Is Gender Inevitable

Quoted message said:

Use the bluidy language properly. </snit>. - JAH]

Ah, While I might tend to agree with you here I think that you are going a bit far. For example
consider the frequent discussion of single celled creatures who

TWINBLUE

Quoted message said:

is it the case that the divisions into gender is as close as you>can get,

evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?>

While there may be other solutions to the problem of genitic diversity and evolution I would expect
that where ever you find life

evolutionwise you would likely find most creatures in the universe that are large enough to see with
the naked eye are divided into "male" and "female".

TWINBLUE

"TWINBLUE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is it the case that the divisions into gender is as close

as you>can get,

Quoted message said:

evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?>

While there may be other solutions to the problem of genitic diversity and evolution I would
expect that where ever you find life

would be a bit unhandy

Quoted message said:

evolutionwise you would likely find most creatures in the universe that are large enough to see

with the naked eye are

Quoted message said:

divided into "male" and "female".

TWINBLUE

heterogamy, and metagenesis.) is certainly as efficient. For all we know, budding might be the
mainstay of the galaxy,

avoid the danger that lack of genetic diversity pure cloning represents. ...tonyC

"Anon." <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TWINBLUE said:

Quoted message said:

is it the case that the divisions into gender is as

close as you>can get,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?>

While there may be other solutions to the problem of genitic diversity and evolution I would
expect that where ever you find life

would be a bit unhandy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolutionwise you would likely find most creatures in the universe that are large enough to see

with the naked eye are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

divided into "male" and "female".

by asking why

my solution to

and then you

Quoted message said:

can go on to ask about the specialisation of mating types

into

Quoted message said:

Bob

I'm not sure what your point is exactly--but then I'm not much of a mycologist. 🙂 As a former
chemist I'm not even sure what you mean by "multiple mating types"--isn't that

genetic material?

One thing which is obvious in my non-expert observation of

into the class of what I'd call "complex" life (and what are generally the most commonly used
definitions of same.) I

prerequisite for bio-complexity (and possibly, resultant intelligence,) or if it plays little or no
role in evolution of complex life. BTW, I'm excluding for the moment, aggregates of biological units
in considering complexity
(e.g., hives/nests, slime molds, etc.) although such are certainly pertinent with regard to
semantics in the definitions of bio-compleity. ...tonyC

Quoted message said:

--
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW: rni.helsinki.fi~bohOpen ↗

Representative Trantis <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

The majority of creatures have two genders.

[...]

Quoted message said:

This indicates that it evolved early. Given that you are always going to get exploitation of a
wide open field, and that it makes no sense for both parents to make a nutritional contriution to
an ovum, given that the contribution of one is clerarly sufficient, is it the case that the
divisions into gender is as close as you can get, evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?

Dimorphism based on gamete size is always likely to be widespread.

being through one parent only.

Remove the mitochondria and the remaining mechanisms for enforcing

distributor to have its own body plan - rather than merely its own specialised body parts.

If you are mobile, this still represents some pressure towards dividing

entire body plan to being male doesn't normally buy you very much.

There's a discussion of the future of gender in "Mendel's Demon" - though I hasten to add that don't
entirely agree with it. It basically reaches the conclusion that our distant descendants will

--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

"William Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anthony Cerrato <[email hidden]> wrote in

news:bnn5fr$eit$1

Quoted message said:

@darwin.ediacara.org:

Quoted message said:

One thing which is obvious in my non-expert observation

of

fall

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

into the class of what I'd call "complex" life (and what

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

generally the most commonly used definitions of same.) I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

prerequisite for bio-complexity (and possibly, resultant intelligence,) or if it plays little or
no role in

evolution

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of complex life. BTW, I'm excluding for the moment, aggregates of biological units in
considering complexity
(e.g., hives/nests, slime molds, etc.) although such are certainly pertinent with regard to
semantics in the definitions of bio-compleity. ...tonyC

If memory serves me both dandelions and rotifers reproduce

exclusively

conditions. Again

Quoted message said:

going on memory, dandelions are thought to be a temporary

exception to the

(i.e. they only

the future) and

Quoted message said:

nobody has a good explanation for rotifers.

