Timeline for Do we know why animals have evolved to have sex for reproduction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:41 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 14, 2012 at 14:39 | comment | added | Ruben | I like this theory (the mutational deterministic theory of sex) myself, but I know theoretical biologists who are not convinced that the benefit of mutation mitigation (or outrunning parasites) outweighs the twofold cost of sex on its own or whether it can explain how sex evolved. A good piece of evidence to do that would be a set of simulation studies or studies of an organism like the asexual strain of P. antipodarum actually re-developing sexual reproduction in response to mutational stress. Has someone seen something like this too? | |
| Dec 11, 2011 at 18:03 | comment | added | user5341 | @Chris - it assists. Doesn't mean "it's the only factor in 100% eliminating". One species would refute the latter but doesn't really serve as a good argument against the former | |
| Dec 11, 2011 at 15:46 | comment | added | Chris S | The author actually counters this by citing studies on Male Rotifers:sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100614160205.htm they have survived 70 million years without mutation problems. | |
| Dec 11, 2011 at 11:57 | comment | added | user5341 | @Hendy - that probably deserves a separate answer. | |
| Dec 10, 2011 at 19:57 | comment | added | Hendy | It seems that this is one theory. From my skim of this, there is another. You might add it to your answer to complete it? | |
| Dec 10, 2011 at 19:16 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | This is a strong argument and one with a long history, but it is not the whole story because asexual gene exchange (yeah, that's a philosophically difficult phrase) has been observed in several organisms including multi-cellular ones. | |
| Dec 10, 2011 at 15:09 | history | answered | user5341 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |