How do you get that if you had 4 genders only one would be able to bear young, John Varley came up with three sexes but only two individuals in his Gaean trilogy, both individuals were both male and female, both could bear young but only the female could effectively clone herself. But of course that is fiction, lol but the 27 ways they could reproduce looked like fun
How do you get that if you had 4 genders only one would be able to bear young, John Varley came up with three sexes but only two individuals in his Gaean trilogy, both individuals were both male and female, both could bear young but only the female could effectively clone herself. But of course that is fiction, lol but the 27 ways they could reproduce looked like fun
@ResistenciaHumana I am so sick of homophobes like you. Honestly, do you think gay people choose to be gay? As if they would choose to be ridiculed by morons like you every day of their life. And seriously, why are you a homophobe? I mean, I can't think of any reason to dislike them other than that you think too seriously about your bronze-age religious texts, which were written by goat-herders who thought you can cure leprosy by killing birds.
Did gender not evolve fairly early in the time-frame of life's origins?
The original organisms were a sea of sexes, but one organism got smaller and faster, gaining a reproductive advantage, and to compensate, another one got bigger, slower and more 'nutritious' (not sure how to explain)
The small guy developed into the spermatoza and the big one into 'eggs' - a system with which the other 'sexes' couldn't compete
From all I know, there has to bee two genders for passing on DNA and create a new Generation of life. But what would a third or fourth gender look like or be and are asexual organisms a gender for themselves? If so, it would explain a third gender, but a fourth and ongoing?
So this video only proves evolution is a lie. Why not 1 gender? That would ensure a faster rate, no matter what you say! Oh BTW your biggest answer to why no more genders is its just not worth the hassle, is stupid on your part.
The video points out that the advantages of having more than one gender do not increase much beyond there being two genders and explains that the costs of finding mates would increase (although it does not simulate that part).
the simple explanation would be that as cost of finding more than one mate increases more rapidly than the benefits do.
Not to mention, any trait that increases the amount of variation available for natural selection to act on that doesn't increase the burden on reproduction so much as to outweigh the benefits will be selected for strongly simply due to the fact that the organisms with the trait will be far better at adapting to changes in the environment than organisms that don't utilize it.
First, a hermaphrodite is a naturally occurring animal, which possesses sexual organs of both genders but still requires a mate. They cannot mate with themselves and produce a clone.
Second, a human with both sets of organs is not a hermaphrodite, as it is not a normal, natural occurrence. (natural, perhaps, but not normal for the species.) It is called a dual gender condition.
There are others, labelled as hermaphrodites with vagipenises. That is an intersex condition.
You should consider the potential for multi-sexes with pairings with the only requirement being that the "mating factor" gene in each of the two parents is different.
I seem to remember reading about a species which does have that sort of trait and has, if i remember rightly, 25 genders. It was a type of slime i think.
The problem comes from mitochondria (sp?) and who the child inherits it from, the slime has a sort of pecking order which determines which parent gives the baby slime it's Mitochondria.
I think this was in "Dr Tatiana's sex advice for all creation" - a good book.
It is not a matter of worth the haste or not, if mutation is random then it is a sheer mater of chance. We dont have 4 sexes because it just didnt happen. We dont have sexual organs on our 4 heads because it just didnt happen that way. We dont have the ability to reproduce through our pours because it just didnt happen that way. Nonsense! Answer this If the first organisms were retrofitted for their environment, why change at all? Random mutation is preposterous!
If the first organisms were retrofitted for their environment, then the reason for change should be evident - a change in the environment. In such cases a faster mutator will have more varied offspring, and natural selection will favour the offspring better adapted to the changing environment.
The 'random' in random mutations is that the changes cannot be predicted, but the mutations themselves are minor changes to genetic code, although results can be drastic, like tailless cats for example.
arent there some organisms (besides plants) that are both genders? mussels (the mollusk) is one example. and dont peacocks occasionally change their gender? i dont know
I believe this setup will cause ☼ to act as a gene bank, cloning itself for as long as it is good enough to survive and providing those beneficial genes to the offspring of ♂ and ♀ parents who mate with it. If any ☼s genes are no longer viable, ☼s should die off quickly, leaving more ♂s and ♀s who now have the better traits to find each other and produce more ☼s with the viable trait, starting the cycle again. Is this favorable, or does it reduce to asexuality?
Besides your reasons, more than 2 sexes seem a far too high evolutionary hill to climb. It also affects the growth of the population very negatively when populations aren't dense.
With 1 sex simple organisms can reproduce as soon as they have enough energy.
I find the argument rather moot, simply because the conditions could really be *anything* It could simply be that the multiple genders can create a child in one of many ways, needing only two of any gender to fully replicate.. this would then increase variation incredibly. Also, the other genders could have other uses than simple reproduction, or focuses more on the development of an immune system for the other genders. The possiblities are limitless.
question what if there are multiple genders and it only requires two separate genders to breed.
For example genders: A, B, C, & D in which A can breed with B, C, or D but not another A. Such that at any given time 3/4 of the population is suitable for breeding, rather than only half. I am actually curious how that would affect the results.
Heh, you really have to think through it a little more to realise it then wouldn't make a difference from two different genders only! If A can mate with B or C... isn't it like 1 guy can marry 'this' or 'that' lady? Genetic variation.. This isn't the 'four' partners required for creating offsprings leading to more genetic variation.
that really just sounds like you have 3 females to every male. I think the important part would be that all the genders are involved in a single mixing (thus the offspring get genes from say, 4 parents). If only two of them are involved then it's really just two genders as genes are only exchanged between two parents.
Well, your preconditions seem pretty negative. What about a third sex that can do both: produce sperm AND eggs and bear babies (only not at the same time so it has to be sexual reproduction)?
Well, no, as stated by totalnerd. That third sex (more accurate term than gender) would be able to breed with either the current male, female or one of their own sex, still ensuring the variation of sexual reproduction
As often stated in both the Baha'i scriptures and in the words of Abdul-Baha, "Science without Religion leads to materialism and Religion without Science leads to superstition." Science and Religion are two different aspects of the same truth, therefore true Religion and true Science can never be in conflict with each other.
I'm not sure I completely agree with the premises, though I do think the overall conclusion is still correct.
1) Why would the additional genders not be capable of producing offspring? Why couldn't they be quasi-female with the required anatomy to give birth?