Yours,

Bill Morse

Hi Bill. I'm sorry that I didn't explain what I really meant more clearly. I put "complex" life in
quotes initially since I didn't mean it in the usual biological technical sense (I guess--I'm a
chemist not biologist 🙂.) What I meant was complex in the very subjective sense of larger animals
for example; e.g., increased complexity being from bacteria/prokaryotes, to your dandelions and
rotifers, to fish, reptiles/small mammals, to horses, monkeys, and finally, man.

While evolution isn't necessarily directed, there has been a persistent increase in complexity with
time in my, admitedly, loose view of complexity (unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with more
precise current non-traditional definitions of this kind of complexity tho.) Do you agree that in my
above "list" that the higher degree of some loose

be possible to reach animals as complex as horses, monkeys

....tonyC

"TWINBLUE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

NOT GENDERS. Use the bluidy language properly. </snit>. - JAH]

Ah, While I might tend to agree with you here I think that you are going >

a bit far.

Quoted message said:

For example consider the frequent discussion of single celled creatures >

Quoted message said:

"Gender" is properly a grammatical term. In French a "table" has feminine

(women wear skirts, etc) as opposed to biological aspects, and then later "gender" was used on job
applications and similar places as a euphemism for

molluscs some species are hermaphodite, though you still have two types of gametes (sperm and ova).

probably remembering something he read by Richard Dawkins). Once you have a small difference in
investment strategies escalate to the two extremes, so eggs are the largest cells whilst sperm are
the smallest in mammals.

TWINBLUE said:

Quoted message said:

is it the case that the divisions into gender is as close as you>can get,

evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?>

While there may be other solutions to the problem of genitic diversity and evolution I would
expect that where ever you find life

Quoted message said:

evolutionwise you would likely find most creatures in the universe that are large enough to see
with the naked eye are divided into "male" and "female".

can go on to ask about the specialisation of mating types into

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW: rni.helsinki.fi~bohOpen ↗

If a feature is abundant, one of two things are true: a) it evolved

Greets,

the Kid

Anthony Cerrato <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Anon." <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do as mycologists do!), and then you can go on to ask about

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what your point is exactly--but then I'm not much of a mycologist. 🙂 As a former
chemist I'm not even sure what you mean by "multiple mating types"--isn't that

Quoted message said:

genetic material?

called slime mould has about thirteen.''

- news.bbc.co.uk447058.stmOpen ↗
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

Anthony Cerrato said:

"Anon." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

TWINBLUE said:

>is it the case that the divisions into gender is as

close as you>can get,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?>

While there may be other solutions to the problem of genitic diversity and evolution I would
expect that where ever you find life

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would be a bit unhandy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolutionwise you would likely find most creatures in the universe that are large enough to see

with the naked eye are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

divided into "male" and "female".

Quoted message said:

by asking why

Quoted message said:

my solution to

Quoted message said:

and then you

Quoted message said:

can go on to ask about the specialisation of mating types

into

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bob

I'm not sure what your point is exactly--but then I'm not much of a mycologist. 🙂 As a former
chemist I'm not even sure what you mean by "multiple mating types"--isn't that

Quoted message said:

genetic material?

the cereal mildews). Others have many more, some into the thousands.

Quoted message said:

One thing which is obvious in my non-expert observation of

Quoted message said:

into the class of what I'd call "complex" life (and what are generally the most commonly used
definitions of same.)

