Well NAW, you have a nice line in emotive nomenclature. When you present an opinion I assume you call it debate or something equally urbane. When anyone disagrees and points out holes in your assumptions or reasoning, that is condemnation. Yes?The error that I think you've made is condemning one opinion in favor of your own, when you have no more ability to back that opinion than anyone else. Until you do, I'm not wasting my time with this. The title of the thread specifically referred to male and female differentiation, not simply the emergence of sexual reproduction.
Well, if that is the way you see it, here is another thought you may like to er... debate. What condemns an argument in science is not the antagonist, but its own weaknesses. Now, consider the argument that you apparently support (at least in opposition to mine, if I read you aright) that "male and female differentiation" began around or after the earliest emergence of the Chordata. Ask yourself how you would go about defending that in terms of comparative functional morphology or palaeontology. It was after all your idea, as far as I can tell, so don't bother to address my errr... opinions, just your own. But do try not to blush too deeply. After all, we all are entitled to our own pratfalls from time to time.
Next, ask yourself what reasonable arguments could be mustered to distinguish cleanly and usefully between sexual reproduction and gender differentiation, as you seem to demand. I accept that you are not going to waste your time with my views (and very wisely, if I may compliment you on your resolution in the light of the foregoing exchanges) but if you could present the forum with a cogent line of argument by which to demonstrate there could be no selection pressure for development of asymmetry in the size and mobility of gametes, and correspondingly, in the parents of the gametes, then please reveal your insights. I for one promise to receive them in a spirit of humility and praise, not to say astonishment.
Gramercy and gramercy good sir, for the entitlement! This is no doubt the same entitlement by which you put forward your (ahem!) opinion about the squirts? And where, while we are on the subject, did you see my claiming literal and detailed special knowledge of the prehistory of the emergence of gender differentiation?You're entitled to your opinions, but present them as such unless you're willing and able to back them up immediately.
Frankly NAW, so far you are hardly presenting yourself in the best light in this exchange. Unless you shape up fast, ceasing to waste your time really seems your best option, and fast. Alternatively, if you have substantial arguments at your disposal, I'd be interested (and happy) to see them.
All the best,