Triploid organisms

basics of triploid reproduction:

First off: three sexes; male, female, and unix. The male and unix mate with the female through different orifices and ways. The female can mate with both at once or seperately, having the ability to store the sperm and its unix equivalent until carrying a complete set, and then self-inseminating. The female would first inseminate with one sex's haploids (which had one way of getting into the egg), and then the other sex's (which has another way of getting in). All three combine in egg to create a complete triploid organism.

Dominance of a trait is determined through normal means. In order to account for duplicates, one is methylized by a special checking RNA.

NOTE: this was posted here to clarify (take it off of) an IRC argument

I have enough trouble getting dates without haveing to compete against unix

Triploid reproduction already exists in a different form in different species, such as flowers/plants/aquatic animals/salamanders...but most of what is found about these animals is that they are hermaphroditic and accomplish reproduction by asexual means.

The original argument in IRC was triploid reproduction in HUMANS.

I'm still waiting to find out exactly what a unix is in comparison to male and female?
Or how the chromosomes would merge without making a species overrun by dominant traits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm able to think of this happening in terms of other species, but when you say humans...I'm going to disagree with you.
I can't stress enough the mutation that would occur for the negative in a triploidal human.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by zepherin
I have enough trouble getting dates without haveing to compete against unix

---

:rofl: I know what you mean

I still don't get it.

Bingo!

What don't you understand Mallam? I'd be happy to explain it to you...any specific questions?

umm...Humans? I've stated before in IRC, I believe, that this is an entirely different species we're talking about. I started this whole thing, I should know. Maybe that will clarify things up for you a bit GreekGoddess.

And what species would that be?

Not this **** again. j/k. Whatever floats your boat.

I thought that we concluded on irc that evolution would lead to only two sexes because that’s much more effective than three and you still get the genetic variation that lacks in asexual organism. So unless there’s some great advantage to three sexes an organism would not evolve into three and if it did if would evolve back into two.

The only discernible reason I can think of is more genetic variation but the same effect could be reached by having more offspring with two sexes.

cwk9: not everything in evolution is necessary. Besides, this is mostly just a theoretical discussion of the workings anyway

GreekGoddess: For the purposes of this discussion they are the GNU Hurd from the planet Mac in the Solaris solar system

Quote:

---

not everything in evolution is necessary

---

99.999% percent of evolution and mutation is unnecessary and 99.999% will disappear over time giving way to more useful traits.

As for the theoretical part about how it would work I think I have it worked out.

Ok three organisms get together will call them Gonzo’s for conversation sakes. They all get in a circle and beat off pooling there genetic material. The female Gonzo collects the genetic material so she can have lots of little Gonzo’s. The male and female Gonzo eat the unix. Why eat the unix you ask? Because up till now the hole story is about wild unrestrained Gonzo sex. All Good stories have two things sex and violence. With out the violence it’s just your run of the mill literary filth.

<understatement>
methinks cwk9 does not like this thread...
</understatement>

You have many + antipoints, seem respectable, so why even bother with that last part? If it was for humor's sake, sorry, I'm rather tired, otherwise...

Ok apparently a gonzo is a character on the Muppets show.
http://www.muppets.com/profiles/gonzo.htm

Quote:

---

You have many + antipoints, seem respectable

---

Me respectable! thats a lie and you know it :)

Just for the record I like this thread nice to talk about something other than computers once and a while.

About time I post something useful.
http://www.blackwellscience.com/11th...about/ch7.html
http://www.geocities.com/we_evolve/P..._doubling.html << you have to read a littel before the triploid stuff

ah, sorry, not having a good day. Stayed up all night because I have 106+ pages of HW do monday, and I haven't even started yet (irc is waaaaaay too addicting).

i don't think they should be called haploids, 'cause if there are three entites in the equation, each only has one third (apposed to a half) of the chromosomes needed. but the whole thing seems pretty pointless. when the female has the child, if it turns out to be male, it should have just as much unix dna, as the original unix does male dna. it doesn't make any sence for the child to be a random mixture of traits from all three parental types, because then how would its sex be defined? this seems to be a completely unnecessary waste of time if all three were just different flavours of the same species, in our enviroment anyway. not to be too close minded, imagine an enviroment that evolved species that needed to be triploid, for whatever reason...or don't.

The species is not diploid, it's triploid. Three different sexes allows more gender role specialization, and can increase (or decrease) the genetic "fitness" of a species. I'm working on the environment. Sex is determined by the most dominant sex cell recieved. The female gives out the base sex (female), and the male and unix submit a random sex gene of either their's or female.

Quote:

---

Three different sexes allows more gender role specialization

---

Good point I never thought about that one.

But do you really need more gender specialization. Could you not accomplish the same thing by simply having different types of the same sex?

Look at ants they've been around 100 million years.

Quote:

---

In each species of ant there are three types of ants: the queen, the sterile female workers, and the males. The male ants only job is to mate with the queen and they do not live very long.

---

Three types of ants for role specialization but only two sexes.

so the female gives out a base female gene, say X. and the male, Y. and the unix, Z.
so the female would be XXX (muha!), the male YXX, YYX, YZX? and same for the unix, ZXX, ZZX, ZYX? without proper genetic 'protocols' inplace, would three sexes not spawn more sexes. of course it would be easy to say, "ooh the Y is dominant". problem solved? YZX YYX YXX??? what sex are these? but say YYX and YXX would result in a male, because the Y is dominant. that would emply that there is going to be more males than unix, and even females.
YYX - male
YXX - male?
YZX - male
ZYX - male
ZZX - unix
ZXX - unix?
XXX - female
so from an evolutionary point of view, why set up a system that makes a key 'ingrediant' scarce. like, there would have to be a hell of a lot of breeding going on to ensure there are enough of all sexes being produced, so as to avoid extinction...naturally.