I

Quoted message said:

prerequisite for bio-complexity (and possibly, resultant intelligence,) or if it plays little or
no role in evolution of complex life. BTW, I'm excluding for the moment, aggregates of biological
units in considering complexity
(e.g., hives/nests, slime molds, etc.) although such are certainly pertinent with regard to
semantics in the definitions of bio-compleity. ...tonyC

I don't know if there's a definite answer to that yet. We're still

Bob

--
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW: rni.helsinki.fi~bohOpen ↗

Anthony Cerrato <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bnn5fr$eit$1
@darwin.ediacara.org:

Quoted message said:

One thing which is obvious in my non-expert observation of

Quoted message said:

into the class of what I'd call "complex" life (and what are generally the most commonly used
definitions of same.) I

Quoted message said:

prerequisite for bio-complexity (and possibly, resultant intelligence,) or if it plays little or
no role in evolution of complex life. BTW, I'm excluding for the moment, aggregates of biological
units in considering complexity
(e.g., hives/nests, slime molds, etc.) although such are certainly pertinent with regard to
semantics in the definitions of bio-compleity. ...tonyC

If memory serves me both dandelions and rotifers reproduce exclusively

going on memory, dandelions are thought to be a temporary exception to the

nobody has a good explanation for rotifers.

Yours,

Bill Morse

Anthony Cerrato <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bnve1j$2sn6$1
@darwin.ediacara.org:

Quoted message said:

"William Morse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anthony Cerrato <[email hidden]> wrote in

news:bnn5fr$eit$1

Quoted message said:

@darwin.ediacara.org:

Quoted message said:

One thing which is obvious in my non-expert observation

of

Quoted message said:

fall

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

into the class of what I'd call "complex" life

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If memory serves me both dandelions and rotifers reproduce

exclusively

Quoted message said:

Hi Bill. I'm sorry that I didn't explain what I really meant more clearly. I put "complex" life in
quotes initially since I didn't mean it in the usual biological technical sense (I guess--I'm a
chemist not biologist 🙂.) What I meant was complex in the very subjective sense of larger animals
for example; e.g., increased complexity being from bacteria/prokaryotes, to your dandelions and
rotifers, to fish, reptiles/small mammals, to horses, monkeys, and finally, man.

Quoted message said:

While evolution isn't necessarily directed, there has been a persistent increase in complexity
with time in my, admitedly, loose view of complexity (unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with
more precise current non-traditional definitions of this kind of complexity tho.) Do you agree
that in my above "list" that the higher degree of some loose

Quoted message said:

be possible to reach animals as complex as horses, monkeys

The subject of a persistent increase in complexity with time has a somewhat tangled history in
evolution. Gould wrote a book - "Full House" - arguing that the increase in complexity was not a
result of direction, but simply the net result of a drunkard's walk away from zero complexity. I
agree with you and disagree with Gould on this point, and in fact there was a recent reference in
Science that seemed to verify an overall increase in diversity since the Cretaceous. But that may be
different from your overall point, which is whether complexity can be

A similar question was in fact very recently discussed on this newsgroup.

would be an inevitable result of evolution. This point was very well fleshed out by Wirt Atmar in a
follow in early October on a thread about "Levels of Selection". So even if you _could_ reach
complex animals

Yours,

Bill Morse

Reference previous discussion on gender by Wirt

"Anthony Cerrato" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi Bill. I'm sorry that I didn't explain what I really meant more clearly. I put "complex" life in
quotes initially since I didn't mean it in the usual biological technical sense (I guess--I'm a
chemist not biologist 🙂.) What I meant was complex in the very subjective sense of larger animals
for example; e.g., increased complexity being from bacteria/prokaryotes, to your dandelions and
rotifers, to fish, reptiles/small mammals, to horses, monkeys, and finally, man.

While evolution isn't necessarily directed, there has been a persistent increase in complexity
with time in my, admitedly, loose view of complexity (unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with
more precise current non-traditional definitions of this kind of complexity tho.) Do you agree
that in my above "list" that the higher degree of some loose

Quoted message said:

be possible to reach animals as complex as horses, monkeys

Quoted message said:

....tonyC

A very deep and difficult-to-answer question!