2) Why would the passing on of genetic mutations be limited the way you describe? Unless the mutations were linked to the genes responsible for gender of course, one mutation could possibly be given to all four offspring, or none at all.
just can't shake the feeling, answer will be found more farther back when you showed the clip on, oh what was it called something genis i think
creating the cell membrames etc...
will hold more of a reason, for the arguements given here on this perspective, is that a perspective, we wouldnt think it took more time or effort with more or easier with less, it'd be all our thoughts from what is the norm to what is not norm
we'd most likely be saying how selfish or silly of a thing two people only needed for offspring when we have all of us together for support
PLUS EVERYONE KNOWS MORE IS BETTER, and look we all gained immunities to silly party crashing STD's
for as you show'n not much difference is there between two and more
meh, sorry heading more to philosphy on you than actual science, which i still bet on a hunch its a thermaldynamic/osmosis bleh, something other than work/effort relations on a large scale
What if from 4 sexes, 3 of them can "carry" offspring? That allows 75% to produce by this model, no? Does a 24% hermaphrodite population make a species into worms? Take XX, XY, XE, and EE as example "sexes". XX, XE, and EE can be pregnant depending on the pairing. XX+XY= XX or XY XX+XE= XX or XE XX+EE= none XX+XX= none XY+XE= XX or XY babies, as YE is not viable XY+EE= XE babies, again YE is not viable XY+XY= none XE+EE= XE or EE XE+XE= XE or EE EE+EE= none
I think the point would be though that with 3 or 4 sexes than you'd either have 4 sets of chromosomes making it so that each gender submits 1 set OR if there were still 2 sets of chromosomes each sex would contribute a specific half of one set to the mating process.
In either case you'd still need to find the other 3 partners to mate with, which could be tricky, and the logistics of combining 4 separate bits of DNA into one cell could be even trickier.
Is it possible there also wouldn't be any more sexes that are very interesting?
I mean appart from the two extremes we have, another one would, indeed, make things a whole lot more complex, being not just a simple link between individuals, but some kind of three-way link, a node. ...
I dont dispute the biology. The question is how much this female/male dimorphism is either true or useful, as description, categorisation, or explanation of the biology. Personally, Im not impressed at any level, until we get to talk about the influence that such false beliefs have on peoples self-identity, and their identification of others. So, there may be reasonably distinguishable gross physiological structures, eg vagina, clitoris, labia, womb, penis, ovaries, testes, etc. But...
On this later point, consider the dangerous inclinations of surgeons (and parents) in the grip of a dimorphic theory, who insist on regarding genital formation, as at time of birth, as a disorder of sex development, if it isnt of a stereotypical female or male type. Whereas, in truth, as even the DSD zealots admit, there is an attractive conceptualisation of classic female/male genital types as end-points on a spectrum of continuous transitions....
Of course, some natal-intersex types (to stick with the old-style dimorphic nomenclature) may render one infertile. But since when did being trad female/male entail you were fertile, let alone guarantee you reproductive opportunity? Just take that modest step and scrap the dimorphic model, and the medicalised moralism which elevates fertility to a measure of order/disorder. Get with the non-sexed, non-gendered conception of personhood. Its delightful. x andrea
Self-fertilization wouldn't be cloning, it'd be the ultimate inbreeding. If you randomly pair half your chromosomes with another random half of your chromosomes, you'd tend to get a baby where 25% of your recessive genes are expressed.
the word your looking for is SEX, not gender. gender is socially constructed and although it may include the sex of the organism as a part of its gender, it is only a part and one of many.
so, the word your looking for is sex. and when two organisms reproduce its is called SEXual (i.e. of each of their sexes) intercourse.
man, woman, transgender, ect = gender
male & female = sex ( hermaphrodites are the exception)
although at the end there you did change ur wording back to sex
Dear Henrin, The use of physiological markers, phenotypic or genotypic, as a basis for demarcating people into two sex-types, is fairly arbitrary. True, for theories of evolution, one might reasonably consider how useful it is to spot if another person and you are able to reproduce. But that is just one framework. PS: the better term is natal intersex. Plus people who use medical/surgical means to render themselves trans. Try thinking non-dimorphic at all levels of the human taxonomy. x andrea
What about the stuff that Bee's and ants do, with hives and such? is that not slightly different to normal sexual reproduction, how would that alter things?
I believe that's still sexual reproduction. The males are few and far between, and the females that are capable of reproduction are rarer still (ONLY queens) but it's still sexual reproduction.
Well, how would the four genders work otherwise? Only one gender could actually lay the eggs and once they do that, that's it: you can't add genes to an already laid egg. Same thing for live births: you can't add genes to a formed zygote. If two genders can lay eggs (or give birth), why do we need both of them to lay eggs (or give birth) when both of them produce equally valid descendants?
Well, yeah: the only difference between the fish you mention and every other life form is that the conception happens outside of the female rather than inside.
What I was getting at was that, once the zygote is formed, you can't add genetic information to it, and having two egg-producing genders would be redundant, so only one gender could bear children.
There are actually quite a few hermaphroditic species. But cdk007 eliminated them from the discussion. Also, if you expand your search beyond the animal kingdom, you will see that some fungi can have 28,000 different sexes. I'm no biologist, but googling "Schizophyllum commune" should get you somewhere, if you're interested.
I was actually also working on a video that would discuss hermaphrodites. A simple simulation shows that under one set of conditions hermaphrodites + males are an ideal solution, while slightly different conditions result in males + females. It seems to come down to the cost of developing sex organs, and the genetic mechanism that controls it.
Most intersexed conditions in humans result in infertility. hermaphrodism is generally associated with asexual reproduction in species, which intersexed humans are incapable of. This may be the reason why hermaphrodite was dropped as a medical word for humans and replaced with intersexed.
Personally, I'm a female who happens to have AIS; this video explains more about the condition: /watch?v=ETIxoQGVjos
U don't know that.. nor can u tell me God spoke to u personally and explain how the universe was created.. Don't be a moron and let the man explain his theory..
You're right, IamTruthIamLegend. I never evolved. You never evolved. Our *species* evolved. Well, at least *my* species evolved. Maybe you haven't evolved, afterall.
Let us assume a 3 sex species. 1 Female, 1 Male, and 1 than can fill either roll. (Call it Gender X.) In any case would the environment select Gender X, especially if it could reproduce with itself?
Not sure if this was brought up or not, but why the assumption that out of 4 sexes, only one bears offspring? why not 2 or 3? or how about in a situation where there are 3 sexes, they can impregnate each other in a rock-paper-scissors type arrangement?
He actually did touch on that. The simulation he ran only took into account the benefits of increased genetic diversity, but didn't take into account the draw backs of having to find additional mates, and a reduced number of child barring organism.
Basically the reason that 3 or 4 genders looked just as good as 2 genders in the video is because his model is incomplete.
