Skip to comments.
Sex: do we really need it?
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science ^
| Tuesday, 8 July 2003
| Wilson da Silva in Melbourne
Posted on 07/30/2003 8:56:08 AM PDT by I_dmc
Sex: do we really need it?
Wilson da Silva in Melbourne
ABC Science Online
|
Birds do it, bees do it, humans do it - but nobody knows why sex evolved at all, the world congress of genetics heard in Melbourne today.
"The evolution of sex has presented a paradox to evolutionary biology for over a century," said Associate Professor Sally Otto, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, to delegates attending the 19th International Congress of Genetics.
"It's known there are a lot of costs to reproducing sexually. Why make sons and males, if you could just produce females that were able to reproduce by themselves? That's a division of resources into two sexes that seems unnecessary," she said.
Not only does this seem to waste resources, the whole process is prone to failure. There's the risk of not finding a mate, and the risk of getting a disease during mating. There's also a more subtle risk: if an individual reaches reproduction age and finds a mate, it is a successful genotype - a tried and true model of a species. But then that individual mixes their genotype with a mate, with no guarantee that the mixture is going to be any better.
(Excerpt) Read more at abc.net.au ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: evolution; genetics; sex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
From the Why Do We Do What We Do Dept...
1
posted on
07/30/2003 8:56:09 AM PDT
by
I_dmc
To: I_dmc
Why make sons and males, if you could just produce females that were able to reproduce by themselves? The NOW platform in a nutshell.
To: I_dmc
'Cause you'd lack the genetic variation that would allow new traids to be developed and re-inforced, and you would be unable to transmit successful traits through the population.
3
posted on
07/30/2003 8:59:29 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!)
To: I_dmc
Not only does this seem to waste resources, the whole process is prone to failure. There's the risk of not finding a mate, and the risk of getting a disease during mating. There's also a more subtle risk: if an individual reaches reproduction age and finds a mate, it is a successful genotype - a tried and true model of a species. But then that individual mixes their genotype with a mate, with no guarantee that the mixture is going to be any better. For some reason, this paragraph makes me think of the way Demeocrats and the main stream media criticize the obviously successful war in Iraq.
4
posted on
07/30/2003 9:00:20 AM PDT
by
Maceman
Because God wanted husbands and wives to have a good time.
To: Little Ray
'Cause you'd lack the genetic variation that would allow new traids to be developed and re-inforced, and you would be unable to transmit successful traits through the population. Like syphylis? :)
6
posted on
07/30/2003 9:04:11 AM PDT
by
joesnuffy
(Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
To: I_dmc
It sounds like they are extremely frustrated.
7
posted on
07/30/2003 9:04:57 AM PDT
by
Pan_Yans Wife
("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
To: Mr. Jeeves
Why make sons and males, if you could just produce females that were able to reproduce by themselves? Because there would be no one to kill the spiders.
To: I_dmc
Nope. We have Dove bars.
9
posted on
07/30/2003 9:06:04 AM PDT
by
Hank Rearden
(Dick Gephardt. Before he dicks you.)
To: Lost Highway
Because there would be no one to kill the spiders. LOL!
10
posted on
07/30/2003 9:07:42 AM PDT
by
Snowy
(My golden retriever can lick your honor student)
To: I_dmc
read later
To: I_dmc
You can live for years without sex. I am living proof.
To: I_dmc
Why make sons and males, if you could just produce females that were able to reproduce by themselves? That's a division of resources into two sexes that seems unnecessary," she said I cannot believe a person with those academic credentials could ask such a stupid question. The genetic variation and natural selection argument seemingly cuts that to ribbons.
13
posted on
07/30/2003 9:08:51 AM PDT
by
XJarhead
To: I_dmc
To: Hank Rearden
What is a "Dove bar"? As in Dove soap?
15
posted on
07/30/2003 9:11:40 AM PDT
by
Cobra64
(Kill the evil-doers.)
To: I_dmc
Why shouldn't the amoeba be the highest life form. Seems their intelligence is equal to these scientists. God made so many mistakes. These people can straighten all that out.
16
posted on
07/30/2003 9:12:26 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(!!!!!!! sdrawkcab si enilgat ym ,em pleh esaelP)
To: Little Ray
'Cause you'd lack the genetic variation that would allow new traids to be developed and re-inforced, and you would be unable to transmit successful traits through the population. If that's the case, then how did sex evolve in the first place?
That's the paradox, see?
17
posted on
07/30/2003 9:12:57 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: XJarhead
I cannot believe a person with those academic credentials could ask such a stupid question. The genetic variation and natural selection argument seemingly cuts that to ribbons. I cannot believe that somebody as smart as you can't see the problem. If sex evolved, how could it evolve without some means of transmissible genetic variation?
18
posted on
07/30/2003 9:15:05 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: I_dmc
"...nobody knows why sex evolved at all" Bwahahaha... all that "brilliance" and they can't figure it out.
19
posted on
07/30/2003 9:17:43 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
To: I_dmc
Hey, I need some right now!!!!!!!!!!!!
20
posted on
07/30/2003 9:17:58 AM PDT
by
CommandoFrank
(Peer into the depths of hell and there is the face of Islam!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson