That can’t be. I’ve been reliably informed by lemmy.ml that China is only interested in peaceful activities and can’t possibly have any military ambitions 🙃

No worries, I can also be slow to respond. There’s a few things at play here:

1. Neutral mutations can become beneficial later on. It’s not just about the genes, it’s also about the environment. Even deleterious mutations can become beneficial, like sickle cell disease likely being selected for due to its protection against malaria.

2. Following from that, deleterious/neutral/beneficial are pretty loose categories, and it’s not even really correct to think of them as categories. It’s more about how beneficial it is. Sickle cell disease is bad, but better than dying of malaria.

3. Beneficial mutations can be really beneficial. Once somebody has them, they can spread like wildfire through the population. One example is the ability to digest lactose as an adult. It’s “worth” lots of “failures” to get that mutation (using those terms loosely and without value judgement). An analogy might help here, think about it kind of like this slime mold searching for food. The tips have a lot of churn and waste, but the food it finds is worth doing all that work. You can think of the beneficial mutations as the branches that are kept.

   

   (Note that evolution isn’t directed by “something”, even as simple as a slime mold, it’s a description of a physical process, like gravity, so the analogy is loose)

4. We’ve seen beneficial mutations happen in person, and shows another example of how useful beneficial mutations can be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment. The E. coli evolved the ability to digest a new substance they couldn’t before. The experiment also touches on neutral mutations sticking around.

5. The distinction you’re drawing between micro evolution and macro evolution relies on an assumption that either there are different kinds that are inherently distinct, or some sort of “system” that prevents micro evolution from progressing into macro evolution. For the prior, I’ve never seen a defense of that that doesn’t rely on the supernatural, and for the latter, what happens when the system itself changes due to evolution?

6. In my personal experience, the strongest argument against any radical move away from the current general scientific worldview consensus is that everything generally fits together. Sure, the estimated age of the universe might be adjusted slightly from 13.7B to 13.8B years, or the Jurassic might actually be estimated slightly wrong. But across all evidence we have, the current scientific understanding across a diverse range of disciplines is approximately correct. Nobody is counting tree rings and saying “Wait a minute, these show the Earth is 6,000 years old!”. Nobody is dating rocks and saying “Hold on, this dates as twice as old as the universe!”. Note that you’ll find claims of things like fossilized tracks of humans walking next to dinosaurs, but those don’t pan out

1. It’s a common misunderstanding, but humans and chimps didn’t evolve from each other. We each evolved from a common ancestor. Regardless, it seems like you wouldn’t accept anything other than something from the now, so here’s a study that agrees with the general mutation rate done by comparing parents and children in Iceland: Parental influence on human germline de novo mutations in 1,548 trios from Iceland Here’s also a paper on calculating the distribution of those mutations across deleterious/neutral/beneficial: Assessing the Evolutionary Impact of Amino Acid Mutations in the Human Genome
2. If a mutation doesn’t decrease the reproductive capacity of the carrier, then it’s not harmful. If it’s harmful, then it will affect the reproductive capacity. That’s just how it’s defined in this context.
3. I think it’s slightly sloppily phrased, but is a counter to a specific claim found in this book: https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Creationism-Henry-M-Morris/dp/1982697091. I don’t have a copy so can’t comment further.

Some amount of that is literal psyops. Every major country is intentionally trying to cause at least some division in their geopolitical rivals. There’s also internal psyops where governments will try to fracture any movements that might cause political change. At a smaller level, there’s echo chambers built by people that are already sucked into an ideology, hoping to propagate that ideology. This recent thread that had simple biological truth downvoted to hell is an example:

https://sh.itjust.works/post/50387688/22307005

All in all it’s not new though, it’s just gotten more efficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism is one example of how it’s always been this way. Isaac Asimov also had a pithy quote:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

When you have your basic needs met and aren’t starving to death, you can afford to be irrational and embrace comforting lies. It’s just the human condition.

That treatment has been done. From the same page:

https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Take your pick of people with relevant credentials, such as PhD Developmental Biology or PhD Developmental Genetics, that signed a statement that is exactly what I’m saying:

https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

[…] Biological sex does not meet the defining criteria for a spectrum.

Or someone else:

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable

the objective truth is that sex in humans is strictly binary and immutable, for fundamental reasons that are common knowledge to all biologists taking the findings of their discipline seriously.

Even in your best case, when you look at one of the few extremists pushing for a nonsensical redefinition of sex, they still directly admit that gamete size is binary, directly contradicting the strange claim above about a third gamete size:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

When it comes to gametes, these are strictly binary – egg or sperm

I mean c’mon, this is just silly. Crack open your textbook and read it.

I’m sorry, what? You’ve fundamentally misread that meta analysis if you think it posits a third gamete type. Just what?

Did you misread this bit? “Whereas some of these traits do typically have a bimodal distribution (some chromosomes, gametes)”. That’s not positing a third gamete type or saying that gametes aren’t binary. A binary distribution is a subset of the set of bimodal distributions. They use the term bimodal in reference to chromosomes, and it’s technically correct when applied to gametes, but does not imply that gametes aren’t binary. The paper even acknowledges binary gametes elsewhere.

If you’re this wrong about a paper that you think supports your point, I don’t think it’s worth examining your take on other papers. Suffice it to say, for anyone else reading this, don’t take the other commenter’s word for it. The paper I linked is a good read.