He was just looking at weather or not more genders increased natural selection, which he found that it did not.
Interesting, I suppose the best way to truly settle this would be to come up with a highly detailed differential model of evolutionary reproduction which takes into account those costs, and then optimize it for number of genders. That might be a good thesis project for some biologically minded mathematician out there. My hypothesis would be that exactly 2 genders is nonoptimal, but rather that the number is in the 2.1-2.3 range, and 2 is just _closer_ to optimal than not.
I would actually suspect not -- or if any, e. e tends to pop up in differential equations alot, it may work out to that. But to be completely honest I think it's more likely some odd construction of reciprocals and radicals. Nature doesn't tend toward these "nice" numbers as often as people think. Theres a good book out there-- "The Golden Ratio" by Marcus Livio which takes on Phi in nature and how it isn't really there all that much.
In any case, it's quite interesting, I think, Math FTW!
Well, if you think of reproduction and evolution as just math- specifically differential equations, you can try to find an optimimum value for the variable "Number of sexes involved in reproduction" which would lead to a wonderfully complicated equation which might have Real or even Complex values (eg decimal values or values with imaginary parts). Obviously we need to have an integer (whole) number of sexes, so the "nearest" to true optimal- assuming true optimal is not integral, is 2. HTH.
Actually I can't picture out you would get a noninteger solution. The entire system is undefined for anything other than integers. Saying the number of sexes is 2.1, you might as well say the number of sexes is "firetruck".
Although, could you redefine combinatorics in terms of the gamma function?
Well, the issue is you're thinking combinatorics- I'm thinking differential equatiosn. We should really be thinking with both. There is a combinatorial nature to the gene reshuffling, but population dynamics (which is also vitally important) is generally described as differential equations over (ideally) the Reals (though you may have complex solutions in some areas). Least, thats how I see it. Sadly a full explanation of my formulation of this is too small to fit in the narrow youtubian margin.
I can't help but consider my favorite social-science-fiction novels, the Xenogenesis trilogy by the late, great, Octavie E. Butler. Humankind nearly wipes itself out and is rescued by the Oankali, an alien race with three genders, all of which are needed for reproduction. When they assimilate humans into their culture, they form familial bonds with FIVE members- Oankali male and female, human male and female, and an Ooloi, which is neither male nor female, but assembles the genes within itself.
Having read stuff similar to this in textbooks when I was a kid, I'm pretty sure the issue has been addressed although I'm not sure about what simulations there have been.
right now, i'm looking into the age-old question of "the evolutionary advantages/reasons for same sex attraction in human males" so far, i havent heard a credible solution.
Thank you, thank you, thank you CDK007. I have at times been wondering about this question and come up with much the same thought you did. But the way you explained it was so simple and straightforward, and together with the simulation made everything completely clear.
Your vids desserve to be in every science classroom.
Ya it's not very helpful unless it became very rare to come in contact with another member of the same species. Physarum polycephalum is an example of many sexes. For these, the pros of more than two sexes outway the cons.
But good video. I was always wondering that. And to think people out there think evolution has no application except to turn away from God.
I just want to know how multigender species would even work. Would a gender produce completely asexually? Would one produce "pseudosexually", as in same gender capable of asexual and sexual reproduction? Would some genders be completely incompatible or require a third? Would all be necessary to reproduce correctly?
Well, in this video, I think that the assumption is that with multiple genders you need one individual of each gender to be present to make babies.
There's other imaginable situations of course. For example male+female+hermaphrodite, in which case any combination of 2 individuals other than male-male and female-female would work.
Ahhhhhh... law of diminishing returns! The benefits of multiple genders only outweigh the cost of multiple genders if there are TWO genders... funny, and intriguing!
Just a quick clarification -- we can't tell whether previous life were polysexual or not (at least not from fossil records). Also, the implication in this video is that polysexual species, while not superior to 'bigender' (I can't use bisexual as it has a colloquial meaning that's different than what I'm trying to express) species, would have a higher 'cost' to breeding. Are those two correct?
It makes me curious now about the possibility of polysexual organisms. Grrr!
next thing you know youtube allows zoophilia sex education videos without suspending anyone.thats the the way they orchastrate the videos on the front page
In your video you compared single gender with asexual reproduction. However, a gender which gives birth but also impregnates (kind of like a hermaphrodite) is possible. I doubt this would be more beneficial than two genders though, because resource collection is limited during pregnancy, so you'd need one parental unit to remain non-reproductive for a time to support the other.
This simulation does not take into account the possibility that organisms with more than two genders can reproduce within any combination of the 3+ genders.
For example, what if hermaphroditic organisms were fertile instead of half sterile (as is the case with humans)? One person could fertilize AND become fertilized.
I recently commented about that. If humans could have fertile hermaphrodites, and still have fully male and female sexes, then the cost of more than two genders could be worth sustaining. More of the population would be available to reproduce.
I heard that in our case, hermaphrodites are sterile or one of their organs is sterile. So, I am curious to know if this could change or be changed. And if so, how would that affect our evolution.
in anserw to the title question of this video, i would like to say Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! thats disgusting why? why would u even wonder that!
surely it would depend upon how many combinations of genders can reproduce.
There does exist a belief that there in fact are more than 2 genders.. ie: gender as opposed to sex. Gender is concerned with identity where sex is fixed. How this all ties in with Evolution as with homosexuality is a very interesting theory.
Trans-gender people are still only one gender. A man still makes sperm, even if he believes he is a woman. And, this will continue to be true until he changes it.
From what I can glean from your comment, it's an interesting idea, but it sounds like two pairs of male/female instead of 4 different genders. If my analysis is untrue, the costs for finding not one mate, but two or three should still be greater than the rewards. Also, the diffusion of DNA mutations among offspring would still be less.
There is a gene called daughterless that prevents the production of X (female) gametes in sperm, and ensures that the entire sperm population is Y (male) and carries the daughterless trait. This trait (once introduced) doubles its saturation in the affected population (with surplus carrier males) until it monopolizes the last generation of females and produces a final, extinguishing generation of males. Google Plot to Kill the Carp
Basically, asexual reproduction will pass on the exact same genetic code almost every time, barring mutation and a few other processes that increase variety. Since sexual reproduction produces a different combination of genes every time, you will get a very large difference in genetic code compared to asexual reproduction.
