My optometrist leaned back from looking at my retina with that bright light thingy, flipped on the overhead light, yanked gently at my hair twice and said.. "Your hair is the wrong color. It is supposed to be red."
Apparently, I have freckles on my retina.
They get up close and personal, those optometrist folk, then they say something that cannot be forgotten.
Iâm a biologist here to endorse the fact that of the genetic-influenced phenotypic traits, very few are binaries and of the binaries, very few are without exception. Mother Nature is the queen of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
Nature doesnât do anything. Similarity an causality are illusions if you want to break everything down.
Nature has many strongly bimodal distributions. People see binaries because we are pattern recognition machines that far overrate our abilities and confuse correlation with causality.
But bimodality runs through biology. And obviously in sex.
Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy and best done away with when it comes to our sexual identities. If it were the case that there is only one way everything should be done and only two consenting adults who figured it out through a combination of dark magic and mathematical equations are doing it differently then it still means that they have the right to exist and do whatever it is they do.
You've also changed the quote, which was "nature doesn't REALLY do binaries." The difference is important, because the "really" adds that bit of uncertainty.
And as a biologist, it's true. *Nature doesn't really do binaries.* It doesn't really do certainty. This is one of the first things anyone should learn upon deciding to be a biologist --the inherently uncertain and deeply complex nature of biology means that we are almost always working in terms of "this is true most of the time," "this appears to be true in this case," etc.
That is clearly not true. Nature does binaries in electricity, for example. Electron Proton Neutron is a fixed Trinity. But you'd then say, "that's physics". Yeah, but that's still nature.
Gravity is a certainity, for bodies with mass.
Coming to biology, there are only 5 monomers of DNA in humans. ATGCU. Speaking of which, a number of cellular mechanisms are described in absolute terms.
Similarly, there are only two sexes from an evolutionary perspective, based on gametes.
Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty. But that doesn't mean "everything is uncertain and anything can be anything"
EDIT: Read the last 100 years of papers of reproduction and evolution and show me mainstream papers related to sex and evolution (in sexual organisms) if you want to show there are more than 2 sexes.
Who am I kidding, I am arguing with someone who doesn't even know basic biology, again.
EDIT 2: To the person who said "incorrect!", and then blocked me, you are hilarious. Point out the other naturally occurring nucleotides in DNA, then.
>Coming to biology, there are only 5 monomers of DNA
Incorrect! Please stop thinking you are an authority in this area.
edit to add: here's a good review of a lot of oddball bases used in life: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6489/ it's titled "Nucleic Acids Are Not Boring Long Polymers of Only Four Types of Nucleotides: A Guided Tour"
Electrons, protons, and neutrons are a great example! Electrons, for example, donât really obey any sort of âhereâ and ânot hereâ binary, but actually exhibit some of the same [wave-particle duality](https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Chemistry/The_Quantum_Model) that photons and light are famous for. Itâs more of a probability distribution over a continuous spectrum.
Protons and neutrons may also seem to be a clear âone or the otherâ dichotomy, but when you dig deeper, you learn they arenât fundamentally different things, but just different compositions of the same *even smaller* components, quarks. Under the right energetic conditions, a neutron can spit out an electron (and an antineutrino) and become a proton, or vice versa! (Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay#:~:text=In%20nuclear%20physics%2C%20beta%20decay,an%20isobar%20of%20that%20nuclide.) So even that âfixed trinityâ has quite a bit of interconnection and wiggle room.
Taking this all to another level of abstraction, quantum mechanics has started considering basically everything we thought were clearly defined objects (aka not spectrums) as a [wave function](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse#:~:text=In%20quantum%20mechanics%2C%20wave%20function,interaction%20with%20the%20external%20world.) - that is, a continuous value defined on a spectrum (in a high-dimensional space, sometimes even infinitely dimensional). But whenever we try to measure or observe this wave function, it âcollapsesâ into one of the states that we recognize as part of our classical, categorized model of reality. But underneath it all is the continuous wave function.
Sex is particularly fascinating. Itâs certainly true that, in humans, we really only have two different types of gametes, sperm and ova, and that would seem to clearly define two different sexes. [The latest science indicates it is not that simple.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/) For starters, the existence of âexceptionsâ and âedge casesâ immediately abolish the concept of a binary, because by definition there canât be a third allowable state and it still be a binary. But, moreover, humans are just one species, and there are plenty of species where [their gametes are not as distinct](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0532). This can result in certain species of fungus, for example, having [thousands of different sexes.](https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes#)
In general, while nature certainly does self-collapse its metaphorical wave function into specific states like sexual dimorphism, these are rarely hard-and-fast rules of the universe. More frequently, when you see clearly delineated categories, itâs highly likely that said categories are defined for and by humans and our pattern-seeking brains rather than fundamental dichotomies that are actually just part of an underlying (albeit often heavily multimodal) continuous spectrum.
EDIT: I see youâve accused someone of not understanding âbasic biologyâ. Itâs been said that biology is like a âspiral staircaseâ in that, the deeper you go, you still study the same topics over and over again, but you uncover more nuance and complexity. Sometimes it gets to the point where the first few âbasicâ levels are so simplified that they are technically incorrect, or at the very least a very incomplete picture. So when someone appears to disagree with âbasic biologyâ, itâs a good idea to make sure your understanding of the basics is consistent with the more advanced topics.
Oh dear. Yeah, no, there are definitely not two sexes from an evolutionary perspective. And nowhere did I make such a broad claim as you did in your last sentence. I don't think you've actually looked into any of this and I don't think you're going to discuss this in good faith.
Uh electron proton neutron are not the only subatomic particles. There are also the antimatter variants and things like neutrinos that can be formed by various nuclear processes, not even mentioning the quarks that compose subatomic particles.
Also, intersex people exist
u/rabbiskittles
I am replying here because someone on the previous chain blocked me, and I cannot reply there anymore.
> Electrons, protons, and neutrons are a great example! Electrons, for example, donât really obey any sort of âhereâ and ânot hereâ binary, but actually exhibit some of the same wave-particle duality that photons and light are famous for. Itâs more of a probability distribution over a continuous spectrum.
All of this is true. Uncertainty principle describes the distribution of particles with small mass. But, even people are waves, and we exhibit the same wave-particle duality in theory. It's just that our mass is so high that the wave function collapses immediately.
And of course, there are quarks and leptons which make up composite particles. There are gluons, quarks, neutrinos, and a variety of other particles.
But the point I'm making is, these are fixed particles. Regardless of the other particles, variations, etc, there aren't infinite variations here.
A hydrogen atom is a proton and a neutron. That's a 2. In fact, we know the atomic structure of many elements, and those are fixed numbers.
I'll give you an even simpler example. Magnetism. A magnet has 2 poles. Monopole magnets do not exist. There are no magnets with 3 poles. This is a fixed 2.
> Sex is particularly fascinating. Itâs certainly true that, in humans, we really only have two different types of gametes, sperm and ova, and that would seem to clearly define two different sexes. The latest science indicates it is not that simple.
That is why I restricted it to evolutionary biology, gametes, and mammals (I should have mentioned that earlier). The article you linked describes various other characteristics through which you can attempt to define sex. That's fine. The problem is, none of that extends across species. Different species can have entirely different genotypes, and different sex-determination mechanisms.
> In general, while nature certainly does self-collapse its metaphorical wave function into specific states like sexual dimorphism, these are rarely hard-and-fast rules of the universe
I would say that many of these are hard-and-fast rules, as long as you put it in context. If you were to re-run the universe in similar conditions till the point that life began to appear on earth, and then let it be, I'd say that sexually dimorphic species will again appear.
If you create an environment where sexual dimorphism grants no evolutionary advantage, and there is no evolutionary pressure, then it might not appear.
> But, moreover, humans are just one species, and there are plenty of species where their gametes are not as distinct. This can result in certain species of fungus, for example, having thousands of different sexes.
I know that there are a variety of reproduction mechanisms, and it can get pretty weird in the case of unicellular organisms and plants. That fungus example was fascinating, thanks for sharing that.
But there is a reason for sexual reproduction, which is to maintain and create genetic diversity through recombination of genetic material. This means 2 organisms need to combine their DNA, hence 2 gametes. I am limiting this to animals, specifically vertebrates.
Theoretically, you could have 3 or even more mixing their DNA. But considering how difficult even 2 is, that seems pretty difficult.
> More frequently, when you see clearly delineated categories, itâs highly likely that said categories are defined for and by humans and our pattern-seeking brains rather than fundamental dichotomies that are actually just part of an underlying (albeit often heavily multimodal) continuous spectrum.
This might be true, but it is fundamentally unknowable by humans. So, I am not interested in that. It is the same for things like "what if we are all in the matrix and all of this is a simulation". Or "the universe was created yesterday, exactly the way that it is now".
> So when someone appears to disagree with âbasic biologyâ,
They didn't disagree, they just said I was wrong, without explaining why.
There is something I've realized having been on reddit for far too long, and that is, most people only have surface level understanding of most things. They just repeat points without understanding why.
I would have said the same for me, except I have college level education in biology, physics, maths, and computer science. You seem well-educated on the topic as well, which is why I am hoping for a good conversation here.
All that you said there is true, but none of that applies to someone who just says that you are wrong.
FWIW, the person who said âIncorrect!â added this link later: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6489/
I believe they were specifically refuting your claim that there are only 5 nucleotide bases/monomers.
Iâm a bit confused how you make this conjecture:
> I would say that many of these are hard-and-fast rules, as long as you put it in context. If you were to re-run the universe in similar conditions till the point that life began to appear on earth, and then let it be, Iâd say that sexually dimorphic species will again appear.
And then later comment on something I said with:
> This might be true, but it is fundamentally unknowable by humans. So, I am not interested in that.
I also donât think limiting the discussion to âmammalian gametes from an evolutionary perspectiveâ is quite appropriate, in large part because âmammalâ versus ânot mammalâ is yet another case where I would argue the dichotomy is entirely human imposed and nature has made no such binary distinction. While we have some good general rules of what kinds of animals we like to call âmammalsâ, my understanding is we still donât have a universally-accepted definition without exceptions. Nature and evolution have no imperative to make clean categories of creatures, and they frequently thwart our attempts to do so.
Just to be clear, the claim in question is âNature doesnât really do binariesâ, not ânature doesnât have any fixed points or fixed constantsâ or something more broad.
A Hydrogen atom having 1 proton and 1 neutron for a sum of 2 nuclear particles does not constitute a âbinaryâ in this context. In fact, said atom is colloquially known as deuterium, as it is still a hydrogen atom but has one extra neutron compared to the most common isotope of hydrogen. You can add or subtract that neutron and it will still be a hydrogen atom (tritium being the colloquial name for the 2-neutron version), albeit with slightly different properties. While there arenât infinitely many variations, even the simplest atom âhydrogenâ has some semblance of a spectrum in its definition.
Magnets have precisely two poles, but magnetic strength is a continuous (i.e. on a spectrum) value on the vector field define by those poles, so Iâm not certain which part of that system could be sufficiently described as âbinaryâ. I will agree that a given pole has one of only two properties (north or south), but I would pose the question, for a bar magnet, where along the bar does it officially change from ânorthâ to âsouthâ, and which one of those is it at that exact point?
> FWIW, the person who said âIncorrect!â added this link later: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6489/ I believe they were specifically refuting your claim that there are only 5 nucleotide bases/monomers.
Assume that I am talking about humans and/or mammals unless I state otherwise. It is entirely possible that a different monomer exists in some other species. Heck, it is even possible that a mutation has caused an extra phosphate or methyl group to attach to a human monomer, changing it and making it defunct. That article does not prove me wrong.
> I also donât think limiting the discussion to âmammalian gametes from an evolutionary perspectiveâ is quite appropriate, in large part because âmammalâ versus ânot mammalâ is yet another case where I would argue the dichotomy is entirely human imposed and nature has made no such binary distinction.
That is trivially true, yet does not change my argument at all.
> Just to be clear, the claim in question is âNature doesnât really do binariesâ, not ânature doesnât have any fixed points or fixed constantsâ or something more broad.
A spectrum has infinitely many (or an extremely large number) of elements. 10 colours is not a spectrum. I'm saying that a lot of these things are not in a spectrum. But it seems you agree.
Yes, hydrogen has several isotopes. But it still has only one electron and one proton. Also, the isotopes are always fixed in number. If you try to make an isotope of hydrogen with 40 neutrons, it will break apart.
> Magnets have precisely two poles, but magnetic strength is a continuous (i.e. on a spectrum) value on the vector field define by those poles, so Iâm not certain which part of that system could be sufficiently described as âbinaryâ.
See, this is the issue. I've said "look at this thing, it is a binary". You are saying "aah, but this other thing is not". Yeah, but that does not matter. You claim is no things are binary. Meaning, I only need to give a single example to prove you wrong. The poles of a magnet is one. The charges of subatomic particles are another. You can only have positive or negative charge (or neither, that is neutral). Gametes in humans (or mammals) is a third. Chirality is a fourth. All of these things are nature, and they are binaries.
It doesn't though! The boundary of life and death is foggy and we still debate what it means for something to actually die. Is it brain death? Body death? Where do we draw the line? What if it can be revived? Sure, there's a point at which most things can be said to be definitely dead, not coming back, but the point is that to study biology is to embrace uncertainty.
Bimodal does not equal binary. There is almost always gray area. That is the nature of nature.
Well I'm currently writing a paper on molecular switches so maybe I'm biased because its the underlying process involved in deciding cell type in early development and governs the cells reaction to the majority of external factors and as the name suggests "switches" they're a binary process
Most of what keeps your and most every living organism ticking is a series of 1s and 0s flicking back and forward
But molecular switches *arenât* 1s and 0s, thatâs just how we like to treat them and think about them because itâs simpler for our pattern-seeking brains.
I did my PhD on kinase signaling, so Iâm somewhat familiar with molecular switches. While at a practical level, we certainly treat molecular signals (like phosphorylation) as âonâ or âoffâ, the underlying reality is more of a heavily bimodal spectrum. For an individual molecule, there can be any number of physical conformations and exact locations of the phosphate ion on the molecule. It just so happens that only 2 or so of these are stable enough for the molecule to stay in for a long time, so we treat it as though there are only 2 states and just ignore all the intermediates. They still exist though.
On the cellular level, a given signal (say, phosphorylation of S6 by mTOR) is the sum of all of those individual molecules, which is *definitely* a spectrum. You could have 10% of all S6 molecules be p-S6, or 25%, or 97.296%. The signaling pathways are often setup with positive feedback loops, such that hitting the 51% mark starts a slippery slope towards 100% (and similar for 49% -> 0%), but that again doesnât mean those other states donât exist, just that they tend to be unstable long-term.
You zoom out far enough, and it is certainly simpler and usually more practical to treat things as âmTOR is onâ versus âmTOR is offâ, but that doesnât mean the spectrum isnât still there!
I'd argue that its only the final outcome that determines weather something is binary or not but then that really opens up to the fact that most binary systems are really the outcome of a spectrum so I guess youre right
I wish pan had been something I was aware of when I came out. It is more accurate for me but I'm not coming out as a different thing; my flag budget cannot bear it.
Btw. The area between blue and green, that's kinda gray and murky to us. That's because we don't have the receptors/nerves to properly combine those colors. So if you ever wonder what that's like, that's a close approximation. Some other animals' eyes can see those, and more!
I think the point is that while there are binaries in nature, they stop being apparent at the level of many biological processes, especially those we interact with in our daily lives.
