The only “real data” you ever “see” anywhere is the type that says that one group of LGBTs is NOT spreading ONE certain STD.

I haven’t seen any data at all from you. Hint hint. :)

I am looking for your thoughts on why sexual reproduction *between two different genders* is advantageous… Why have two genders developed, when only one would do?

Ah. If I understand you correctly, you’re asking something like, “Why not, say, hermaphrodites?”

The origin of sexual dimorphism is another area where we can’t claim certainty. On the other hand, it’s an area where I do have an opinion about what theory’s most likely.

Imagine a perfectly symmetrical sexual arrangement where each ‘parent’ puts in exactly half of the resources to develop the child. This is not an “evolutionarily stable strategy”, because it’s vulnerable to cheaters. A ‘parent’ that ‘cheats’ a little, and contributes less than what’s ‘fair’, can have an advantage. They can ‘parent’ more children.

Once something like that gets started, it amplifies. Enforcing fairness is evolutionarily difficult, so a parent that ‘compensates’ for cheating by delivering extra resources to ‘make up the lack’ from the other parent can do well. But then there’s pressure on the ‘cheaters’ to identify and preferentially mate with the ‘compensators’. You get an “evolutionary arms race”. The ‘cheaters’ eventually become the males, and the ‘compensators’ the females.

Of course, once that differentiation gets started, other adaptations and differentiations can develop on top of that. Hence the rather wide diversity of sexual strategies seen in nature. (I linked to a few before.)

And traits can be co-opted to new or parallel uses as well. The Catholic church, for example, recognizes that sex does not serve a solely reproductive role human relationships. What it opposes is the separation of the various purposes of sex. Personally, I find the case for that weak. But then, as I noted above, I haven’t received any divine revelations.

JDD,

I don’t think that is a question modern evolutionary theory would attempt an answer for. The reason there are two genders is because two genders evolved. It is not as if at the earliest stages of life on earth, members of an advanced civilization could have visited and predicted that two genders would develop. I don’t think it was a necessity that two genders developed. I am not sure I understand the purpose of the question.

It strikes me as not “unnatural” at all that human evolution could consistently produce a certain number of males and females who were not attracted to the opposite sex. Take a look at this very brief description of the reproduction of honey bees:

There are three main categories for honey bees. The queen is the center of the hive because she is responsible for laying eggs. She mates once and retains the sperm for the rest of her reproductive life. When the queen lays her eggs, she deposits them in different sized receptacle within the wax matrix. Each sized receptacle codes for a different resulting offspring. The smaller cells, about 5mm in diameter, contain fertilized eggs destined to become sterile female workers. The larger cells, about 7mm in diameter, contain future male drones. These eggs are not fertilized, and reproduce via parthenogenesis. Queen bees are created by an elaborate hormonal sequence initiated within the hive.

Almost all the females are sterile, male bees all are produced by “virgin birth” and only one of them gets to mate, and the only fertile female, the queen, is “made, not born.” If you are attempting to prove that a certain level of homosexuality doesn’t make sense in humans, the very unusual case of honey bees demonstrates that nuclear families are not necessary to be a successful species. Also, you are going to have to explain why homosexuality is so prevalent in non-humans.

I agree the reasons for its persistence issue appears pretty straightforward. I’m interested in how it got started. But I think here there’s still a need for a little more clarity in what I’m asking: You’ve listed some reasons for why sexual reproduction is advantageous – but I am looking for your thoughts on why sexual reproduction *between two different genders* is advantageous.

If we take the strict modern evolutionary theory, (which granted has a few different flavors, but I’m focusing on the characteristics of being purely chaotic and undirected, with more robust mutations surviving,) then the question that I think readily presents itself is: Why have two genders developed, when only one would do?

“There’s still a lot of ongoing research about the origin of sexual reproduction, with several suggestive hypotheses. I don’t know of one that has predominant empirical support yet, though.”

Fair enough. Which one do you hold?

Of course!

And I have a bridge to sell anyone who’s interested.

Ingles–The problem is, I never see you post any “real data”.

The only “real data” you ever “see” anywhere is the type that says that one group of LGBTs is NOT spreading ONE certain STD.

It’s hard to see people who are more invested in denial than that.

To recognize that there are serious problems related to homosexuals and bisexuals and STD epidemics is not stereotyping, it is a recognition based on real data.

The problem is, I never see you post any “real data”. You claim there are “serious problems”, but never post evidence of them or their prevalence.

Maybe that’s not your fault, though – I tried to post a few links and it didn’t make it through moderation. Given that limitation, I really don’t see any use in continuing the discussion.

Since you claim to see less homosexuals being harmful, I was asking you what evidence you have about homosexual and bisexuals in that respect.

When I asked you about what evidence you have of how they spread STDs, you replied that you lack evidence that there exists cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States.

In other words, given all the STDs and all the problems related to STDs and homosexuals and bisexuals, the only thing you mention is the non-existence of one type of STD for women.

Indeed, people with a homosexual agenda like yourself deliberately refuse to face every single problem and harmful attitude and behavior related to homosexuals and bisexuals. It would strike an observer that it is because you are prejudiced and unconcerned with the consequences.

In this manner, you coddle all homosexuals and bisexuals who are engaging in destructive behaviors, first and foremost, by joining them in a conspiracy of silence. Instead of “shedding stereotypes as you interact with subjects of such stereotypes,” you reinforce stereotypes regarding homosexuals all the time.

To recognize that there are serious problems related to homosexuals and bisexuals and STD epidemics is not stereotyping, it is a recognition based on real data.

You have proved my theory: people “see” according to their interests. Your interest is not to see any problems with homosexuals/bisexuals. The more you are invested in your denial, the less you will see of reality. Your blindness will remain the same, it doesn’t matter if you interact with one, a thousand, or no homosexuals.

There’s actually two issues. How sexual reproduction got started, and why it persists. The persistence is actually pretty straightforward. On a genetic level, it allows for gene repair during meiosis, and heterozygosity helps limit the effects of detrimental mutations. In addition, it allows favorable mutations (and, particularly, favorable combinations of mutations) to spread through a population relatively easily, and maintains a high degree of genetic diversity, which is helpful in quite a variety of ways, both immunologic and environmental.

There’s still a lot of ongoing research about the origin of sexual reproduction, with several suggestive hypotheses. I don’t know of one that has predominant empirical support yet, though.

“Reproduction, of course.”

No, I’m asking what you think is a purpose for the human race having *two* genders, instead of one, for reproduction.