This has been flagged as spam show
How do you get that if you had 4 genders only one would be able to bear young, John Varley came up with three sexes but only two individuals in his Gaean trilogy, both individuals were both male and female, both could bear young but only the female could effectively clone herself. But of course that is fiction, lol but the 27 ways they could reproduce looked like fun
Moontanman 9 months ago
How do you get that if you had 4 genders only one would be able to bear young, John Varley came up with three sexes but only two individuals in his Gaean trilogy, both individuals were both male and female, both could bear young but only the female could effectively clone herself. But of course that is fiction, lol but the 27 ways they could reproduce looked like fun
Moontanman 9 months ago
@ResistenciaHumana I am so sick of homophobes like you. Honestly, do you think gay people choose to be gay? As if they would choose to be ridiculed by morons like you every day of their life. And seriously, why are you a homophobe? I mean, I can't think of any reason to dislike them other than that you think too seriously about your bronze-age religious texts, which were written by goat-herders who thought you can cure leprosy by killing birds.
Mr12345EGGNOG 11 months ago
Sex and gender are not interchangable terms. Sex means physical makeup.
Gender is a social construct. It is the behavior expectations and roles society assigns to the sexes.
There are also more than 2 sexes. Among variations of intersexed people there has been found to be 5.
tink037 1 year ago
Comment removed
JM12101 1 year ago
Gays are the third gender JoJoJo
go and fuck yourselfs Faggots atheist idiots
Think about it
ResistenciaHumana 1 year ago
@ResistenciaHumana Love thy neighbor.
Sweepingreaper4 1 year ago
What is the name of the song in this video?
TheCatPatches 1 year ago
@TheCatPatches I believe you should find it as Mozart's piano sonata in A major.
Sweepingreaper4 1 year ago
@ patwotrik:
Did you even watch the video? If such a species evolved, don't you think it would be out - competed fairly quickly?
maladystrife 2 years ago
Considering the subject, watching the graph "grow" came across as innuendo.
brokenyard 2 years ago
Maybe we just have two sex is because it has not occured yet in nature. Maybe we will see species with more genders in future.
patwotrik 2 years ago
Did gender not evolve fairly early in the time-frame of life's origins?
The original organisms were a sea of sexes, but one organism got smaller and faster, gaining a reproductive advantage, and to compensate, another one got bigger, slower and more 'nutritious' (not sure how to explain)
The small guy developed into the spermatoza and the big one into 'eggs' - a system with which the other 'sexes' couldn't compete
Not sure if I've gotten some bunk info here
Gidwan 2 years ago
From all I know, there has to bee two genders for passing on DNA and create a new Generation of life. But what would a third or fourth gender look like or be and are asexual organisms a gender for themselves? If so, it would explain a third gender, but a fourth and ongoing?
Rocketmaus 2 years ago
So this video only proves evolution is a lie. Why not 1 gender? That would ensure a faster rate, no matter what you say! Oh BTW your biggest answer to why no more genders is its just not worth the hassle, is stupid on your part.
koldkase77 2 years ago
if there was one gender then there would be no variation in the genetic code and the species would be more susceptible to desease.
Sugarfootxxxx 2 years ago
The video points out that the advantages of having more than one gender do not increase much beyond there being two genders and explains that the costs of finding mates would increase (although it does not simulate that part).
the simple explanation would be that as cost of finding more than one mate increases more rapidly than the benefits do.
as the video clearly states.
LemonsInTheShade 2 years ago
there are organisms that don't have sexes at all, so I fail to see your point.
kotoroshinoto 2 years ago
Not to mention, any trait that increases the amount of variation available for natural selection to act on that doesn't increase the burden on reproduction so much as to outweigh the benefits will be selected for strongly simply due to the fact that the organisms with the trait will be far better at adapting to changes in the environment than organisms that don't utilize it.
kotoroshinoto 2 years ago
@rob92410 and zelos88.
First, a hermaphrodite is a naturally occurring animal, which possesses sexual organs of both genders but still requires a mate. They cannot mate with themselves and produce a clone.
Second, a human with both sets of organs is not a hermaphrodite, as it is not a normal, natural occurrence. (natural, perhaps, but not normal for the species.) It is called a dual gender condition.
There are others, labelled as hermaphrodites with vagipenises. That is an intersex condition.
Psychentist 2 years ago
You should consider the potential for multi-sexes with pairings with the only requirement being that the "mating factor" gene in each of the two parents is different.
kotoroshinoto 2 years ago
I seem to remember reading about a species which does have that sort of trait and has, if i remember rightly, 25 genders. It was a type of slime i think.
The problem comes from mitochondria (sp?) and who the child inherits it from, the slime has a sort of pecking order which determines which parent gives the baby slime it's Mitochondria.
I think this was in "Dr Tatiana's sex advice for all creation" - a good book.
LemonsInTheShade 2 years ago
im confused i flipped on the natgeographic channel and i they showed a showed a person born with a penis and pussy
wouldnt that be a whole new gender?
if not what gender would it be?
rob92410 2 years ago
Excellent video
jacevicki 2 years ago
It is not a matter of worth the haste or not, if mutation is random then it is a sheer mater of chance. We dont have 4 sexes because it just didnt happen. We dont have sexual organs on our 4 heads because it just didnt happen that way. We dont have the ability to reproduce through our pours because it just didnt happen that way. Nonsense! Answer this If the first organisms were retrofitted for their environment, why change at all? Random mutation is preposterous!
VindicatedVigilante 2 years ago
If the first organisms were retrofitted for their environment, then the reason for change should be evident - a change in the environment. In such cases a faster mutator will have more varied offspring, and natural selection will favour the offspring better adapted to the changing environment.
The 'random' in random mutations is that the changes cannot be predicted, but the mutations themselves are minor changes to genetic code, although results can be drastic, like tailless cats for example.
jacevicki 2 years ago
arent there some organisms (besides plants) that are both genders? mussels (the mollusk) is one example. and dont peacocks occasionally change their gender? i dont know
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago
Don't forget humans....
Some people also change their gender. >: }
XxVizzinixX 2 years ago
Those VS girls are so damn hot. Good choice and video
LostSimply 2 years ago
I would be interested in seeing this test run with different rules for sexes.
I propose three genders: ♂,♀,☼.
And the following rules for sex:
♂ × ♀ → ☼
♀ × ☼ → ♀
♂ × ☼ → ♂
And asexually:
☼ → ☼
rkyeun 2 years ago
I believe this setup will cause ☼ to act as a gene bank, cloning itself for as long as it is good enough to survive and providing those beneficial genes to the offspring of ♂ and ♀ parents who mate with it. If any ☼s genes are no longer viable, ☼s should die off quickly, leaving more ♂s and ♀s who now have the better traits to find each other and produce more ☼s with the viable trait, starting the cycle again. Is this favorable, or does it reduce to asexuality?
rkyeun 2 years ago
Besides your reasons, more than 2 sexes seem a far too high evolutionary hill to climb. It also affects the growth of the population very negatively when populations aren't dense.
