[Type R]

Originally Posted by Tripple Seven

Lack of genetic recombination in a sexual case leads to fewer genetic alternatives. Budding or fragmentation, produce an exact parent replica. This is quite disadvantageous to changing environment. In world pandemics, genetic recombination allow adaptation that u can easily summarize as a tool for survival for the fittest.

Asexual reproduction has the advantage of requiring less time and effort to reproduce. It requires only one organism, unlike sexual where there is the fuss and bother of mating, sex, conception, gestation and birth. So it is one step forward, one step back, but which step is bigger? the forward step or the backward one???

Strangely enough, in wildly changing environments, asexuals have the advantage, even though it may not seem so intuitively.

Asexuals cope with changing environments via mutation; this is what provides genetic diversity. And since their reproductive cycle is quicker, this adaptation can happen quite fast.

However, if we focus on ndigila's challenge: the beginning of sex, we must ask, what prompted the birth of gender?

If we look at plants, many of them spread their seeds via the wind, or via insects like bees, which "pollinate" other flowers. It could be that penetrative sex, whereby a male infuses millions of sperm into one female who most likely has only one egg, could be a deviation from nature's plan. I think the original goal was for an organism to spread genetic material as far and wide as possible. Consider that life's original medium was water.

Another idea I have: it seems most asexual species consist of small organisms. The bigger the members get, the more likely we have sexual reproduction. Imagine an elephant splitting in two to asexually reproduce 2 kids! Food for thot!!!!!!!!!

On another note, scientists have discovered life a couple of kilometres under the sea, a place thought too hostile for life (pressure, lack of oxygen). It is notable that some organisms are thought to be very old, reproducing infrequently due to the lack of threats to their life at those extreme environments. Therefore, sex can be seen as a survival mechanism of the species.

[ndigila]

Type R, I still don't see a plausible explanation as to what would cause the evolution of gender to take place.

[Ester]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Type R, I still don't see a plausible explanation as to what would cause the evolution of gender to take place.

Do you want to know about the evolution of gender, or that of asexual to sexual reproduction?

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Type R, I still don't see a plausible explanation as to what would cause the evolution of gender to take place.

I guess you'll never get an answer. What exist are plausible theories/hypotheses/logics which are easily disbelieved than believed. Disbelieving them though, means being branded illogical/irrational.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I guess you'll never get an answer. What exist are plausible theories/hypotheses/logics which are easily believed than disbelieved. Disbelieving them though, means being branded illogical/irrational.

Yes, but I'm looking for a plausible theory. Most evolution debates deal with the possibility of the evolution of different species, rarely do I see one dealing with this issue.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Ester

Do you want to know about the evolution of gender, or that of asexual to sexual reproduction?

Both.

As a matter of fact, if one happened before the other, then that further complicates the issue. What would the transition look like?

Asexual -> Asexuals with male and female reproductive organs??? -> sexual reproduction

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Yes, but I'm looking for a plausible theory. Most evolution debates deal with the possibility of the evolution of different species, rarely do I see one dealing with this issue.

The advantages/disadvantages ratio would make genes differentiate towards survival for the fittest. That's what I get from the thread so far. Let me do some research if such a concrete theory exist for my sake too.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

The advantages/disadvantages ratio would make genes differentiate towards survival for the fittest. That's what I get from the thread so far. Let me do some research if such a concrete theory exist for my sake too.

That's all I've gotten so far (even from research).

[Ester]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Asexual -> Asexuals with male and female reproductive organs??? -> sexual reproduction

Asexual species are hemorphadite in nature; they are diploidy and simultaneously possess male and female reproductive organs.
Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 23 each from mother and father. The only cells that are not diploid in nature (having 46 chromosomes), also known as haploids, are the gonads: sperm and ova.
As life evolved from sea to land, there was a great advantage in increasing the level of genetic variation (through sex) in order to exist in the new environment.

I will give two supporting hypotheses why the evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction was so crucial to survival.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by Ester

Asexual species are hemorphadite in nature; they are diploidy and simultaneously possess male and female reproductive organs.
Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 23 each from mother and father. The only cells that are not diploid in nature (having 46 chromosomes), also known as haploids, are the gonads: sperm and ova.
As life evolved from sea to land, there was a great advantage in increasing the level of genetic variation (through sex) in order to exist in the new environment.

Haha! That just shows you how much I know.

Originally Posted by Ester

I will give two supporting hypotheses why the evolution from asexual to sexual reproduction was so crucial to survival.

Cool