Quest wrote:God or whatnot, my point was being: the fact is that even though in most societies man is the dominant gender, physiologically woman is the template from which man is based on.
so it is not shocking to think that there may be a future where man need not exist.
If man was created in the template of a woman, then how did they firstprocreate? I think what you are proposing is misleading.
As proven with the successful resolution of the chicken and egg scenario we find that the chicken came first to hatch the egg. This means that at some point the pre-chicken ancestor gave birth (method is immaterial) to the chicken that in turn laid the egg.
With that out of the way, we come back to gender, of which we find that gender predates modern man as well as ancesterial man.
A good read!
To demonstrate this, a team of scientists created a mutant strain of yeast that, unlike normal yeast, was unable to divide into the sexual spores that allow yeast to engage in sexual reproduction. Yeast can reproduce either sexually or asexually.
When testing this mutant strain in stress-free conditions, the scientists found that it performed as well as normal yeast. In more extreme conditions, however, the normal yeast grew faster than the asexual mutants.
...
unequivocally that sex allows for more rapid evolution,
Naturely speaking, gender predates humans thus eleminiating the 'man of woman' template scenario. Sexual reproduction increases rate of evolution over that of asexual reproduction. Human beings from the get-go where of two genders.
So, is this technique overall good for humanity? More specifically what do we gain from this and what do we loose?