With 1 sex simple organisms can reproduce as soon as they have enough energy.
dN/dt = k N
which has an exponential solution. N = N0 e^(kt)
JennyFarlopez 2 years ago
With n+1 sexes, organisms have to find each other. If the population is sparse, the growth depends on the n+1 power of the population:
dN/dt = k N^(n+1)
which for small N simplifies to
N = N0 +k t N0^n
which is a slower growth for higher n, since N0 is small.
(N being the density of population, and assuming infinite resources)
JennyFarlopez 2 years ago
So more than 2 sexes slow down population increase precisely when the species is endangered, and thus isn't a stable evolutionary solution.
JennyFarlopez 2 years ago
This is in the playlist twice.
Eldxale 2 years ago
I find the argument rather moot, simply because the conditions could really be *anything* It could simply be that the multiple genders can create a child in one of many ways, needing only two of any gender to fully replicate.. this would then increase variation incredibly. Also, the other genders could have other uses than simple reproduction, or focuses more on the development of an immune system for the other genders. The possiblities are limitless.
JanisChambers 2 years ago
this song is beautiful and it makes me abandon the video and listen to it instead
so i need to watch this twice
Th0usandMaster 2 years ago
question what if there are multiple genders and it only requires two separate genders to breed.
For example genders: A, B, C, & D in which A can breed with B, C, or D but not another A. Such that at any given time 3/4 of the population is suitable for breeding, rather than only half. I am actually curious how that would affect the results.
totalnerd747 2 years ago
Heh, you really have to think through it a little more to realise it then wouldn't make a difference from two different genders only! If A can mate with B or C... isn't it like 1 guy can marry 'this' or 'that' lady? Genetic variation.. This isn't the 'four' partners required for creating offsprings leading to more genetic variation.
JuzDotA 2 years ago
that really just sounds like you have 3 females to every male. I think the important part would be that all the genders are involved in a single mixing (thus the offspring get genes from say, 4 parents). If only two of them are involved then it's really just two genders as genes are only exchanged between two parents.
Kaidelong 2 years ago
Well, your preconditions seem pretty negative. What about a third sex that can do both: produce sperm AND eggs and bear babies (only not at the same time so it has to be sexual reproduction)?
Wouldn't that lower the costs?
giliellthesecond 2 years ago
Then there is no variation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that would be almost like being asexual?
KasaiAisu1 2 years ago
Well, no, as stated by totalnerd. That third sex (more accurate term than gender) would be able to breed with either the current male, female or one of their own sex, still ensuring the variation of sexual reproduction
giliellthesecond 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As often stated in both the Baha'i scriptures and in the words of Abdul-Baha, "Science without Religion leads to materialism and Religion without Science leads to superstition." Science and Religion are two different aspects of the same truth, therefore true Religion and true Science can never be in conflict with each other.
DWP102589 2 years ago
There are 3 genders, we've got transsexuals now!
CapitalCruz 2 years ago
Don't forget Hermaphrodites, Unics and Michael Jackson!
Sh0nin 2 years ago
Comment removed
yahyajapan 2 years ago
I'm not sure I completely agree with the premises, though I do think the overall conclusion is still correct.
1) Why would the additional genders not be capable of producing offspring? Why couldn't they be quasi-female with the required anatomy to give birth?
2) Why would the passing on of genetic mutations be limited the way you describe? Unless the mutations were linked to the genes responsible for gender of course, one mutation could possibly be given to all four offspring, or none at all.
Smidge204 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
freesexypornstars_(.)_{net}_
Soup - Hotbr/Beer - Bellybr/Paris Hiton - Stupid!
lizaoceguera 2 years ago
not a shabby hack job one, at all, well thought
just can't shake the feeling, answer will be found more farther back when you showed the clip on, oh what was it called something genis i think
creating the cell membrames etc...
will hold more of a reason, for the arguements given here on this perspective, is that a perspective, we wouldnt think it took more time or effort with more or easier with less, it'd be all our thoughts from what is the norm to what is not norm
hmm if that make sense
horny4bears 3 years ago
we'd most likely be saying how selfish or silly of a thing two people only needed for offspring when we have all of us together for support
PLUS EVERYONE KNOWS MORE IS BETTER, and look we all gained immunities to silly party crashing STD's
for as you show'n not much difference is there between two and more
meh, sorry heading more to philosphy on you than actual science, which i still bet on a hunch its a thermaldynamic/osmosis bleh, something other than work/effort relations on a large scale
horny4bears 3 years ago
midare 3 years ago
I think the point would be though that with 3 or 4 sexes than you'd either have 4 sets of chromosomes making it so that each gender submits 1 set OR if there were still 2 sets of chromosomes each sex would contribute a specific half of one set to the mating process.
In either case you'd still need to find the other 3 partners to mate with, which could be tricky, and the logistics of combining 4 separate bits of DNA into one cell could be even trickier.
FireDragons42 3 years ago
your site sucks and it was a waste of my unwastable time
now if excuse me i'm going to spam it
and go watch a better site!
Mokenofrs 3 years ago
Is it possible there also wouldn't be any more sexes that are very interesting?
I mean appart from the two extremes we have, another one would, indeed, make things a whole lot more complex, being not just a simple link between individuals, but some kind of three-way link, a node. ...
listvivlan 3 years ago
lol 666 ratings.
xlrxlr 3 years ago
what?
Cesco36 3 years ago
I dont dispute the biology. The question is how much this female/male dimorphism is either true or useful, as description, categorisation, or explanation of the biology. Personally, Im not impressed at any level, until we get to talk about the influence that such false beliefs have on peoples self-identity, and their identification of others. So, there may be reasonably distinguishable gross physiological structures, eg vagina, clitoris, labia, womb, penis, ovaries, testes, etc. But...
andreaandrewmilne 3 years ago
(i) to use them to define sex-types, except as synonyms, is superfluous.
(ii) the dimorphic scheme is strictly false, as natal-intersex and trans cases show.
(iii) one may as easily see persons with the gross markers as not falling into two distinct classes. Instead, all persons:
(a) share identical early embryonic structures (eg Wolfian tubes, Mullerian ducts); or
(b) have structures that, even if distinct, are homologous; or
(c) are still on the same continua after development....
andreaandrewmilne 3 years ago
On this later point, consider the dangerous inclinations of surgeons (and parents) in the grip of a dimorphic theory, who insist on regarding genital formation, as at time of birth, as a disorder of sex development, if it isnt of a stereotypical female or male type. Whereas, in truth, as even the DSD zealots admit, there is an attractive conceptualisation of classic female/male genital types as end-points on a spectrum of continuous transitions....
andreaandrewmilne 3 years ago
Of course, some natal-intersex types (to stick with the old-style dimorphic nomenclature) may render one infertile. But since when did being trad female/male entail you were fertile, let alone guarantee you reproductive opportunity? Just take that modest step and scrap the dimorphic model, and the medicalised moralism which elevates fertility to a measure of order/disorder. Get with the non-sexed, non-gendered conception of personhood. Its delightful. x andrea
andreaandrewmilne 3 years ago
You're a dude.
hitchwatch 3 years ago
This video has almost nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Zryuken 3 years ago
I cannot get the Matlab code to work on, i would like some help please.
carnifexalpha 3 years ago
Sex is awesome. Requiring two seperate genders prevents self fertalization, which prevents organizims from cloning themselves.
Cloning is bad, because your children will won't ever be able to benefit from the positive mutations acquired by the other members of your species.
smariot 3 years ago
Self-fertilization wouldn't be cloning, it'd be the ultimate inbreeding. If you randomly pair half your chromosomes with another random half of your chromosomes, you'd tend to get a baby where 25% of your recessive genes are expressed.
Not a pretty sight.
loqiloqi 3 years ago
sigh*...
the word your looking for is SEX, not gender. gender is socially constructed and although it may include the sex of the organism as a part of its gender, it is only a part and one of many.
so, the word your looking for is sex. and when two organisms reproduce its is called SEXual (i.e. of each of their sexes) intercourse.
man, woman, transgender, ect = gender
male & female = sex ( hermaphrodites are the exception)
although at the end there you did change ur wording back to sex
Henrin 3 years ago
Dear Henrin, The use of physiological markers, phenotypic or genotypic, as a basis for demarcating people into two sex-types, is fairly arbitrary. True, for theories of evolution, one might reasonably consider how useful it is to spot if another person and you are able to reproduce. But that is just one framework. PS: the better term is natal intersex. Plus people who use medical/surgical means to render themselves trans. Try thinking non-dimorphic at all levels of the human taxonomy. x andrea
andreaandrewmilne 3 years ago
"The use of physiological markers, phenotypic or genotypic, as a basis for demarcating people into two sex-types, is fairly arbitrary."
I think that the presence of a penis or vagina would be a pretty good start.
condellwatch 3 years ago
I did something like this in my ap biology class in high school...this takes me back
devilzadvokat 3 years ago
Sorry for my ignorance of music, but what's the song in this video?
JETZcorp 3 years ago
Rondo Alla Turca - Mozart
brownout08 3 years ago
Comment removed
brownout08 3 years ago
What about the stuff that Bee's and ants do, with hives and such? is that not slightly different to normal sexual reproduction, how would that alter things?
Willgeorrobi 3 years ago
I believe that's still sexual reproduction. The males are few and far between, and the females that are capable of reproduction are rarer still (ONLY queens) but it's still sexual reproduction.
Mnementh2230 3 years ago
Doesn't this video make the assumption that only the female animal would be able to bear children?
2ndarwin 3 years ago
Well, how would the four genders work otherwise? Only one gender could actually lay the eggs and once they do that, that's it: you can't add genes to an already laid egg. Same thing for live births: you can't add genes to a formed zygote. If two genders can lay eggs (or give birth), why do we need both of them to lay eggs (or give birth) when both of them produce equally valid descendants?
ZanderSchubert 3 years ago
A species of fish actually does precisely that: the female lays her eggs inside a 'nest', after which the male comes in and fertilizes them.
So, technically, you CAN lay an egg, after which you add the genes ;p
cryodragoon 3 years ago
Well, yeah: the only difference between the fish you mention and every other life form is that the conception happens outside of the female rather than inside.
What I was getting at was that, once the zygote is formed, you can't add genetic information to it, and having two egg-producing genders would be redundant, so only one gender could bear children.
ZanderSchubert 3 years ago
instant sub
roAchSteW 3 years ago
It would be Neat if humans could use a variety of reproductive methods, As in the Cnidaria.
Imagen if you could not find a mate then you simply Bud off a clone from some amputated tissue. lol
Cnidarious 3 years ago
Any one recognizes the song? I'm not very good with classical music but I like it.
Octavian88mtl 3 years ago
W.A. Mozart - Rondo a la Turka
Elol22 3 years ago
Thanks, I was trying to find that song too.
enigmatically 3 years ago
I can't believe that I finally have the answer to this question! This is something that I had occasionally wondered about for many years. Thanks.
comp7878 3 years ago 2
Well done one getting the thumbnail for this movie the way it is!
jnoort 3 years ago
I'm the third sex with the antennas.
xXAkridXx 3 years ago
:D LOL
Because it's just no worth the hassle?
Thats interesting statement...
Well, when one day we can manipulate lifeform, mankind laying an egg wont be surprising...
ascendrian 3 years ago
@ascendrian
Where's the fun in that? :)
burchdc 3 years ago
Because when that time arrives chicken suit will be popular agan LOL :D
As we see now the popular suit is still bunny related :D
ascendrian 3 years ago
Heh, that depends on what culture you live in. I'd say in Japan it's more kitten than bunny :D
burchdc 3 years ago
Why couldn't there be one gender that could both impregnate and get pregnant? It seems then that species would have a advantage.
Is this even possible?
HumanRights4Everyone 3 years ago
There are actually quite a few hermaphroditic species. But cdk007 eliminated them from the discussion. Also, if you expand your search beyond the animal kingdom, you will see that some fungi can have 28,000 different sexes. I'm no biologist, but googling "Schizophyllum commune" should get you somewhere, if you're interested.
beriukay 3 years ago 4
Thank you. I wonder why he didn't talk about that.
HumanRights4Everyone 3 years ago
but he did include them, in his description information of the video....
XantinovaX 3 years ago
I was actually also working on a video that would discuss hermaphrodites. A simple simulation shows that under one set of conditions hermaphrodites + males are an ideal solution, while slightly different conditions result in males + females. It seems to come down to the cost of developing sex organs, and the genetic mechanism that controls it.
cdk007 3 years ago
That sounds cool. I look forward to it.
beriukay 3 years ago
What about intersexuality which occurs in humans?
Bekll 3 years ago
Most intersexed conditions in humans result in infertility. hermaphrodism is generally associated with asexual reproduction in species, which intersexed humans are incapable of. This may be the reason why hermaphrodite was dropped as a medical word for humans and replaced with intersexed.
