How does evolution theory explain the sex differentiation?

Oh yeah I didn't read that. Some species still do not reproduce sexually. There are some advantages to it.
 
If everybody isn't reproducing there is more food to go around. Not everyone in a bee hive or a wolf pack gets to reproduce.
 
superstring01 said:
It's the logical development. It's probably an eventuality in all organic development. Especially in higher life forms. One to care. One to hunt. One to nest. One to build.

~String
Click to expand...

Asexual reproduction is more logical, though less diverse.

Enmos said:
Probably, self-replicating organisms at one point began exchanging genetic material with others from the same species.
.
Click to expand...


Why only from the same species? What about exchanging genetic material from other species? Mitochondria would be a good example.
 
Did sex arise independently in plants?
Click to expand...

IIRC the most sexual diversity I've run across personally was a species of fungus that had eight sexes. I don't think that's the record.

Fungi and algae can have some very complicated life cycles.

One big advantage of sex in large, long-lived organisms is disease resistance from the recombination. Just splitting is much more efficient from an energy budget and risk point of view, but then the kid's a clone - any disease that comes along after a while will have an easy concentration of identical targets.
 
Wow. A lot of stuff gets thrown around here. First one question
IIRC the most sexual diversity I've run across personally was a species of fungus that had eight sexes.
Click to expand...
Could you dig up where you found this? I would be really interested.

Now back to the OP. I gather that the basic question is directed at the evolution of sexual reproduction.


Let us take a step back. Asexual reproduction can be seen as the basic form in which each individual creates genetically identical (except for mutations) offspring. Sexual reproduction in contrast has a the classical two-fold cost compared to asexual reproduction. Also co-adapted traits may be broken up thus resulting in a loss in fitness.
Nonetheless sexual reproduction did evolve. There are a number of explanations why the evolution of sex may have resulted in fitness increases instead. But before I continue to elaborate on that I would like to know whether it is the correct course of the discussion after all....
 
S.A.M. said:
Asexual reproduction is more logical, though less diverse.




Why only from the same species? What about exchanging genetic material from other species? Mitochondria would be a good example.
Click to expand...

Hmm yes, most likely that happened as well. At one point same species sex became the norm however, I just picked up from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top