You're very clearly in over your head. That's not at all what the paper is about.

What is it about? Can you summarise it?

Sweetie, again, I'm not doing your work for you. You keep insisting everyone should post things to prove you wrong. That's not anyone's obligation. You are just mad because you keep getting humiliated. That's YOUR problem.

But I'll point out this. An article that is supposedly being used to explain why only two sexes developed probably isn't going to start by saying this was absolutely not the only path possible and it's entirely possible to imagine life on earth without separate sexes.

Give me strength. What are you on about? Even the title of the paper says it is about the evolution of the two sexes.

I understand you haven't read the paper, dear.

You dod not read further where the authors describe what their paper is about just a few paragraph on for the paragraph you misunderstand. If I am wrong, what is the paper about? Can you explain?

"So often", "almost", "likely". What do those terms mean to you?

Well if you can find any counter-examples to squeeze into the "almost" then please do point to a source. If you actually read the paper you will see why more than two is actually impossible. That is why we do not see ever three (or more) sexes in nature.

But please do tell us what the paper is about if I am wrong it is about why we see only two sexes in nature.

I don't have to find any examples. The paper literally doesn't claim the universal you're insisting it does.

The mushroom Schizophillum commune has two mating type genes, with one having over 300 possibilities and the other 64. This leads to a documented 23,328 distinct mating types. A S. commune individual would be capable of reproducing with just under 23,000 of these types. Science is fascinating!

*did *paragraphs

Look man, we can't make a fleamarket pseudointellectual read his own shit that he posts in sad attempts to push his half-baked bigotry ideology. You couldn't even read the introduction Julie posted there which very clearly lays out how you using this paper for YOUR aims is clownshoes idiocy.

Absolutely brutal.

Absolutely moronic.

You're quick to switch to insults when you think you've got no other recourse. You could just admit that you were wrong.

Yes, you are.

YOu reading of that paragraph is moronic. Of course we might imagine life without any sexes as there are swathes of life that reproduce asexually. But when there are sexes, there are just two. You completely misunderstood what the authors were talking about.

That's a lot of words to say that you're mad because I proved you wrong.

You completely misunderstood. The paper is about why only two sexes evolved. Read the title for a start. If I am wrong, what is the paper about and what are its conclusions?

Why do you care so much about America if you don’t even go here?