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?
Replies
"So often", "almost", "likely". What do those terms mean to you?
aug 29, 2025, 4:32 pm • 15 0 • view
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.
aug 29, 2025, 4:33 pm • 0 0 • view
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.
aug 29, 2025, 4:34 pm • 0 0 • view
At no point do the authors of the paper claim that "we" only see two sexes in nature. And once again, who is "we"?
aug 29, 2025, 4:45 pm • 2 0 • view
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.
aug 29, 2025, 4:45 pm • 1 0 • view
It explicitly says this is equivalent to asking why are the just two sexes. You missed that bit out. Deliberately?
aug 29, 2025, 5:03 pm • 0 0 • view
No, it absolutely does not say that.
aug 29, 2025, 5:35 pm • 1 0 • view
I don't have to find any examples. The paper literally doesn't claim the universal you're insisting it does.
aug 29, 2025, 4:40 pm • 14 0 • view
Yes it does. It models evolution and show why more than 2 sexes cannot evolve.
aug 29, 2025, 4:45 pm • 0 0 • view
That is a different thing than "reproduction can only produce one of two distinct sexes"
aug 30, 2025, 3:50 pm • 1 0 • view
Indeed. But we know evolution cannot produce a third sex as it would be outcompeted immediately by male or female strategies.
aug 30, 2025, 4:35 pm • 0 0 • view
That is 100% irrelevant to the question of whether offspring that are neither of the two predominant sexes can be produced.
aug 30, 2025, 4:43 pm • 2 0 • view
Do we know that? What's the source of that knowledge?
aug 30, 2025, 4:36 pm • 1 0 • view
This is mainstream biology. A text book here describes this. www.google.co.uk/books/editio...
aug 31, 2025, 12:30 pm • 0 0 • view
The biology literature is full of papers that discuss why we have two sexes and their nature. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
aug 31, 2025, 12:33 pm • 0 0 • view
And where in those texts do we find the claim that a third sex cannot evolve? And where are my stats or are you just arguing in bad faith now?
aug 31, 2025, 12:45 pm • 0 0 • view
Apparently it’s “I’ve never heard of bees”?
aug 30, 2025, 7:26 pm • 1 0 • view
It also does not make the claim that no more than 2 sexes can evolve.
aug 29, 2025, 4:48 pm • 3 0 • view
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.
aug 29, 2025, 4:46 pm • 16 0 • view
aug 29, 2025, 5:04 pm • 0 0 • view
Oh wow, way to quote text that directly contradicts your contention. "one may say that this is very easy to answer... In reality..."
aug 29, 2025, 5:11 pm • 7 0 • view
Moron
aug 29, 2025, 6:28 pm • 0 0 • view
I accept your surrender.
aug 29, 2025, 6:38 pm • 4 0 • view
Second self-own today.
aug 29, 2025, 5:36 pm • 3 0 • view
You have the intellectual depth of a bag of gravel. Of course it is a hard problem of why we only see two sexes. The paper is all about showing how that has been solved.
aug 29, 2025, 6:30 pm • 0 0 • view
Sweetie, you're as bad at insulting me as you are at understanding what the paper is saying.
aug 29, 2025, 6:32 pm • 4 0 • view
A solution you misunderstood.
aug 30, 2025, 4:30 am • 2 0 • view
The paper: “Reproduction does not require sex. It is one of many possibilities. We may never know exactly how this system evolved; it may have appeared in several different ways independently. The mechanics do not tell us the reasons behind it.” Quack: “YOU GUYS SCIENCE SAYS THIS IS THE ONLY WAY”
aug 29, 2025, 6:48 pm • 7 0 • view
He's sulking now. 😂
aug 29, 2025, 5:45 pm • 1 0 • view
He did get awfully quiet.
aug 29, 2025, 6:22 pm • 2 0 • view
What’s the rest of the sentence that gets cut off there at the bottom?
aug 30, 2025, 1:59 am • 32 0 • view
It says there are many different sex determination mechanisms in nature that drive male and female development. What is you point?
aug 30, 2025, 7:49 am • 0 0 • view
Why did you cut it off there?
aug 30, 2025, 7:56 am • 16 0 • view
Because nothing beyond that point was required to make my point. You (as always) are misreading what is said. Never in my life have I seen such motivated reasoning resulting in consistent absurdity. You are experts at it.
aug 30, 2025, 8:09 am • 0 0 • view
bsky.app/profile/enga...
aug 30, 2025, 2:02 am • 10 0 • view
Oh, dude. This whole paragraph (both your excerpt and the part you cropped out) are making the exact opposite point to yours.
aug 29, 2025, 5:11 pm • 4 0 • view
You are conflating sex determination with sex definition. The paper did not do this. It is just saying there are more ways of producing males and females than XX/XY. Sex determination mechanisms proliferate. Sexes do not. Idiot.
aug 30, 2025, 7:07 am • 0 0 • view
I didn’t do anything except quote your favorite paper back to you. You said it “shows why more than two sexes cannot evolve.” It does not. (And, just to be clear, it wouldn’t help your case even if it did. This study has basically no discussion or bearing on individual sex assignment.)
aug 30, 2025, 10:00 am • 2 0 • view
You misunderstood what you were quoting
aug 30, 2025, 11:45 am • 0 0 • view
Oops.
aug 29, 2025, 5:36 pm • 3 0 • view
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...
aug 30, 2025, 2:24 am • 1 0 • view
You are putting words in my mouth. I have explicitly said that is a logical possibility that some cases may be hard to classify. That does not mean (a) there are not classes than male and female for sexes ; (b) they still are either male or female. More straw man arguments.
aug 30, 2025, 7:05 am • 0 0 • view
If you cannot lay out a rule that objectively sorts the hard cases into one of two exes, (b) cannot be true.
aug 30, 2025, 3:53 pm • 4 0 • view
That is not true. Difficulties in classification may be due to lack of perfect knowledge not the existence of other classes.
aug 30, 2025, 4:31 pm • 0 0 • view
Are you suggesting that you lack the knowledge to sort the hard cases into one of the two sexes?
aug 30, 2025, 4:33 pm • 2 0 • view
This seems like a real problem if you are arguing a maximalist position.
aug 30, 2025, 4:41 pm • 3 0 • view
We tried to explain to you 72 hours ago that even assuming perfect knowledge does not let you escape the fundamental issue that you can’t even define discrete criteria for your classification.
aug 30, 2025, 5:14 pm • 1 0 • view
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!
aug 30, 2025, 8:16 am • 1 0 • view
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.
aug 30, 2025, 8:31 am • 0 0 • view
*did *paragraphs
aug 30, 2025, 8:01 pm • 3 0 • view