John Mikes' question

[Judith Rosen <***>]

John Mikes wrote:
I ask the question: what indications may we find for the change from
prokaryotik unisex mitosis to eukaryotik bisexual? Do not refer please to
the benefits of diversity-production: that would be teleological in the
'higher' design of good old god.
 - I definitely asked for INDICATIONS..FOR the change. Origination, HOW it
came about, the answer to a "why".
If the expectable outcome is the indication for originating something, and
the 'why' is answered by an "in order to" then it IS teleological.

Dear John M.

You see, I WAS reading what you wrote. My response was an
attempt to answer your question. You asked. I was answering.

You accused the answer of being teleological and threw it out. 
I asked why you would regard it as teleological. You reiterated 
your original question, as if there is another answer besides the 
one I gave (that the two genders entail each other, that there is a functional relation 
between them, etc). I discussed the basis for why functional entailments are viewed as 
teleological in science. 

I attempted to answer and discuss the question you posted. Don't get mad if it isn't what 
you want to hear. The truth is that what you are calling "stupid and irrelevant" are your 
answers, dammit. The fact that you see them as stupid or irrelevant is your problem. 
Don't attempt to make it mine.

Now, if  you want a technical account of how, exactly, this comes 
about (how genders came into being in a species), I can't help 
you with that; such details are not part of my area of expertise. I can only answer based 
on what Rosennean Complexity might have to offer which illuminates the basis on which to 
frame an investigation into the (technical) details.

Judith Rosen

Web address: www.rosen-enterprises.com