> > As Niles Eldredege points out in "Reinventing Darwin" on page
> > nature is organized around the compulsion to leave as many copies of
> > genes --- why in the heck did the mixing of genes on a 50-50 basis
> There are many good reasons to think that asexual (clonal) organisms
> will not
> do as well in the long run as will sexual organisms.
Yes, and Dr. Eldredge acknowledges this in his book. His point, as I
understand it, is that an organism should not mix its genes with another IF
the object is self-replication as "Ultra-Darwinists" claim. (his term, not
> It is likely that selection is less efficient at removing deleterious
> alleles in
> asexual populations than in sexual populations. Essentially, the average
> of a single deleterious allele is higher in terms of deaths needed to
> remove that
> allele. In technical terms, the "mutation load" is higher in asexual
The idea that you posit here assumes that the organism can see-ahead and
determine what is best in the long run. This is a no-no, is it not?
Dr. Eldredge wrote, " Selection can not be for the 'good of the species.'
It can only be a measure of what works best for the individual organisms in
their struggle for existence. ..."
In other words, why sex??????