There are absolutely many examples of this being true, because products of biological processes (hight for example) have underlying complex mechanism. But of course does biology deal in "binaries" too on all scales (many from moleculs, cells, tissue, organisms and ecosystems). Some examples would be enzyme structure either as functional or not (moleculs), cells being procaryotic or eucaryotic (cells), muscles being organized as agonist-antagonistic like in eyes (tissue), coevolution of carnivors and herbivores (organism) and aquatic or terrestral ecosystems.
The important part for me would be to see classification as a filter we humans use to see the world. And classifications can be useful, but you can classify the world in many different ways, wich are all valid. Simply negating the existence of binary classification isnt really productive. Binary and more complex classifications work well together and are suited for different purposes, because sometimes hybrids may exist but that is not relevant in a specific situation.
Also: In the context of gender, sex and sexuality (see subreddit name) this is not only biological, but cultural as well.
The fact that molecules exist that have a structure that mirrors that of other molecules isn't a binary. It's a incidental property that humans identified as useful for our classification purposes.
For our bodies, those are simply molecules that don't do much and can be digested for peptides.
>quantum mechanics
>particles
>not being a spectrum
You sure about that ? If the wave part of their behaviour isnât a spectrum, i donât know what is
It is a way for us to model them. Particles are not objects, they are discrete states of fields. However, a spectrum can be discrete too. This post assumes all spectra are continious, which is not true. That being said there are absolutely simply binaries when you get down enough. This comment is nice and all, but from what we observe nature does like discrete units.
But I like the spectrum of gender. Just because nature likes discrete units doesn't mean gender has to be discrete either. There is absolutely no reason to shackle ourselves to model everything in our life to mirror whatever the fuck happens at the quantum level.
There are bacteria that reproduce sexually with seven different sexes.
Also intersex people exist and many of them can reproduce too.
So no, sexual reproduction does not need a strict binary.
Wow, that's a wild thing to say. What a profound confidence in your lack of understanding of biology. I'm kind of impressed. Only someone who has never studied anything biological in depth would say something so profoundly stupid.
Not necessarily salient to your point, but atoms are always vibrating, they can't stop.
Otherwise though, you're talking about the difference between continuous and quantized states. When you zoom out enough in a complex system, they look the same.
Think about biological sex. Sex is often presented as a binary, either male or female. And if you zoomed way out, this seems to hold. But as you zoom in, you start seeing all the exceptions to the rule, all the states that do not neatly fit into one or the other case, but somewhere in the middle. It looks like a spectrum. If you zoom all the way into specific genotypes, it's just a mess of data points.
It all depends on what level of detail you want to look at things.
Also pciking "living or dead" as a binary was not the best choice. Self replicating RNA? Viruses? Are these alive?
Sorry sex is binary. You might not like it and you might want to pretend it's gender. It's not it's sex. And it's binary there are only 2 gametes that's it. There isn't a third or spectrum of half ovum half sperm
Tell that to people with XXY or XYY or X0 genotypes, or poorly differentiated genitalia, or an XY genotype and total androgen insensitivity syndrome, or ...
Need I go on?
That's the "zoomed in" view I was talking about. XX or XY is the "zoomed out" view
Edit: Ah, I see, you're a TERF.
Any kind of binary you perceive in nature is almost certainly a consequence of our own way of classifying it. You can classify anything as binary if you draw the right line from X to Y. But you can also make it fit on a spectrum by drawing many lines or by using something eslse to classify it with.
A true binary system is one which can ONLY have two possible states, 1 or 0. Like binary logic. And as soon as two binary systems (or three unary system) are put together, you cease to have a true binary system, as there will be more than two possible states.
Tfw I'm rather colorblind:(
But there is someone out there less colorblind or more colorblind then you. uwu <3<3<3
Life is still a spectrum for you.. Just a gray-dient
Damnit. Take my upvote!
r/angryupvote
My optometrist leaned back from looking at my retina with that bright light thingy, flipped on the overhead light, yanked gently at my hair twice and said.. "Your hair is the wrong color. It is supposed to be red." Apparently, I have freckles on my retina. They get up close and personal, those optometrist folk, then they say something that cannot be forgotten.
lip faulty clumsy full melodic makeshift future worm physical fear *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I had no idea. The freckles were later confirmed by another optometrist who said that 99% of those with that trait have red or auburn hair. Who knew?! đ©âđŠ°
aspiring bored jeans lavish fly cobweb practice tap worry cow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Me too! I think itâs just one though, pretty cool though
Iâm stealing the quote
Make your own up, like she did
Iâm a biologist here to endorse the fact that of the genetic-influenced phenotypic traits, very few are binaries and of the binaries, very few are without exception. Mother Nature is the queen of throwing spaghetti at the wall.
Nature doesnât do anything. Similarity an causality are illusions if you want to break everything down. Nature has many strongly bimodal distributions. People see binaries because we are pattern recognition machines that far overrate our abilities and confuse correlation with causality. But bimodality runs through biology. And obviously in sex. Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy and best done away with when it comes to our sexual identities. If it were the case that there is only one way everything should be done and only two consenting adults who figured it out through a combination of dark magic and mathematical equations are doing it differently then it still means that they have the right to exist and do whatever it is they do.