No agenda here other than scientific accuracy. I’ll recommend you read this [peer-reviewed and written by a biologist] paper (Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes), which explains the sex binary:

Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology

Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates.

The commenter you’re responding to is sadly confused. Nobody (or at least certainly not me) is saying that “a woman is someone that is born with eggs” or that “chromosomes strictly determine what these cells become”. They’re trying to misinterpret what the scientific consensus is, and I would be wary of their agenda. Reading papers like the one I linked is a much better source than the inaccuracies of the commenter you’re responding to. If reading papers isn’t your thing, here’s another quote from biologists elsewhere in the thread:

In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.

The analogy to a messy room fails. I recommend you read this (and the rest of the archive, it’s great stuff):

https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Of note is “The Earth is not a closed system”

Realizing that the root cause is just because you want it to be true is fine, commendable even. Just don’t try to justify it post hoc with sciency-sounding arguments.

I disagree with everything you’ve said, but upvoted because you answered the question.

I encourage you to read this peer-reviewed follow-up from a biologist to that paper, which points out why it’s wrong (in the section “The Multilevel Sex Model”):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3

As that paper also points out, this is not a new definition. It references that definition from 1888. Biology has always used this definition of sex, and XX/XY being involved in the definition is simply a common misunderstanding, not the latest in a long chain of anything. Trying to paint this as new or transphobia is simply wrong.

You should ask your biologist friends why people today aren’t being born with a third gamete type. I’ll be honest, that’s just a bizarre claim. Where are you sourcing that from? I’ll explain why it’s wrong if you give a link. Also, as I’ve said before, none of these claims are mine. I’m simply stating what the scientific consensus is.

The meme is incorrectly trying to say “sex is only mostly a binary”. That is flat out wrong according to scientific consensus. Again, if you don’t like that, take it up with the experts. Publish a paper pointing out why these statements from a biologist are incorrect and become rich and famous (or at least famous):

Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology

Across anisogamous taxa, males and females are defined by gametic dimorphism. Proposals to redefine sex in terms of karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, behavior, or other correlates are incoherent and invariably presuppose this foundation, because the categories “male” and “female” are intelligible only by reference to sperm and ova.

The quote is from your link. I didn’t make it up. Why don’t you agree with the actual experts?

Like all smoking gun “binary” sex characteristics transphobes have honed in on over the years, we’re only talking about it because they arrived there from working backwards towards it. Just a few years ago all of these same talking points were “biological truth” regarding chromosomes (which you now openly concede are not reliable sex determinants)

This is the context that I was referring to. I’m not “now” openly conceding anything. I haven’t “honed in” on anything over the years, whatever talking points other people used several years ago are irrelevant. You’re trying to lump me in with other people so that you can hate me. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this, but I’ll say it at least once more. Chromosomal variation is messy, but it’s messy within the sex binary. I’m not “now conceding” that, I’ve never said anything else.

ridiculous non sequitur dismissal

It’s easy to throw words around. Your point is invalid because you’re talking about how sex came to be. That’s all fine and dandy, but irrelevant. What’s relevant to the discussion is the way it is today. If you want to talk about the development of sex, then the fact that there is such a strong pressure towards binary sex across so many different species should be telling. Other animals have completely different ways of sex determination and reproduction, and yet the sex binary exists virtually everywhere. Why is it so favored?

It’s convenient that you have a biologist friend. Ask them why real biologists are saying (to quote again, in case you missed it from my last message):

In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.

You’re asking questions that are great, but are philosophical and go beyond this topic. Narrowly, the human body could be said to have a goal of reproducing in the same way a falling rock has a goal of reaching the ground. It’s clear how the physics play out, but there’s nothing that turns that “is” into an “ought”

I’m afraid you have me mixed up with someone else. There’s no “you openly concede”. This is literally how the field of biology defines sex. To quote:

In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.

Yes, way back in our evolutionary history, sex wasn’t binary. We were also not multi cellular, but so what? We are now.

Nobody’s body is organized around the production of no gametes.

I see what you’re going for, but it’s literally the opposite. Sex is defined by gamete size because biologists wanted to describe the world they found accurately and coherently. It’s a descriptivist approach.

I’ll let someone else’s link (ironically trying to argue with me) do the talking:

In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.

Real biologists saying real facts. Incidentally, I don’t really get the point of histrionics like “I’m done” or another commenter calling facts “boring”. I guess that maybe works for twitter clapbacks where vibes are more important than facts? When you’re ready though, the scientific truth will still be there for you.

Apologies, mixed up threads. So you agree that the article supports my point exactly. To quote: “In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.”

You’re welcome to spice things up with any sort of support for your argument. It is kind of boring to keep repeating “No, let’s not reject science” I’ll admit, but you’re certainly not providing anything of value.

I’ll help you out. Here’s a link someone else provided (ironically supporting my point exactly):

https://medium.com/@alysion42/letter-to-the-us-president-and-congress-on-the-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender-992051a60318

Anisogamy is the definition of sex

and

In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.

and

the Tri-societies were wrong to speak in our names and claim that there is a scientific consensus without even conducting a survey of society members to see if such a consensus exists. Distorting reality to comply with ideology and using a misleading claim of consensus to give a veneer of scientific authority to your statement does more harm than just misrepresenting our views: it also weakens public trust in science, which has declined rapidly in the last few years.

Real biology right there. From real biologists. You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with the scientific consensus as now explained to you directly from said consensus. Reality doesn’t care about whether or not it bores you. It’s true regardless.