
In a way, purebreeds have now been muttified through out the eons
>Nature decided that asexual reproduction was deleterious and not good for an organism in the long run to transfer genes
?
Do you think asexual reproduction went away?
Or even diminished?
No
It still exists
A majority of organisms know sexual reproduction is more advantageous than asexual reproduction
Some, though minuscule, organisms still asexually reproduce, like yeast and sponges
Why they still do it, idk
>A majority of organisms know sexual reproduction is more advantageous than asexual reproduction
I really dont think that's true.
You think there are more organisms - or species - that reproduce sexually?
>like yeast and sponges
And all of bacteria.
The majority of species reproduce asexually or feature some sort of hermaphroditism.
specialization. one gives, another takes. easy and simple infinite gene cycles from recombinations. the eternal ying and yangs
It's been explained now why it exists, but also it allows for increased genetic diversity, better control over the rate of genetic mutations, and increased protection against the decay of genes.
This is important when dealing with things like diseases/viruses, which are going to attack specific genes. Certain populations, through reproducing sexually, may pass around traits that prevent specific diseases from working on them. Or certain genes may be changed that can no longer be targeted. As you may know, if a population is genetically identical as a result of asexual reproduction, they are increasingly susceptible to disease, as they all share the same genes that can be targeted.
>if a population is genetically identical as a result of asexual reproduction
This is often counteracted through horizontal gene transfer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
I wonder if sexual reproduction came about as an alternative when life became too complex to easily share DNA packets.
You misunderstand. Sexual reproduction evolved BEFORE the split between plants and animals. It's not convergent evolution. It's inherited.
>Why across almost life as we know it does it always involve a male fugging a female?
this is not true in the slightest
Anon, read this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_mating_strategy
Also, this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahymena_thermophila
Sexual reproduction allows for the core genetic code (usually the female, XX) to remain stable while the male XY can mutate and explore other behaviors and branches to see what works better in the changing environment.
That is why it is usually the males that perform more risk taking and eccentricity.
That is why males usually are the ones trying to get laid, while the female chooses which genetic expressions are desirable.
Correct
XX and XY is the human mode, some species it is the other way around, and have males with symmetrical chromosomes and females with asymmetrical. Some species have a X0 system where one have two copies and the other only one. Other species like bees and ants unfertilized eggs become males and fertilized ones become females meaning that males have half the number of chromosomes than females. The platypus have W, X and Y chromosomes with WY, WX, or XX females and YY or XY males. Animals like alligators and turtles the sex is determined by the temperature of incubation and not by their genome. We have also sex determined by other ambient factors and even sex determined by social status like in the clownfish where the biggest and strongest fish around is the female and all the others are males, if the female dies the biggest and strongest male of the harem becomes female. Other animals start male and becomes female as they get older.
Which of those do you think refutes the idea that sexual reproduction allows for evolutionary "experimentation" while maintaining a stable base of genetic code?
Some of them don't even have sex being determined by the genes at all.
You didn't answer the question.
If you mean those that change sex, that still is being determined by the individuals who have survived and thrived in the environment.
That was not your original claim. Your original claim was that one of them had a different genetic code more prone for experimentation than the other. Also there are some species whose sex is determined by factors like temperature during incubation or the location it developed
>Your original claim was that one of them had a different genetic code more prone for experimentation than the other.
Fair, but that wasnt what I asked you.
You still havent answered that question.
and I still maintain that sexual reproduction allows for greater evolutionary experimentation without destroying the line.
>sex is determined by factors like temperature during incubation or the location it developed
Changing environment leads to greater or lesser genetic stability.
This does not refute the central claim.
And you still havent answered the question.
Which of those do you think refutes the idea that sexual reproduction allows for evolutionary "experimentation" while maintaining a stable base of genetic code?
The fact that it create greater variability on both instead of having one be more variable refutes that. Sexual reproduction helps combining and shuffling genes. Imagine that a biological process have 5 steps A, B, C, D and E.
Now let's say an individual got a random mutation of Step A that makes it more efficient so we will call this individual Blue. Now its descendants will have an advantage over the other lineages. Now Let's say a different individual (I'm calling this Red) got a mutation on step B, its descendants also will have an advantage over the other lineages. Without sexual reproduction these two will compete for resources and the most efficient one will become dominant. Now if you add a way to transfer genes between individuals now those lineages can combine generating descendants with varied combinations of of genes, some will have none of the mutations, some will have only one and others will have both. In this case having both makes an individual better than both parents, this is the greatest advantage of sexual reproduction, to achieve the same result without it every individual lineage would need to get the right mutation for each gene instead of borrowing it from a different lineage and a good gene might be lost if it appeared in a less efficient strain that already is dying. What you described would be closer to animals like aphids or daphnia where they reproduce asexually most of the time generating many individuals with a stable genome and reproduce sexually from time to time. Also some species lost sexual reproduction entirely despite descending from ancestors who performed sexual reproduction only.
>it create greater variability on both instead of having one be more variable
Source?
