 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » How do Organisms Evolve... |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tom Hendricks... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 10:56=A0am, Helen Hansma <helen.han... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"The sex differences are clear to me. Male is slightly more =A0protector
- catabolic, female is slightly more nurturer - anabolic
That is why there are two sexes instead of 5 or nine in most species
that have sex."
I think anabolic and catabolic are being severely misused here.
[/quote]
I'm suggesting a new paradigm where they evolve and you look
at biology at a different level than just microbiology.
Please read the new post about proving it wrong.
To say that they did not evolve and evolve separately suggests some
points that I think are
indefensible.
[quote]
If our anabolic and catabolic processes are out of balance, we gain or
lose weight, male or female.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]
And there are species with 5 or 9 sexes, where sex is defined as who
[i.e., which group[s]] may mate with whom.
[/quote]
My point is that there are some species that are not limited to two
sexes
in the strictest sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom Hendricks... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 10:56=A0am, Aridaman Pandit <pandit.arida... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The sex differences are clear to me. Male is slightly more =3DA0protect=
or
- catabolic, female is slightly more nurturer - anabolic
That is why there are two sexes instead of 5 or nine in most species
that have sex.
What do you mean by male is more protector - catabolic. Thats the
craziest thing that you could have said. Ok lets see how you can prove
it. Prove that males have more catabolic reactions or females have
more anabolic reactions. And I mean hard proof not your piece of mind,
but something scientific.
[/quote]
I'm saying these sexual differences evolved from the catabolic or
anabolic
split. See the new post - where I take the opposite approach and try
to disprove it.
You will have to have a mechanism where sexual differences come from
something
outside of metabolism. I don't think you can.
Clearly men are more the protectors and women are more the nurturing
sex.
Why the difference? There would be a good reason to combine the best
of both male and female.
That would suggest better fitness for the species. That's why males
and females are not alike.
My main points are still these. Metabolism is everything we have to
work with.
Catabolic and anabolic processes are often separate and regulated
separately, and they
have often evolved separately.ds
What life is has some evolved from metabolism, sometimes catabolic,
sometimes anabolic, sometimes they blend.
[quote]All the above better fit the environment. The only way any organism
can
better fit the environment is using their energy for work. =3DA0We are
back to metabolism
Well when you say it like that you sound more like creationist lunatic
to me. The ONLY way to fit is better metabolism? Why? An organism can
have very efficient metabolism but have a broken leg. How does that
organism fits better in the environment.And moreover, a different
individual who produces less energy than the former may be able to
survive better just because it does not have a broken leg.
Imagine a dear and panther chase, ie a prey predator system. Here both
fit the environment they are living. Had one better there would have
either been no prey or no predator, so there is something known as
dynamics which is not binary. Also it is based on hard facts and logic
not some imagination.
[/quote]
Think further. Why does he have a leg, to get to food, or to get away
from a danger.
Look at the new post on how to disprove it. Very hard to do.
You can't make life out of something other than metabolism.
There is nothing else. What are you suggesting this evolution is
coming
from if not metabolism? The hard facts and logic says that you can
only
evolve from what went before.
[quote]
How come imagining mythical dragons, and flying horses is easy but
imagining
life evolving from catabolic/ and anabolic processes is impossible?
Well if you want to say that your theory is as ficticious as flying
horses then I have no problem. In fact i feel sorry that you are part
of a scientific group. There are other groups where you will be
appreciated.
[/quote]
This is a new paradigm. This is a new way to look at life.
It is based on metabolism. That's very real - matter of fact that is
the
only thing that we have to evolve from.
Thanks all for your comments. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Lorentz... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 11:56=A0am, Helen Hansma <helen.han... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]"The sex differences are clear to me. Male is slightly more =A0protector
- catabolic, female is slightly more nurturer - anabolic
That is why there are two sexes instead of 5 or nine in most species
that have sex."
I think anabolic and catabolic are being severely misused here.
If our anabolic and catabolic processes are out of balance, we gain or
lose weight, male or female.
And there are species with 5 or 9 sexes, where sex is defined as who
[i.e., which group[s]] may mate with whom.
[/quote]
To be fair, this is the exception rather than the rule. Meiosis
involves the separation of chromosomes into two sets. Sex involves the
recombination of these two sets of chromosomes.
Exceptions include slime molds, that often need recombination from
five sets of individuals. There is a bivalve that requires more than
two individuals. However, requiring more than two sets of chromosomes
is very rare. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:54 am
|
|