"A meeting with a Misogynist."

"

solwitch wrote:

You're are misleading others by copying and pasting on a subject that you have little knowledge of. Quoting something on the internet you googled about doesn't make you smarter. In fact you just submitted defeat to any rebuttals or arguments.

Amoebas ancestors were complex organisms, why? Obviously because they mated...

Single cell organisms majority of them replicate through mitosis. They have no need for sexual reproduction, they evolved from it. You need to read the article fully to understand it's intention.

"Although some amoebas haven't been caught having sex, the authors' taxonomic work suggests amoebic ancestors did do it—just like the common ancestor that led to all modern eukaryotes."

Amoebas ancestors are not considered at the time single cell organisms.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SINGLE CELL ORGANISM TO MATE

Talk about misleading...



I realize what you are doing (see image above), but for those casually following the thread:

Not sure if your post is out of sympathy for your sister chromatids, but I haploid to know that life is far older than amoeba and bacteria. IOW- not only are your assumptions all wet, but thou doth protista too much.


Life DID NOT originate in some warm little pond. It DID NOT orginate in photosynthetic form, but in chemotrophic form. I was well aware of meiosis and mitosis before Google was even a company. Long before people exchanged info on BBS, there were things called books. These things didn't have html, they had physical pages that you could flip through.

Assuming that an organism that is blind now, never had sight, is as fallacious as assuming anything else. If you had bothered to stop and think about it, you might have figured out that asexual cells gave rise to cells with gametes at some point, so there was naturally a crossover.

If you hadn't bothered to think about it, you could have read the link and done a little more research on your own. I spent about 2 femtoseconds finding what I already knew would be there. Info that what people consider asexual cells, aren't. I could merely assert my information, but people usually like to have a link to ideas that are different to what they have come to believe.

If you took ANY biology and didn't know that single celled organisms can reproduce asexually and sexually, then you or your teacher failed to do their proper duty. You could watch it happen under a microscope slide yourself if you were patient and set up the right conditions.

The single celled organism that is easiest to note this in is the paramecium.

You can WATCH two paramecium having sex (Conjugating, rather than binary fission) here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHsnktpY6A



Now, if you want to argue that Paramecium are multicellular organisms, have fun.

Off the top of my head, there are dinoflagellates that reproduce sexually as well. (hence the protista pun above)

So, for those in doubt on the topic, here are some links:

1) "This review summarizes the results obtained on meiosis in protists in the last 14 years. Special attention is drawn to the discovery of sexual phenomena in protozoan groups which were earlier considered asexual " Published in the European Journal of Protistology

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0932473911803494

2) "The realization that there is no fundamental distinction between macrobial and microbial eukaryotes calls for reassessment of the applicability of theories on the evolution of sex in macro-organisms to be extended to their microbial relatives." Published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1715/2081.long

3) "Dinoflagellates are haploid eukaryotic microalgae in which rapid proliferation causes dense blooms, with harmful health and economic effects to humans. The proliferation mode is mainly asexual, as the sexual cycle is believed to be rare and restricted to stressful environmental conditions. However, sexuality is key to explaining the recurrence of many dinoflagellate blooms because in many species the fate of the planktonic zygotes (planozygotes) is the formation of resistant cysts in the seabed (encystment). " Published in PLOS One

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142667

4)SEXUAL REPRODUCTION IN THE DINOFLAGELLATE NOCTILUCA MILIARIS SURIRAY1,2 (in this one, they specifically mention observing ZYGOTES of the dinoflagellates under specific conditions. Maybe the word Zygote rings a bell? Single cell organisms with zygotes, whatever can it mean? Published in the Journal of Phycology

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1970.tb02369.x/abstract

Here's the cool thing - you can validate that single celled organisms can have sex yourself. Grab a microscope, some slides, some paramecium and properly starve them and wait and watch. The cool thing about real science is that people who doubt can verify things for themselves in many cases.

I wonder how long took you to copy and paste that information... You know it's like the"..." When seeing a commercial for a movie.

Ever seen a commercial for a movie, they will quote a critic "An amazing masterful piece... " But that's misleading because at the other side of the "..." The sentence (quote) could have ended with the two words "...of shit."

Anyways "sex" transferring of DNA dependent on what type of sex you're reffering to. Single cell organisms because they are unicellular can't have orgasms. I think that's the type of sex everyone reffering to.

P.S I didn't read ^,^

"

solwitch wrote:

I wonder how long took you to copy and paste that information..

Typed from memory - with a few backspaces and corrections for typos. Typos are the bane of my existence.

"

solwitch wrote:

Anyways "sex" transferring of DNA dependent on what type of sex you're reffering to.

It is indeed.

"

solwitch wrote:

Single cell organisms because they are unicellular can't have orgasms. I think that's the type of sex everyone reffering to. P.S I didn't read ^,^

No idea if anything similar happens, though given it would be hard to have a sequence of muscle cell contractions when there is only one cell, I would doubt that it is possible.

Seems like there was a Far Side cartoon on this as well - something like "single cell bars".

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I realize what you are doing (see image above), but for those casually following the thread:

I am, and I enjoyed the read. You went a bit overboard with the puns but in a good way :)

"

Solwitch wrote:

P.S I didn't read ^,^

That's your loss and you would need bigger bait for DalaiLama. Much bigger. Whale big? I'm not sure he actually bites at all. His nickname is quite appropriate.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Spoiler

"

solwitch wrote:

I wonder how long took you to copy and paste that information..

Typed from memory - with a few backspaces and corrections for typos. Typos are the bane of my existence.

"

solwitch wrote:

Anyways "sex" transferring of DNA dependent on what type of sex you're reffering to.

It is indeed.

"

solwitch wrote:

Single cell organisms because they are unicellular can't have orgasms. I think that's the type of sex everyone reffering to. P.S I didn't read ^,^

No idea if anything similar happens, though given it would be hard to have a sequence of muscle cell contractions when there is only one cell, I would doubt that it is possible.

Spoiler

Seems like there was a Far Side cartoon on this as well - something like "single cell bars".

NDM-1 gene is a gene passed between bacteria without actually reproducing, and spreads to bacteria different than the host, its almost like an anonymous bacterial orgy in the Ganges river.

"

Bars wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I realize what you are doing (see image above), but for those casually following the thread:

I am, and I enjoyed the read. You went a bit overboard with the puns but in a good way :)

"

Solwitch wrote:

P.S I didn't read ^,^

That's your loss and you would need bigger bait for DalaiLama. Much bigger. Whale big? I'm not sure he actually bites at all. His nickname is quite appropriate.

I didn't read ^.^ Kidding... Bait. Oh boy... I've been here for a very... Very long time. These types of comments just inflate my purpose. It actually does quite the opposite. Excuse me while I use my multicellular self to drink some V.

I hope they inflate only the purpose. About the bait, I'm not DalaiLama-level immune but I'm also a bigger fish ;)

.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Head_Less wrote:

Now consider the percentage of woman who are primary caregivers for young children, versus the percentage of men in road work, plumbing or trash collection.

Each gender deals with plenty of shit; the respect should flow both ways.

So you are saying Men do not have to change diapers? Can you form these pictures into a statement on diapers that I can show my wife?

.