Comments on: Are men and women different species ? http://zyxo.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/are-men-and-women-different-species/ About complexity and stuff Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:29:34 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: zyxo http://zyxo.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/are-men-and-women-different-species/#comment-720 zyxo Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:36:36 +0000 http://zyxo.wordpress.com/?p=125#comment-720 Val, 1. I think "we" picked up sexual reproduction way before there was "we". It seems as it only appeared once and thereafter was the source of all sexual reproducing species. 2. Asexual reproduction is more economical, but the sexual reproduction and the "manipulation" of chromosomes it uses makes way for things like crossing-overs which are a mechanism of evolution much faster then mutation. 3. I do not agree with you for the arbitrary definition of species. I think E.Mayr has a point with his "... principal unit of evolution" (with or without sexual reproduction). 4. Communication as a relevant attribute for determining of two individuals belong to the same species ? Howmay people would'nt be dogs in stead of humans ? :-) Val,
1. I think “we” picked up sexual reproduction way before there was “we”. It seems as it only appeared once and thereafter was the source of all sexual reproducing species.
2. Asexual reproduction is more economical, but the sexual reproduction and the “manipulation” of chromosomes it uses makes way for things like crossing-overs which are a mechanism of evolution much faster then mutation.
3. I do not agree with you for the arbitrary definition of species. I think E.Mayr has a point with his “… principal unit of evolution” (with or without sexual reproduction).
4. Communication as a relevant attribute for determining of two individuals belong to the same species ? Howmay people would’nt be dogs in stead of humans ? :-)

]]> By: Val Workman http://zyxo.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/are-men-and-women-different-species/#comment-717 Val Workman Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:21:30 +0000 http://zyxo.wordpress.com/?p=125#comment-717 Sexual reproduction isn't a given. Just when in our evolution history we picked up this quoit trait is still to be determined, why we kept it doesn't make sense. Asexual reproduction is by far more economical. Why we use sexual reproduction as a defining attribute for a species seems arbitrary at best. Its just another evolutionary trait. Much more relevant would be how well do organisms communicate between members of the group. Organisms that communicate well together would belong to the same species. Do they look alike? Do they eat salads or meats? Do they have the same basic needs?This list of relevant attributes can go on and on. Sexual reproduction isn’t a given. Just when in our evolution history we picked up this quoit trait is still to be determined, why we kept it doesn’t make sense. Asexual reproduction is by far more economical.

Why we use sexual reproduction as a defining attribute for a species seems arbitrary at best. Its just another evolutionary trait.

Much more relevant would be how well do organisms communicate between members of the group. Organisms that communicate well together would belong to the same species.

Do they look alike? Do they eat salads or meats? Do they have the same basic needs?This list of relevant attributes can go on and on.

]]>