TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why, or more importantly, how, did sexual reproduction of life forms evolve?

It seems that this reproductive mechanism would be rather cubersome: two essentially different organisms of the same species come together to exchange genetic material and hope to see offsring into the next generation... single cell organisms seem to be a whole lot more efficient at reproduction by just cloning ... so how and why did nature "decide" to also include sexual reproduction mechanisms in the "fight for survival?" Dawkins ascribes this whole reproductive thing as DNAs way of maikng more DNA. ... So to be ultra-reductionist we are mere DNA making machines??...

+2
Share:

Closing Statement from Lincoln Solomon

Closed out. And no conclusion. Some evolutionists postulate random selection of mutant genes and transfer of such between single celled organisms as the architypes of sexual reproduction as we observe it today. Creationists / ID folks believe in the design of a Creator. I have not been convinced, from this conversation, about the evolutionary mechanisms which gave rise to sexes and sexual reproduction methods.
Thanks for the input every-one. I Think I'll ask Google ...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 14 2013: They didn't evolve. God created them that way.
    • Feb 14 2013: Hi Ed
      I know you are a creationist. I understand your views. I would like some-one with an evolutionary knowlege to respond, for this question bothers me ...
      • thumb
        Feb 14 2013: As it should. In Biology asexual reproduction is almost twice as effective as sexual. Evolution offers no explanation as to how a profoundly less efficient system could gain sufficient advantage over a superior competitive system and be selected for survival. Nor is there an explanation for how physics and chemistry, both non-intelligent processes, plan for future coordination of complementary male/female organs.
        • thumb
          Feb 15 2013: I agree in principle. The primary cost of sex is that a male has to find out a female (or vice verse) to reproduce. This is called anisogamism. I find the sexual reproduction a much less efficient process to pass on genetic code in it's entirety because sexual reproduction produces only haploids that is each organism can at best transfer 50% of its genetic code.
          But seen from variation point of view it has the advantages of producing recombinational variety in the new organism for adapting to environment in a slightly different way. This increases the chances of survival.
          Actually sex and reproduction are two separate events. Moreover we are never sure about how sexual reproduction will work out evolutionarily. The multicellular as well as more complex/higher life forms are by no means any favored ones when it comes to pure survival and I personally believe many simpler organisms, even plants, were there on earth before us and will be there when we are extinct.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.