>Now if you add a way to transfer genes between individuals now those lineages can combine generating descendants with varied combinations of of genes
Horizontal gene transfer existed before sexual reproduction.
>Source?
Male and females have the same genes in those species.
>Horizontal gene transfer existed before sexual reproduction.
There is horizontal gene transfer between different species but that is not some event that happens every time. Sexual reproduction is a way to do the mixing in the entire population so the best genes can be grouped in the same individuals.
>Male and females have the same genes in those species.
1 - not true, even individuals have different genes
2 - if it was, there would be no advantage over asexual reproduction
>There is horizontal gene transfer between different species but that is not some event that happens every time.
It happens between individuals, and it happoens a lot.
If it mixed as much as you are implying there would be no species consistency with sexual reproduction.
60 IQ
>We have also sex determined by other ambient factors and even sex determined by social status like in the clownfish where the biggest and strongest fish around is the female
Lucky bastards
Legit question, are these underage or is education this bad now? I learned about plant reproduction, sex determination mechanism and stuff in high school and I'm from a fucking third world country. Do people no longer teach those stuff so people come up with such shit takes? Is this an American thing where religious groups don't want schools teaching biology because it is not in the bible? Or maybe they don't want to expose children to education about reproduction?
Most people don’t care about biology or science in general and forget the information after exam day.
*sex
genders don't exist
Sex is genetic source, gender is the behaviour/social role that often but not always comes with it. Sex can't be changed but gender can be by taking on another social role or loosing certain hormone producing body parts.
Bullshit. Man and woman are not social roles. There's no race/flender distinction either.
Man and woman are social roles. What the fuck are you talking about?
>Man and woman are social roles
No, they're the semester, retard. The point is you could play this stupid verbal shell game with anything. Race and flender. Species and zender. Age and yender. MuH sOcIaL cOnStRuCt
>you could play this stupid verbal shell game with any arbitrary, projected, cultural categorization
Yes.
lmao retard there's nothing arbitrary about the sexes and YWNBAW
Good thing we are talking about gender, retard.
Gender, race, species, and age are all arbitrary social constructs.
>age
had me until then, 8/8
Time alive is objective.
Age is not.
It is very possible for a Korean to be 2 years old after 48 hours alive.
*and Sinic peoples generally
*the sexes
>its society that makes females carry their young inside/lay eggs.
have a nice day chud
Rope
>male fugging a female
Thats how we know OP has an underage mentality
Literally peabrain to think women dont fuck males as well : its people fucking other people
Protip : once you understand that youll go farther in life
No i wont elaborate and yes i hid the thread, no need to reply
benis goes in bagina. therefore male fugs female.
>Wouldn't it be simpler to just impregnate whoever?
that'd be kinda gay though
Only if you're the cuck getting impregnated and not the chad impregnator
Fucing in one way or another is a quick and easy way to recombine your genes and get offspring with new taits that improve survival of the species in an unstable environment.
Sex and gender in animals is a way to make one half of the species compete with itself in form of using violence or idiotic attention grabbing features so only the fittest can reproduce while still keeping the other half well adapted to the environment so offspring can still be raised as successfully as possible.
Do plants even have genders? Not that I know of but since some species individuals are male or female only that's a interesting question.
>always
It's pretty common for species to be hermaphroditic, change sex or just use asexual reproduction.
>Do plants even have genders?
My understanding is there are plant species with male and female individuals. There are also species that have male and female parts but can't impregnate themselves. And there are species that have both and can get themselves pregnant.
>Why across almost life as we know it does it always involve a male fugging a female?
It doesn’t maybe life (you) know about but not most life known by mankind.
In some organisms all individuals produce motile gametes that are basically the same. Both are released in water and when they meet fertilization occurs. In some creatures having assimetric gametes (one being larger and less mobile and the other smaller specialized in motility) was selected, us included. Since we call the ones with the motile gamete males and the big gamete females in our species we started calling this male and female gametes even if in many species the same individual produces both. In microbes we call plasmid transference as sexual reproduction but it is a completely different process from human sexual reproduction, it doesn’t combine half of its entire genome with half of the entire genome of the other to create a third individual also the one donating the dna can become the receptor of a different one and this trade can even happen in unrelated microbes of different genera. There is a freshwater species where some males produce a sperm with its full DNA and instead of combining with the egg and producing a progeny that is a mix of both it yeets the egg dna and make a progeny that is a copy of the “male” (they are actually produce both so there aren’t really males and females)
Some species are hermaphrodite and some of them fuck themselves.
In some species the females fuck the males.
And most species reproduce asexually.
also theres hermaphrodite animals
Binary gender is a simple and efficient way for genetic recombination.
>Why across almost life as we know it does it always involve a male fugging a female?
The vast majority of life on earth reproduces by asexual reproduction.
I'm no scientist but I would guess it allows for evolution to occur quicker and most things that didn't have it probably died from not being able to adapt.
>xhe doesn't know about aphids
Teach me your aphidian knowledge anon.
Try Wikipedia