1

So, as I understand it, the prominent theories for the evolution of sex are that it increased variation allowing for faster adaptation in evolutionary arms races, and that it gets rid of deleterious mutations by introducing unmutated alleles in descendants. But why sex specifically for this task? Surely the same benefits could be conferred through horizontal gene transfer. We could even conceive of a kind of non-sexual diploidy.

Thomas Anton
  • 127
  • 2
  • 2
    Why not questions about evolution are usually impossible to answer. Evolution is random and requires precursors from which to evolve. If no sexual beings had the ability to transfer genes any other way, it could not evolve. See Why do some bad traits evolve, and good ones don't? – anongoodnurse Oct 29 '22 at 19:03
  • @anongoodnurse: if you assume that there are no precursors, please provide references for that claim. Horizontal gene transfer in eucaryotes is being discussed, while the molecular machinery for tunneling nanotubes is present in eucaryotes. Apart from that, this question is very much answerable even without knowing about a precursor, since comparing strategies for increasing genetic variation is absolutely valid and should be encouraged on this site. Referring to that thread is a lazy way of avoiding actual answers. – markur Oct 30 '22 at 03:16
  • Bacterial conjugation does provide genetic variation, but wikipedia mentions a vast array of different mechanisms how sexual reproduction recombines genes, which seems to beat horizontal gene transfer in terms of fitness gain. Also: keep in mind that eucaryotes have a different genome architecture (enhancers, histones, genes are bigger and harder to transport), and that DNA outside the nucleus is often interpreted by the cell as a viral infection, which could make horizontal gene transfer difficult without risking immunity. – markur Oct 30 '22 at 03:44
  • @markur - Commenters are not obligated to provide references. OPs are required to show research, and answers are required to cite sources. You are welcome to provide an answer about asexual eucaryotic reproduction, or the evolution of sexual reproduction, or whatever your heart desires (with sources.) (Also, I don't get my information from Wikipedia when it comes to science. May seem elitist, but there are just too many errors for my taste.) – anongoodnurse Oct 30 '22 at 06:40
  • 1
    @anongoodnurse - yes, the lack of sources is the main problem here (not evolution). I like to cite wikipedia in comments to encourage OPs to start their own research with simple tools. One shouldn’t be afraid of Wikipedia, it is definitely better than providing nothing and would improve the quality of many questions. Wikipedia is neither good or bad, it is what it is. Elitism won‘t attract professionals to this page but rather repel them. – markur Oct 30 '22 at 08:46
  • 1
    @markur - Wikipedia is a fine starting point; I just don't rely on it for science. As to what attracts professionals to this 'page', why not make a proposal in meta with your insights? I'm sure more professionals (at least those with decent analytical, communication and self-appraisal skills) would be a boon to this site. You can also answer the question yourself, instead of (or in addition to) accusing others of laziness. – anongoodnurse Oct 30 '22 at 14:50
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – markur Oct 30 '22 at 15:51

0 Answers0