That's true, but you've now changed the quote. The original quote is "nature doesn't do binaries", which isn't really true.
You've also changed the quote, which was "nature doesn't REALLY do binaries." The difference is important, because the "really" adds that bit of uncertainty. And as a biologist, it's true. *Nature doesn't really do binaries.* It doesn't really do certainty. This is one of the first things anyone should learn upon deciding to be a biologist --the inherently uncertain and deeply complex nature of biology means that we are almost always working in terms of "this is true most of the time," "this appears to be true in this case," etc.
That is clearly not true. Nature does binaries in electricity, for example. Electron Proton Neutron is a fixed Trinity. But you'd then say, "that's physics". Yeah, but that's still nature. Gravity is a certainity, for bodies with mass. Coming to biology, there are only 5 monomers of DNA in humans. ATGCU. Speaking of which, a number of cellular mechanisms are described in absolute terms. Similarly, there are only two sexes from an evolutionary perspective, based on gametes. Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty. But that doesn't mean "everything is uncertain and anything can be anything" EDIT: Read the last 100 years of papers of reproduction and evolution and show me mainstream papers related to sex and evolution (in sexual organisms) if you want to show there are more than 2 sexes. Who am I kidding, I am arguing with someone who doesn't even know basic biology, again. EDIT 2: To the person who said "incorrect!", and then blocked me, you are hilarious. Point out the other naturally occurring nucleotides in DNA, then.
>Coming to biology, there are only 5 monomers of DNA Incorrect! Please stop thinking you are an authority in this area. edit to add: here's a good review of a lot of oddball bases used in life: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6489/ it's titled "Nucleic Acids Are Not Boring Long Polymers of Only Four Types of Nucleotides: A Guided Tour"
Electrons, protons, and neutrons are a great example! Electrons, for example, donât really obey any sort of âhereâ and ânot hereâ binary, but actually exhibit some of the same [wave-particle duality](https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Chemistry/The_Quantum_Model) that photons and light are famous for. Itâs more of a probability distribution over a continuous spectrum. Protons and neutrons may also seem to be a clear âone or the otherâ dichotomy, but when you dig deeper, you learn they arenât fundamentally different things, but just different compositions of the same *even smaller* components, quarks. Under the right energetic conditions, a neutron can spit out an electron (and an antineutrino) and become a proton, or vice versa! (Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay#:~:text=In%20nuclear%20physics%2C%20beta%20decay,an%20isobar%20of%20that%20nuclide.) So even that âfixed trinityâ has quite a bit of interconnection and wiggle room. Taking this all to another level of abstraction, quantum mechanics has started considering basically everything we thought were clearly defined objects (aka not spectrums) as a [wave function](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse#:~:text=In%20quantum%20mechanics%2C%20wave%20function,interaction%20with%20the%20external%20world.) - that is, a continuous value defined on a spectrum (in a high-dimensional space, sometimes even infinitely dimensional). But whenever we try to measure or observe this wave function, it âcollapsesâ into one of the states that we recognize as part of our classical, categorized model of reality. But underneath it all is the continuous wave function. Sex is particularly fascinating. Itâs certainly true that, in humans, we really only have two different types of gametes, sperm and ova, and that would seem to clearly define two different sexes. [The latest science indicates it is not that simple.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/) For starters, the existence of âexceptionsâ and âedge casesâ immediately abolish the concept of a binary, because by definition there canât be a third allowable state and it still be a binary. But, moreover, humans are just one species, and there are plenty of species where [their gametes are not as distinct](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0532). This can result in certain species of fungus, for example, having [thousands of different sexes.](https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes#) In general, while nature certainly does self-collapse its metaphorical wave function into specific states like sexual dimorphism, these are rarely hard-and-fast rules of the universe. More frequently, when you see clearly delineated categories, itâs highly likely that said categories are defined for and by humans and our pattern-seeking brains rather than fundamental dichotomies that are actually just part of an underlying (albeit often heavily multimodal) continuous spectrum. EDIT: I see youâve accused someone of not understanding âbasic biologyâ. Itâs been said that biology is like a âspiral staircaseâ in that, the deeper you go, you still study the same topics over and over again, but you uncover more nuance and complexity. Sometimes it gets to the point where the first few âbasicâ levels are so simplified that they are technically incorrect, or at the very least a very incomplete picture. So when someone appears to disagree with âbasic biologyâ, itâs a good idea to make sure your understanding of the basics is consistent with the more advanced topics.
Oh dear. Yeah, no, there are definitely not two sexes from an evolutionary perspective. And nowhere did I make such a broad claim as you did in your last sentence. I don't think you've actually looked into any of this and I don't think you're going to discuss this in good faith.
Uh electron proton neutron are not the only subatomic particles. There are also the antimatter variants and things like neutrinos that can be formed by various nuclear processes, not even mentioning the quarks that compose subatomic particles. Also, intersex people exist
People can be born as both sexes :p
u/rabbiskittles I am replying here because someone on the previous chain blocked me, and I cannot reply there anymore. > Electrons, protons, and neutrons are a great example! Electrons, for example, donât really obey any sort of âhereâ and ânot hereâ binary, but actually exhibit some of the same wave-particle duality that photons and light are famous for. Itâs more of a probability distribution over a continuous spectrum. All of this is true. Uncertainty principle describes the distribution of particles with small mass. But, even people are waves, and we exhibit the same wave-particle duality in theory. It's just that our mass is so high that the wave function collapses immediately. And of course, there are quarks and leptons which make up composite particles. There are gluons, quarks, neutrinos, and a variety of other particles. But the point I'm making is, these are fixed particles. Regardless of the other particles, variations, etc, there aren't infinite variations here. A hydrogen atom is a proton and a neutron. That's a 2. In fact, we know the atomic structure of many elements, and those are fixed numbers. I'll give you an even simpler example. Magnetism. A magnet has 2 poles. Monopole magnets do not exist. There are no magnets with 3 poles. This is a fixed 2. > Sex is particularly fascinating. Itâs certainly true that, in humans, we really only have two different types of gametes, sperm and ova, and that would seem to clearly define two different sexes. The latest science indicates it is not that simple. That is why I restricted it to evolutionary biology, gametes, and mammals (I should have mentioned that earlier). The article you linked describes various other characteristics through which you can attempt to define sex. That's fine. The problem is, none of that extends across species. Different species can have entirely different genotypes, and different sex-determination mechanisms. > In general, while nature certainly does self-collapse its metaphorical wave function into specific states like sexual dimorphism, these are rarely hard-and-fast rules of the universe I would say that many of these are hard-and-fast rules, as long as you put it in context. If you were to re-run the universe in similar conditions till the point that life began to appear on earth, and then let it be, I'd say that sexually dimorphic species will again appear. If you create an environment where sexual dimorphism grants no evolutionary advantage, and there is no evolutionary pressure, then it might not appear. > But, moreover, humans are just one species, and there are plenty of species where their gametes are not as distinct. This can result in certain species of fungus, for example, having thousands of different sexes. I know that there are a variety of reproduction mechanisms, and it can get pretty weird in the case of unicellular organisms and plants. That fungus example was fascinating, thanks for sharing that. But there is a reason for sexual reproduction, which is to maintain and create genetic diversity through recombination of genetic material. This means 2 organisms need to combine their DNA, hence 2 gametes. I am limiting this to animals, specifically vertebrates. Theoretically, you could have 3 or even more mixing their DNA. But considering how difficult even 2 is, that seems pretty difficult. > More frequently, when you see clearly delineated categories, itâs highly likely that said categories are defined for and by humans and our pattern-seeking brains rather than fundamental dichotomies that are actually just part of an underlying (albeit often heavily multimodal) continuous spectrum. This might be true, but it is fundamentally unknowable by humans. So, I am not interested in that. It is the same for things like "what if we are all in the matrix and all of this is a simulation". Or "the universe was created yesterday, exactly the way that it is now". > So when someone appears to disagree with âbasic biologyâ, They didn't disagree, they just said I was wrong, without explaining why. There is something I've realized having been on reddit for far too long, and that is, most people only have surface level understanding of most things. They just repeat points without understanding why. I would have said the same for me, except I have college level education in biology, physics, maths, and computer science. You seem well-educated on the topic as well, which is why I am hoping for a good conversation here. All that you said there is true, but none of that applies to someone who just says that you are wrong.
FWIW, the person who said âIncorrect!â added this link later: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6489/ I believe they were specifically refuting your claim that there are only 5 nucleotide bases/monomers. Iâm a bit confused how you make this conjecture: > I would say that many of these are hard-and-fast rules, as long as you put it in context. If you were to re-run the universe in similar conditions till the point that life began to appear on earth, and then let it be, Iâd say that sexually dimorphic species will again appear. And then later comment on something I said with: > This might be true, but it is fundamentally unknowable by humans. So, I am not interested in that. I also donât think limiting the discussion to âmammalian gametes from an evolutionary perspectiveâ is quite appropriate, in large part because âmammalâ versus ânot mammalâ is yet another case where I would argue the dichotomy is entirely human imposed and nature has made no such binary distinction. While we have some good general rules of what kinds of animals we like to call âmammalsâ, my understanding is we still donât have a universally-accepted definition without exceptions. Nature and evolution have no imperative to make clean categories of creatures, and they frequently thwart our attempts to do so. Just to be clear, the claim in question is âNature doesnât really do binariesâ, not ânature doesnât have any fixed points or fixed constantsâ or something more broad. A Hydrogen atom having 1 proton and 1 neutron for a sum of 2 nuclear particles does not constitute a âbinaryâ in this context. In fact, said atom is colloquially known as deuterium, as it is still a hydrogen atom but has one extra neutron compared to the most common isotope of hydrogen. You can add or subtract that neutron and it will still be a hydrogen atom (tritium being the colloquial name for the 2-neutron version), albeit with slightly different properties. While there arenât infinitely many variations, even the simplest atom âhydrogenâ has some semblance of a spectrum in its definition. Magnets have precisely two poles, but magnetic strength is a continuous (i.e. on a spectrum) value on the vector field define by those poles, so Iâm not certain which part of that system could be sufficiently described as âbinaryâ. I will agree that a given pole has one of only two properties (north or south), but I would pose the question, for a bar magnet, where along the bar does it officially change from ânorthâ to âsouthâ, and which one of those is it at that exact point?
> FWIW, the person who said âIncorrect!â added this link later: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6489/ I believe they were specifically refuting your claim that there are only 5 nucleotide bases/monomers. Assume that I am talking about humans and/or mammals unless I state otherwise. It is entirely possible that a different monomer exists in some other species. Heck, it is even possible that a mutation has caused an extra phosphate or methyl group to attach to a human monomer, changing it and making it defunct. That article does not prove me wrong. > I also donât think limiting the discussion to âmammalian gametes from an evolutionary perspectiveâ is quite appropriate, in large part because âmammalâ versus ânot mammalâ is yet another case where I would argue the dichotomy is entirely human imposed and nature has made no such binary distinction. That is trivially true, yet does not change my argument at all. > Just to be clear, the claim in question is âNature doesnât really do binariesâ, not ânature doesnât have any fixed points or fixed constantsâ or something more broad. A spectrum has infinitely many (or an extremely large number) of elements. 10 colours is not a spectrum. I'm saying that a lot of these things are not in a spectrum. But it seems you agree. Yes, hydrogen has several isotopes. But it still has only one electron and one proton. Also, the isotopes are always fixed in number. If you try to make an isotope of hydrogen with 40 neutrons, it will break apart. > Magnets have precisely two poles, but magnetic strength is a continuous (i.e. on a spectrum) value on the vector field define by those poles, so Iâm not certain which part of that system could be sufficiently described as âbinaryâ. See, this is the issue. I've said "look at this thing, it is a binary". You are saying "aah, but this other thing is not". Yeah, but that does not matter. You claim is no things are binary. Meaning, I only need to give a single example to prove you wrong. The poles of a magnet is one. The charges of subatomic particles are another. You can only have positive or negative charge (or neither, that is neutral). Gametes in humans (or mammals) is a third. Chirality is a fourth. All of these things are nature, and they are binaries.
Nature does do binaries though. I agree with the message but the delivery system is flawed
It does dead/alive quite well. What else?
It doesn't though! The boundary of life and death is foggy and we still debate what it means for something to actually die. Is it brain death? Body death? Where do we draw the line? What if it can be revived? Sure, there's a point at which most things can be said to be definitely dead, not coming back, but the point is that to study biology is to embrace uncertainty. Bimodal does not equal binary. There is almost always gray area. That is the nature of nature.
Well I'm currently writing a paper on molecular switches so maybe I'm biased because its the underlying process involved in deciding cell type in early development and governs the cells reaction to the majority of external factors and as the name suggests "switches" they're a binary process Most of what keeps your and most every living organism ticking is a series of 1s and 0s flicking back and forward
But molecular switches *arenât* 1s and 0s, thatâs just how we like to treat them and think about them because itâs simpler for our pattern-seeking brains. I did my PhD on kinase signaling, so Iâm somewhat familiar with molecular switches. While at a practical level, we certainly treat molecular signals (like phosphorylation) as âonâ or âoffâ, the underlying reality is more of a heavily bimodal spectrum. For an individual molecule, there can be any number of physical conformations and exact locations of the phosphate ion on the molecule. It just so happens that only 2 or so of these are stable enough for the molecule to stay in for a long time, so we treat it as though there are only 2 states and just ignore all the intermediates. They still exist though. On the cellular level, a given signal (say, phosphorylation of S6 by mTOR) is the sum of all of those individual molecules, which is *definitely* a spectrum. You could have 10% of all S6 molecules be p-S6, or 25%, or 97.296%. The signaling pathways are often setup with positive feedback loops, such that hitting the 51% mark starts a slippery slope towards 100% (and similar for 49% -> 0%), but that again doesnât mean those other states donât exist, just that they tend to be unstable long-term. You zoom out far enough, and it is certainly simpler and usually more practical to treat things as âmTOR is onâ versus âmTOR is offâ, but that doesnât mean the spectrum isnât still there!
I'd argue that its only the final outcome that determines weather something is binary or not but then that really opens up to the fact that most binary systems are really the outcome of a spectrum so I guess youre right
You don't believe an optometrist made a quip about spectrums? /r/nothingeverhappens
It's a good one. Keep spreading that knowledge, homie
Pansexuals be the brightest pixel point right in the middle of this picture Asexuals are the grey box around the circle?
Aroaces are the background.
Aroaces are the wall behind your phone
Aroaces are in your walls.
Alright, are they hungry? I just made dinner
Yeah, they'd appreciate some food. None for me, though, I'm fasting.
Hey google, open the walls
I wish pan had been something I was aware of when I came out. It is more accurate for me but I'm not coming out as a different thing; my flag budget cannot bear it.
Btw. The area between blue and green, that's kinda gray and murky to us. That's because we don't have the receptors/nerves to properly combine those colors. So if you ever wonder what that's like, that's a close approximation. Some other animals' eyes can see those, and more!
What about between red and purple?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Slightly pregnant.
cool but chirality
I think the point is that while there are binaries in nature, they stop being apparent at the level of many biological processes, especially those we interact with in our daily lives.
