Mike Koller wrote:
>> > > The fact is this: sex is *not* a problem for evolutionary biology.
> > > Theories regarding why sex persists (a separate question from how sex
> > > arose - which is also not a problem) are covered by any decent
> > college-level
> > > evolution text.
> > >
> > > Rich Kliman
> > > Dept. of Biology
> > > Radford University
> > > *standard disclaimer*
> > >
>> Yup. I'm taking biology 1 and it's right there in plain english. Not hard
> to grasp or understand. It makes a whole lotta sense, scientifcally
> speaking of course.
>> Some tidbits:
>> "Darwin's first point - that evolution occurs - can stand on its own,
> whether or not natural selection is the cause".
> (What vs. How)
>> "Natural selection involves interactions between individual organisms and
> their environment, but individuals do not evolve. Evolution can be
> measured only as changes in relative proportions of variations in a
> population over a succession of generations."
>> Why sex is better than no sex (regarding survivability):
>> "On average, those individuals best suited to the local environment leave
> the most offspring, transmitting their genese in the process. This natural
> selection results in adaptation, the accumulation of those genetic
> variations that are favored by the enironment. As the environment changes
> or a population moves, the population may survive if in each generation, at
> least some of its members can cope effectively with the new conditions.
> Different genetic variations may work better than those that prevailed in
> the old time or place. SEX and mutations are the two sources of this
>> All quotes from "Biology (4th ed.) by Campbell (Benjamin/Cummins Publ.)
In the same time sex is an ensurement of smilarity. A recessive mutant
can be hidden by the normal alleles. Thus sex provides both similarity
and a library of variation if an organism needa it.