When you spend some university's money for some field research, the university EXPECTS that you come back with a discovery, or a proof on what you've been working on.
OK. I am pissed off at the way the narrator is either misunderstanding the idea or whoever wrote did. The video is sexist - male and female is a human construct...an idea... A male is no better or worse than a female. It is just the way evolution went - that is it. No need to impart a sexist view on the evolution. TY.
I can see by your previous comment that you're just pissed off at evolution, not about sexism. How would you suggest they re-narrarate this documentary to appear less sexist?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You have got to be kidding. He compares us to a minnow. You can breed as many different dogs as you want but its still a dog after a billion years. rofl a peacock powned darwin.
The only thing pwned is your knowledge of the subject. Seriously, do some research before making such a rubbish comment. If you want to deny evolution. You might as well deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun. And if you do deny evolution. What is your evidence for this? And does it outweigh the evidence for evolution? DNA evidence, fossil records, verified predictions and observations. Can you really disprove all of that?
@urantivirus yeah only that most of the things in the bible conceptually contradiction many of the things we see empirically. if the bible was the words of god then...the god isnt so perfect like it says in the bible
"because the only thing that describes the christian god is the bible."
Not really. Thousands of years of ancient Hebrew writings do too. The Talmud describes Jehovah. Even the Koran is attempting to describe the God of Abraham. There is disagreement about many issues, just like in other history books. So I wouldn't say the only thing. Other than all of these books, what else do you expect? TV coverage from BCE? YT Videos? I can't imagine what else you expect to see.
"What makes you think god invented sex? I guess you believe the whole adam and eve thing?"
Maybe it happened that way, maybe not. You don't have to believe in Adam and Eve particularly to think God is ultimately responsible for sex. Even if it he brought it about for the purpose of giving us increased immunity from viruses and parasites. So you don't believe in Mitochondrial Eve?
because the only thing that describes the christian god is the bible. No one knows the author or authors of it. And every one preaches it as the collective whole of the word of god.
So god was just joking about making 2 human beings only to damn them to mortality?
"Mitochondrial Eve? Are suggesting that evolution suggests that sex evolved in one generation?"
I don't want to sound Bill Clintonish, but either you have sex or you don't. That doesn't mean all of the nice preparations to lead up to it described in the video didn't occur, nor that all the refinements after the first time didn't continue (and are still continuing-Thanks Viagra). But kind of by definition you go from "no sex" to "sex" in one generation.
yes. but gender isn't something that happened in one generation. The first versions of sex would have been a simple exchange of DNA. No sex involved. Just asexual exchange of DNA. Then the simple single celled organisms adapted to each other to help the process. You eventually end up with two sexes. I'll keep uploading the parts. Please keep watching. :)
Not all animals are male-female. There are asexual animals. The reason there isn't a third sex, is most likely because we have pairs of jeans. So exchanging this among three organisms, would be next to impossible.
That's a cop out. The two pairs of genes fit exactly because there are two sex partners. If there were three sex partners, there would be three pairs of genes. Why did every animal chose to have only two partners? Wouldn't three share more anti-virus information quicker? Not a single animal tried that? Even early on? Not even a failed species? We have ants with specialized workers, queens, guards and drones, but not a single species of ant uses three types for procreation? Sounds planned to me.
You know. Just because you don't understand something. It doesn't mean it must be planned. I am most certainly not a scientist. But there is a lot of information out there available. If you learn about the dynamics of DNA, replication and sex. You might find an answer other then god. Then try watching documentaries like this without assuming it must be planned. You're definitely asking the right questions though.
"If you learn about the dynamics of DNA, replication and sex. You might find an answer other then god."
You make it sound like those are mutually exclusive and they aren't. It isn't just theists who make assumptions. So no comment about why not a single phylum or group we can find even tried the three sex donor model? Not even a failed, extinct species? Despite the advantages of more information on aniti-viruses, etc and quicker dissemination of the information?
There may be a failed three sex organism. But unfortunately it most likely would have been a single celled or at least very simple organism. And wouldn't leave a fossil or evidence of its existence. I'm not trying to make any assumption here or before. Thats why I encouraged you to find your answers in science. If you can't find answers, and you've truly looked. Then turn to god. Three sexes would have its advantages. But a lot of species have a hard enough time with one other sex to deal with.
And I'm not trying to exclude god. God could have created the big bang. Meaning all science is right and there is a god. Thats not my point of view. But I don't exclude the idea. My problem is when someone doesn't quite understand something. And rather then try to find the answer, they assume it was god. "Sounds planned to me." There would be next to no modern science today if we made that assumption all the time. A lot of things seem overly complicated until you do some research.
It's beneficial to organisms to survive with the least expenditure of energy. That's why there are 2 sexes - one sex doesn't give you genetic variation so you have to invest energy in developing 2 sexes. 3 sexes wouldn't be such a huge benefit as 2 over 1 so they don't get the extra energy input. There may be other possible explanations of course and not only one reason..
When you spend some university's money for some field research, the university EXPECTS that you come back with a discovery, or a proof on what you've been working on.
hisham031170 4 months ago
The white bearded biologist has Drew Carey's voice.
suchi4free 1 year ago
bio class what up
Capejen21 1 year ago 2
getting turned on lol
celticschampions 1 year ago
Men exist because the first penis to appear mesmerized everyone.
TheTypicalGirl 1 year ago
@TheTypicalGirl lol........strange that when i show someone my penis they call the police. weird huh
sonnetxi 5 months ago
OK. I am pissed off at the way the narrator is either misunderstanding the idea or whoever wrote did. The video is sexist - male and female is a human construct...an idea... A male is no better or worse than a female. It is just the way evolution went - that is it. No need to impart a sexist view on the evolution. TY.
LordMorningStar 3 years ago
I can see by your previous comment that you're just pissed off at evolution, not about sexism. How would you suggest they re-narrarate this documentary to appear less sexist?
swiminthesoil 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You have got to be kidding. He compares us to a minnow. You can breed as many different dogs as you want but its still a dog after a billion years. rofl a peacock powned darwin.
LoveNotTheWaysOfTheW 3 years ago
The only thing pwned is your knowledge of the subject. Seriously, do some research before making such a rubbish comment. If you want to deny evolution. You might as well deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun. And if you do deny evolution. What is your evidence for this? And does it outweigh the evidence for evolution? DNA evidence, fossil records, verified predictions and observations. Can you really disprove all of that?
urantivirus 3 years ago 11
@urantivirus yeah only that most of the things in the bible conceptually contradiction many of the things we see empirically. if the bible was the words of god then...the god isnt so perfect like it says in the bible
sonnetxi 5 months ago
@LoveNotTheWaysOfTheW wow youre really clever. i bet you get that alot
sonnetxi 5 months ago
"because the only thing that describes the christian god is the bible."
Not really. Thousands of years of ancient Hebrew writings do too. The Talmud describes Jehovah. Even the Koran is attempting to describe the God of Abraham. There is disagreement about many issues, just like in other history books. So I wouldn't say the only thing. Other than all of these books, what else do you expect? TV coverage from BCE? YT Videos? I can't imagine what else you expect to see.
sarabellumm 3 years ago
ShaundalynChic commented and said "god invented sex"
I accidentally deleted her comment when trying to reply. I don't think a reply is necessary anymore. The documentary says it all.
urantivirus 3 years ago
SC is right, God did invent sex. How he did it is another matter.
sarabellumm 3 years ago
What makes you think god invented sex? I guess you believe the whole adam and eve thing?
urantivirus 3 years ago
"What makes you think god invented sex? I guess you believe the whole adam and eve thing?"
Maybe it happened that way, maybe not. You don't have to believe in Adam and Eve particularly to think God is ultimately responsible for sex. Even if it he brought it about for the purpose of giving us increased immunity from viruses and parasites. So you don't believe in Mitochondrial Eve?
sarabellumm 3 years ago
because the only thing that describes the christian god is the bible. No one knows the author or authors of it. And every one preaches it as the collective whole of the word of god.
So god was just joking about making 2 human beings only to damn them to mortality?
PersonalJesus348 3 years ago
Mitochondrial Eve? Are suggesting that evolution suggests that sex evolved in one generation?
urantivirus 3 years ago
"Mitochondrial Eve? Are suggesting that evolution suggests that sex evolved in one generation?"
I don't want to sound Bill Clintonish, but either you have sex or you don't. That doesn't mean all of the nice preparations to lead up to it described in the video didn't occur, nor that all the refinements after the first time didn't continue (and are still continuing-Thanks Viagra). But kind of by definition you go from "no sex" to "sex" in one generation.
sarabellumm 3 years ago
yes. but gender isn't something that happened in one generation. The first versions of sex would have been a simple exchange of DNA. No sex involved. Just asexual exchange of DNA. Then the simple single celled organisms adapted to each other to help the process. You eventually end up with two sexes. I'll keep uploading the parts. Please keep watching. :)
urantivirus 3 years ago
Why did all the animals end up with a dual male-female exchange? Why didn't some end up with a three way exchange?
sarabellumm 3 years ago
Not all animals are male-female. There are asexual animals. The reason there isn't a third sex, is most likely because we have pairs of jeans. So exchanging this among three organisms, would be next to impossible.
urantivirus 3 years ago
That's a cop out. The two pairs of genes fit exactly because there are two sex partners. If there were three sex partners, there would be three pairs of genes. Why did every animal chose to have only two partners? Wouldn't three share more anti-virus information quicker? Not a single animal tried that? Even early on? Not even a failed species? We have ants with specialized workers, queens, guards and drones, but not a single species of ant uses three types for procreation? Sounds planned to me.
sarabellumm 3 years ago
You know. Just because you don't understand something. It doesn't mean it must be planned. I am most certainly not a scientist. But there is a lot of information out there available. If you learn about the dynamics of DNA, replication and sex. You might find an answer other then god. Then try watching documentaries like this without assuming it must be planned. You're definitely asking the right questions though.
urantivirus 3 years ago
"If you learn about the dynamics of DNA, replication and sex. You might find an answer other then god."
You make it sound like those are mutually exclusive and they aren't. It isn't just theists who make assumptions. So no comment about why not a single phylum or group we can find even tried the three sex donor model? Not even a failed, extinct species? Despite the advantages of more information on aniti-viruses, etc and quicker dissemination of the information?
sarabellumm 3 years ago
There may be a failed three sex organism. But unfortunately it most likely would have been a single celled or at least very simple organism. And wouldn't leave a fossil or evidence of its existence. I'm not trying to make any assumption here or before. Thats why I encouraged you to find your answers in science. If you can't find answers, and you've truly looked. Then turn to god. Three sexes would have its advantages. But a lot of species have a hard enough time with one other sex to deal with.
urantivirus 3 years ago
And I'm not trying to exclude god. God could have created the big bang. Meaning all science is right and there is a god. Thats not my point of view. But I don't exclude the idea. My problem is when someone doesn't quite understand something. And rather then try to find the answer, they assume it was god. "Sounds planned to me." There would be next to no modern science today if we made that assumption all the time. A lot of things seem overly complicated until you do some research.
urantivirus 3 years ago 6
It's beneficial to organisms to survive with the least expenditure of energy. That's why there are 2 sexes - one sex doesn't give you genetic variation so you have to invest energy in developing 2 sexes. 3 sexes wouldn't be such a huge benefit as 2 over 1 so they don't get the extra energy input. There may be other possible explanations of course and not only one reason..
nadutsa 3 years ago