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.

At no point do the authors of the paper claim that "we" only see two sexes in nature. And once again, who is "we"?

You misunderstand the premise, like many things. It's examining how life evolved from a single size of gametic reproduction into different sized gametes and the features of two theoretical models. As well as explaining why the two different sizes of gametes stay that way.

It explicitly says this is equivalent to asking why are the just two sexes. You missed that bit out. Deliberately?

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

Yes it does. It models evolution and show why more than 2 sexes cannot evolve.

That is a different thing than "reproduction can only produce one of two distinct sexes"

It also does not make the claim that no more than 2 sexes can evolve.

No, it doesn't. It tracks two models, which they clearly state are not mutually exclusive, and explain why a reproductive scheme based on two different sizes of gametes stays functionally stable. It most definitely does NOT say there can't be more than two sexes.

Even if one accepts your assertion that there cannot be more than two sexes (using whatever definition you want to pretend exists), you haven't advanced your quaint little notion that everyone fits in exactly one and only one of them. Tossing a coin has more than two possible outcomes...

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!

It is indeed. But irrelevent here as you can only have differentiated sexes in organisms in anisogamy. These mushrooms are isogamous and so do not have differentiated sexes.

*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?

Sweetie, I just told you what it was about. I can't help it that your obsession on the idea that sex is binary has so addled your brain that you can't understand what something means.

Nowhere n that paper does it say more than two sexes have evolved. Or that sexes are not discrete. You are either stupid or dishonest.

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