Personally, I'm a female who happens to have AIS; this video explains more about the condition: /watch?v=ETIxoQGVjos
enigmatically 3 years ago
I always correct people who say that hermaphrodism occurs in humans - the correct term is intersexed. :)
Bekll 3 years ago
There is only male or female . Hermaphrodites may have been messed up at birth . Thats just a mutation ; But , You are either male or female
ImalowdowndirtySlut 3 years ago
I never thought of this! Very interesting!
How many more interesting answers wait for the still unasked questions? :)
nihilultimum 3 years ago
i miss u!!! msg me on msn. my id is on my profile! thanks! bye xoxo n
Kimmi156 3 years ago
nt good answer.
armandocalderonmx 3 years ago
f home alone with webcam a
mysoccerstar101 3 years ago
this video so dam ignorant because we never evolved
IamTruthIamLegend 3 years ago
U don't know that.. nor can u tell me God spoke to u personally and explain how the universe was created.. Don't be a moron and let the man explain his theory..
ViLLiSTa 3 years ago 3
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Refuted, suck on that one and deal with it.. Asshole.
(btw, i dont care what your religion is or isn't)
KarinMikazuki 3 years ago 4
You're right, IamTruthIamLegend. I never evolved. You never evolved. Our *species* evolved. Well, at least *my* species evolved. Maybe you haven't evolved, afterall.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
3 sexes was the best in that simulation (by a slight amount) - it was stightly whiter than 2 or 4
TheFourman 3 years ago
Why would 2+ genders be as in your model? (one mother, more fathers)??
Why no a cyclic gender system?
3 genders: Genders A can impregnate gender B, which can impregnate gender C, which in turn can impregnate gender A.
eruagnostic 3 years ago 2
To usher along the research to this question, let's bait cdk with registering his 'PowerVideoMaker'
comp7878 3 years ago
Let us assume a 3 sex species. 1 Female, 1 Male, and 1 than can fill either roll. (Call it Gender X.) In any case would the environment select Gender X, especially if it could reproduce with itself?
Hypothetically of course.
Pawn2King4 3 years ago
cdk007, you rock stats and biology q's! thank you once again for a great presentation!
practicalmagic9 3 years ago 2
Not sure if this was brought up or not, but why the assumption that out of 4 sexes, only one bears offspring? why not 2 or 3? or how about in a situation where there are 3 sexes, they can impregnate each other in a rock-paper-scissors type arrangement?
mdiem 3 years ago
This video shows multi-gender sex is just as good as two-gender sex, but not WHY this is the case.
If you can explain why this is the case, would you be so kind to do that?
philip1201 3 years ago
He actually did touch on that. The simulation he ran only took into account the benefits of increased genetic diversity, but didn't take into account the draw backs of having to find additional mates, and a reduced number of child barring organism.
Basically the reason that 3 or 4 genders looked just as good as 2 genders in the video is because his model is incomplete.
He was just looking at weather or not more genders increased natural selection, which he found that it did not.
amcnea 3 years ago
DAMN YOU! You made me think!
matias2309 3 years ago
Interesting, I suppose the best way to truly settle this would be to come up with a highly detailed differential model of evolutionary reproduction which takes into account those costs, and then optimize it for number of genders. That might be a good thesis project for some biologically minded mathematician out there. My hypothesis would be that exactly 2 genders is nonoptimal, but rather that the number is in the 2.1-2.3 range, and 2 is just _closer_ to optimal than not.
Interesting!
jfredett 3 years ago
The best number is probably Euler's number e or the golden ratio phi. It just seems right, doesn't it?
machalot 3 years ago
I would actually suspect not -- or if any, e. e tends to pop up in differential equations alot, it may work out to that. But to be completely honest I think it's more likely some odd construction of reciprocals and radicals. Nature doesn't tend toward these "nice" numbers as often as people think. Theres a good book out there-- "The Golden Ratio" by Marcus Livio which takes on Phi in nature and how it isn't really there all that much.
In any case, it's quite interesting, I think, Math FTW!
jfredett 3 years ago
What would it even mean to have 2.1 sexes? I've heard of 2.1 kids but this is getting ridiculous.
machalot 3 years ago
Well, if you think of reproduction and evolution as just math- specifically differential equations, you can try to find an optimimum value for the variable "Number of sexes involved in reproduction" which would lead to a wonderfully complicated equation which might have Real or even Complex values (eg decimal values or values with imaginary parts). Obviously we need to have an integer (whole) number of sexes, so the "nearest" to true optimal- assuming true optimal is not integral, is 2. HTH.
jfredett 3 years ago
Actually I can't picture out you would get a noninteger solution. The entire system is undefined for anything other than integers. Saying the number of sexes is 2.1, you might as well say the number of sexes is "firetruck".
Although, could you redefine combinatorics in terms of the gamma function?
machalot 3 years ago
Well, the issue is you're thinking combinatorics- I'm thinking differential equatiosn. We should really be thinking with both. There is a combinatorial nature to the gene reshuffling, but population dynamics (which is also vitally important) is generally described as differential equations over (ideally) the Reals (though you may have complex solutions in some areas). Least, thats how I see it. Sadly a full explanation of my formulation of this is too small to fit in the narrow youtubian margin.
jfredett 3 years ago
It's like binary.
capitalistT00L 3 years ago
I can't help but consider my favorite social-science-fiction novels, the Xenogenesis trilogy by the late, great, Octavie E. Butler. Humankind nearly wipes itself out and is rescued by the Oankali, an alien race with three genders, all of which are needed for reproduction. When they assimilate humans into their culture, they form familial bonds with FIVE members- Oankali male and female, human male and female, and an Ooloi, which is neither male nor female, but assembles the genes within itself.
NevTheDeranged 3 years ago
Has this question been addressed in biological circles? Could such a simulation be published in a journal?
nageljr 3 years ago
Having read stuff similar to this in textbooks when I was a kid, I'm pretty sure the issue has been addressed although I'm not sure about what simulations there have been.
studio7manga 3 years ago
learned some stuff. thanks.
right now, i'm looking into the age-old question of "the evolutionary advantages/reasons for same sex attraction in human males" so far, i havent heard a credible solution.
maybe youll come up with something in the future
XOOMltd 3 years ago
What if more than one gender can carry offspring?
NevTheDeranged 3 years ago
Yes, I was thinking the same thing and was very annoyed that this obvious possibility was not addressed.
AshiStarshade 3 years ago
Thank you, thank you, thank you CDK007. I have at times been wondering about this question and come up with much the same thought you did. But the way you explained it was so simple and straightforward, and together with the simulation made everything completely clear.