(Am not surprised no one has dared to dive in to debate it, until now. ;->😉

it seems that (apart from being confusing to parasites) it may act as a lever or building-platform,
upon which, (or that constitutes a relatively fundamental opportunity, or launching pad, from which)
a 'next evolutionary stage' of correspondingly more complex organisms can emerge.

Yours never inEPT,
%-}

Peter F.

Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"TWINBLUE" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

NOT GENDERS. Use the bluidy language properly. </snit>. - JAH]

Ah, While I might tend to agree with you here I think that you are going > a bit far. For example
consider the frequent discussion of single celled creatures >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Gender" is properly a grammatical term. In French a "table" has feminine

Quoted message said:

(women wear skirts, etc) as opposed to biological aspects, and then later "gender" was used on job
applications and similar places as a euphemism for

female); I know it is a word that originally referred only to grammatical categories, but meanings
change and it is usefully

- Matt Ridley, TRQ, p.345.

[moderator's paraphrase: "People are sloppy; I make no apology for abusing the language since it's
already used to it." - JAH]

--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

Anon. <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

It least these days the problem is not that we don't have explanations - it is that we have too many
explanations - and are not sure how to divide the credit (or blame) between them.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

William Morse <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

If memory serves me both dandelions and rotifers reproduce exclusively

Not exclusively:

(apomictic) plants [...]''

- niwi.knaw.nltoonOpen ↗
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

"Anon." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

TWINBLUE said:

Quoted message said:

is it the case that the divisions into gender is as close as you>can get,

evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?>

While there may be other solutions to the problem of genitic diversity and evolution I would
expect that where ever you find life

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolutionwise you would likely find most creatures in the universe that are large enough to see
with the naked eye are divided into "male" and "female".

Quoted message said:

can go on to ask about the specialisation of mating types into

Quoted message said:

helpful for preventing inbreeding where this might be harmful. It doesn't seem to represent
divergence in strategy in any sense, whereas males and females are (with a few exceptions)
associated with a host of stereotypical adaptations which appear to be geared towards definite,
divergent strategies.

In some species there are dimorphisms within, say, males, relating to reproductive strategies.
Perhaps these should be regarded as similar

by orange, blue and red morphs of male lizards. Perhaps in that

Or maybe not . . .

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 04:49:54 +0000 (UTC),
[email hidden] (Name And Address Supplied)

Quoted message said:

"Anon." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

TWINBLUE said:

>is it the case that the divisions into gender is as close as you>can get,

evolutionary speaking, to something inevitable?>

While there may be other solutions to the problem of genitic diversity and evolution I would
expect that where ever you find life

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

evolutionwise you would likely find most creatures in the universe that are large enough to see
with the naked eye are divided into "male" and "female".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can go on to ask about the specialisation of mating types into

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

helpful for preventing inbreeding where this might be harmful. It doesn't seem to represent
divergence in strategy in any sense, whereas males and females are (with a few exceptions)
associated with a host of stereotypical adaptations which appear to be geared towards definite,
divergent strategies.

In some species there are dimorphisms within, say, males, relating to reproductive strategies.
Perhaps these should be regarded as similar

Quoted message said:

by orange, blue and red morphs of male lizards. Perhaps in that

Quoted message said:

Or maybe not . . .

What you are describing is a whole continuum of reproductve

different male and female appearance and behavior to complete identify between individual organisms
(as in hermaphroditic animals and perfect flowers) but formation of different gametes, to only
chemical differences in apparently identical gametes (mating types and isogamy).

reproduction, meanng simply alternation of haploid and diploid states and the possibility of genetic
recombination. This does not require

Given that two gametes must get together, if the gametes are not already the usual motile form of
the species, there does seem to be strong selective pressure to favor one gamete taking on the task
of moving to the other, usually becoming small and motile, while the other taking on the task of
providing nutrients to help ensure the survival of the zygote, usually becoming large and
stationary. That

motile gamete (sperm) and female structures producing the nutritive gamete (egg). There is still no
need to invoke different body forms or behaviors.