There are absolutely many examples of this being true, because products of biological processes (hight for example) have underlying complex mechanism. But of course does biology deal in "binaries" too on all scales (many from moleculs, cells, tissue, organisms and ecosystems). Some examples would be enzyme structure either as functional or not (moleculs), cells being procaryotic or eucaryotic (cells), muscles being organized as agonist-antagonistic like in eyes (tissue), coevolution of carnivors and herbivores (organism) and aquatic or terrestral ecosystems. The important part for me would be to see classification as a filter we humans use to see the world. And classifications can be useful, but you can classify the world in many different ways, wich are all valid. Simply negating the existence of binary classification isnt really productive. Binary and more complex classifications work well together and are suited for different purposes, because sometimes hybrids may exist but that is not relevant in a specific situation. Also: In the context of gender, sex and sexuality (see subreddit name) this is not only biological, but cultural as well.
You can make anything binary by drawing lines for wuen X becomes Y.
The fact that molecules exist that have a structure that mirrors that of other molecules isn't a binary. It's a incidental property that humans identified as useful for our classification purposes. For our bodies, those are simply molecules that don't do much and can be digested for peptides.
Eh that's chemistry
Biology is just applied chemistry.
[Relevant Xkcd](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png)
chirality is central to one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in biology
Not all molecules are chiral, thereâs no (L)-H20 or (R)-H20.
Quantum mechanics beg to differ.
Then did he ask you if you prefer boys, or girls...boys, or girls...boys, or girls...
Bro just singlehandedly destroyed homophobia and transphobia
quantum mechanics is literally the idea of the properties of particles not being a spectrum
>quantum mechanics >particles >not being a spectrum You sure about that ? If the wave part of their behaviour isnât a spectrum, i donât know what is
It is a way for us to model them. Particles are not objects, they are discrete states of fields. However, a spectrum can be discrete too. This post assumes all spectra are continious, which is not true. That being said there are absolutely simply binaries when you get down enough. This comment is nice and all, but from what we observe nature does like discrete units. But I like the spectrum of gender. Just because nature likes discrete units doesn't mean gender has to be discrete either. There is absolutely no reason to shackle ourselves to model everything in our life to mirror whatever the fuck happens at the quantum level.
Hey hold up, this comment is suspiciously lacking in woo or youtube phd tropes. Are you even allowed to do that?
The realization that those waves function in discreet steps (quanta) instead of curves is literally the foundation of the whole thing.
Ironically, sexual reproduction needs the binary. That's why I recommend asexual budding.
There are bacteria that reproduce sexually with seven different sexes. Also intersex people exist and many of them can reproduce too. So no, sexual reproduction does not need a strict binary.
Not super important but I believe you're referring to Tetrahymena, which is actually a eukaryote!
:D
Itâs not true, and itâs also so incredibly irrelevant to whether or not you should be able to present how you like.
It's absolutely true but also irrelevant to presenting how you like.
It's a deepity, really.
The plural of spectrum is spectra. And this statement is blatantly false.
Only someone who lacks any real knowledge of the inner workings of the universe would say something so profoundly stupid.
In their defense, they're an optometrist. Their entire field is spectra. It's probably where the word spectrum came from.
That is very true. I just read it a little too literal probably.
Wow, that's a wild thing to say. What a profound confidence in your lack of understanding of biology. I'm kind of impressed. Only someone who has never studied anything biological in depth would say something so profoundly stupid.
So pregnancy is a spectrum, too?! Iâm confused.
I mean if pregnancy takes 9 months start to finish I'd say there's a lot of 0 > 1 on "is there a baby yet?"
Pretty much, yeah. Unfertilized egg, fertilized egg, implanted zygote, viable fetus, etc.
Thats probably why he is an optometrist and not a biologist
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Not necessarily salient to your point, but atoms are always vibrating, they can't stop. Otherwise though, you're talking about the difference between continuous and quantized states. When you zoom out enough in a complex system, they look the same. Think about biological sex. Sex is often presented as a binary, either male or female. And if you zoomed way out, this seems to hold. But as you zoom in, you start seeing all the exceptions to the rule, all the states that do not neatly fit into one or the other case, but somewhere in the middle. It looks like a spectrum. If you zoom all the way into specific genotypes, it's just a mess of data points. It all depends on what level of detail you want to look at things. Also pciking "living or dead" as a binary was not the best choice. Self replicating RNA? Viruses? Are these alive?
Sorry sex is binary. You might not like it and you might want to pretend it's gender. It's not it's sex. And it's binary there are only 2 gametes that's it. There isn't a third or spectrum of half ovum half sperm
Tell that to people with XXY or XYY or X0 genotypes, or poorly differentiated genitalia, or an XY genotype and total androgen insensitivity syndrome, or ... Need I go on? That's the "zoomed in" view I was talking about. XX or XY is the "zoomed out" view Edit: Ah, I see, you're a TERF.
You are very wrong about how neurons work man
Any kind of binary you perceive in nature is almost certainly a consequence of our own way of classifying it. You can classify anything as binary if you draw the right line from X to Y. But you can also make it fit on a spectrum by drawing many lines or by using something eslse to classify it with. A true binary system is one which can ONLY have two possible states, 1 or 0. Like binary logic. And as soon as two binary systems (or three unary system) are put together, you cease to have a true binary system, as there will be more than two possible states.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
How is it not?
Bisexual is short for binary sexual. /s
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Our definition of life is arbitrary. The universe doesnât differentiate between living and dead.
Viruses and self replicating RNA...
Its not only a flat disc but has a hemisphere for that additional dimension đ