Your vids desserve to be in every science classroom.
Finkeren 3 years ago
Ya it's not very helpful unless it became very rare to come in contact with another member of the same species. Physarum polycephalum is an example of many sexes. For these, the pros of more than two sexes outway the cons.
But good video. I was always wondering that. And to think people out there think evolution has no application except to turn away from God.
jbz3 3 years ago
I just want to know how multigender species would even work. Would a gender produce completely asexually? Would one produce "pseudosexually", as in same gender capable of asexual and sexual reproduction? Would some genders be completely incompatible or require a third? Would all be necessary to reproduce correctly?
Deioth 3 years ago
Do some research into ants and bees.
pali1d 3 years ago
Well, in this video, I think that the assumption is that with multiple genders you need one individual of each gender to be present to make babies.
There's other imaginable situations of course. For example male+female+hermaphrodite, in which case any combination of 2 individuals other than male-male and female-female would work.
I think some plants have this.
Paulginz 3 years ago 2
there is an ant species with 3 sexes
male1, male 2, and female
male 1 produces worker offspring only
male 2 makes fertile offspring
dancingnature 3 years ago
That may be true, but they all don't get it on together. A true 3 sex species should be triploid.
cdk007 3 years ago
cdk007:
Why you do not make another video under the title: "is one gender sex better?"
considering that every human,what ever his length of stay,will eventually die.
marchtotown 3 years ago
Sry for the double post... I can't figure out how the reply works with utube
robbob1508 3 years ago
...funny. Q: that 4th species; are those horns, or legs located above the ears? {either way, i know people like this!} HA
Nicollissa 3 years ago
Ahhhhhh... law of diminishing returns! The benefits of multiple genders only outweigh the cost of multiple genders if there are TWO genders... funny, and intriguing!
Stonehawk 3 years ago
Just a quick clarification -- we can't tell whether previous life were polysexual or not (at least not from fossil records). Also, the implication in this video is that polysexual species, while not superior to 'bigender' (I can't use bisexual as it has a colloquial meaning that's different than what I'm trying to express) species, would have a higher 'cost' to breeding. Are those two correct?
It makes me curious now about the possibility of polysexual organisms. Grrr!
piecharthosen 3 years ago
Haha well done!
r32adt3db 3 years ago
next thing you know youtube allows zoophilia sex education videos without suspending anyone.thats the the way they orchastrate the videos on the front page
misterfisherman 3 years ago
In your video you compared single gender with asexual reproduction. However, a gender which gives birth but also impregnates (kind of like a hermaphrodite) is possible. I doubt this would be more beneficial than two genders though, because resource collection is limited during pregnancy, so you'd need one parental unit to remain non-reproductive for a time to support the other.
catabuse 3 years ago
This simulation does not take into account the possibility that organisms with more than two genders can reproduce within any combination of the 3+ genders.
For example, what if hermaphroditic organisms were fertile instead of half sterile (as is the case with humans)? One person could fertilize AND become fertilized.
poorkinghaggard 3 years ago
Why are two sexes better than one (i.e. hermaphrodites like worms)?
MmmVomit 3 years ago
I recently commented about that. If humans could have fertile hermaphrodites, and still have fully male and female sexes, then the cost of more than two genders could be worth sustaining. More of the population would be available to reproduce.
I heard that in our case, hermaphrodites are sterile or one of their organs is sterile. So, I am curious to know if this could change or be changed. And if so, how would that affect our evolution.
poorkinghaggard 3 years ago
★★★★★
Katalyzt 3 years ago
Great video. I love the Turkish March.
DSowns1111 3 years ago
in anserw to the title question of this video, i would like to say Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! thats disgusting why? why would u even wonder that!
wowmynameisjack 3 years ago
LOL funny and informative.
vertigate 3 years ago
surely it would depend upon how many combinations of genders can reproduce.
There does exist a belief that there in fact are more than 2 genders.. ie: gender as opposed to sex. Gender is concerned with identity where sex is fixed. How this all ties in with Evolution as with homosexuality is a very interesting theory.
777ren 3 years ago
as with Transsexualism..Are this anomalies genetic? are they exclusively psychological??
Is psychology considered a valid exponent of Evolution??
777ren 3 years ago
Trans-gender people are still only one gender. A man still makes sperm, even if he believes he is a woman. And, this will continue to be true until he changes it.
poorkinghaggard 3 years ago
poorkinghaggard..Agreed.Thats what I was referring to when I said fixed sex, Not Gender.
I guess I am interested in the concept of genetics, nature, nurture. Psychologies influence in Evolution.
777ren 3 years ago
You seem to be making A LOT of potentially untrue tacit assumptions about the ways in which multiple genders work.
For starters, what says this hypothetical 3-gender system doesn't have 2 or 3 embryo bearing genders (ignoring how chemically awkward it might be)?
asquii 3 years ago
great vid, can't wait for the next one
fartingpreacher 3 years ago
what if there were 4 sexes where 2 of the 4 different types produced off springs or 3 of the 4 not just 1 of the four did you think of that
lil0egy0kid 3 years ago
From what I can glean from your comment, it's an interesting idea, but it sounds like two pairs of male/female instead of 4 different genders. If my analysis is untrue, the costs for finding not one mate, but two or three should still be greater than the rewards. Also, the diffusion of DNA mutations among offspring would still be less.
TheGreatDolanmite 3 years ago
the excuse for a third gender in star trek is that it produces an enzyme to grow the baby, or something. no idea about dna transfer.
Hunt3rRos3 3 years ago
There is a gene called daughterless that prevents the production of X (female) gametes in sperm, and ensures that the entire sperm population is Y (male) and carries the daughterless trait. This trait (once introduced) doubles its saturation in the affected population (with surplus carrier males) until it monopolizes the last generation of females and produces a final, extinguishing generation of males. Google Plot to Kill the Carp
FatherChrismas 3 years ago
Nice long pause on the nude women..lol
dyingtobethin15 3 years ago
Very interesting as alwayd, cdk007. Good job.
godvad 3 years ago
I don't understand why the asexual doesn't change faster, I couldn't find the other video you were referring to so could you explain that to me?
darris321 3 years ago
Basically, asexual reproduction will pass on the exact same genetic code almost every time, barring mutation and a few other processes that increase variety. Since sexual reproduction produces a different combination of genes every time, you will get a very large difference in genetic code compared to asexual reproduction.
Skandranonsg 3 years ago
because with an asexual species such as a worm, there is less variation
airplaneking 3 years ago