Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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?

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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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.

2 posted on 07/30/2003 8:57:00 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Because God wanted husbands and wives to have a good time.
5 posted on 07/30/2003 9:01:42 AM PDT by Abe Froman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

8 posted on 07/30/2003 9:05:49 AM PDT by Lost Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: I_dmc
read later
11 posted on 07/30/2003 9:07:51 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_dmc
You can live for years without sex. I am living proof.
12 posted on 07/30/2003 9:08:43 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_dmc

Speaking of evolving...

Her web page: http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~otto/

14 posted on 07/30/2003 9:10:53 AM PDT by UseYourHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson