5 ms·

I downvoted you because although individual points of the article can argued, the text is certainly not "blatantly false" and the overall dismissive attitude is

I downvoted you because although individual points of the article can argued, the text is certainly not "blatantly false" and the overall dismissive attitude is harmful to potential discussion about nuances of the issue. I would recommend you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium for a start.

PepeGomez 11y ago
It's premise, that the costs of sex obviously outweigh the benefits, is false. Sex is an extremely advantageous ability. There is no discussion to be had, because the assumed problem doesn't in fact exist. What does punctuated equilibrum have to do with it?
- Confusion 11y ago
  That's not its premise. Its premise is that the benefits tend to be subtle and become evident only over many generations, [while] its costs are heavy and immediate and so sex *seems* like a waste emphasis mine. Your reading of the article is extremely uncharitable.
  - PepeGomez 11y ago
    The costs aren't heavy, the math in the article is wrong. Yes, each of your offspring will have half of your genes, but twice as many offspring counts as yours.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- lukasLansky 11y ago
  Punctuated equilibrium is a reaction to your claim that evolution speeds up exponentialy with the size of the population. In practice, it's more like you need very small, separated group to move things forward. It's explained by the fact that one gene contribution to fitness is heavily dependent on other genes, so an in-one-context-advantageous mutation has problems with crossing-over destroying some conditions of its success.
  - PepeGomez 11y ago
    Oh that, yes, but that's exactly what sex allows to happen. Imagine there are three populations of desert flowers, each with its own adaptations to drought. One population has mutations a and b, other has c and the last one has d and e. When these populations meet, their genes recombine and in a few generations there will be individuals with all five, much more resistant than any of the parent groups. This is entirely impossible with asexual species - the strains would merely compete with each other and nothing interesting would happen.
- Double_Cast 11y ago
  Consider a startup. In the long run, it may have a large advantage over its incumbent competitors. But at inception, it often needs a capital investment to overcome a barrier of entry. Without the initial investment, the startup may never see the light of day. The article's thesis is analogous: though sexual selection may be a global maximum, evolution might have gotten stuck in a local maximum (asexual selection) if not for a little boost. Off the top of my head, I can imagine possible adaptations which humans would find strictly beneficial, but we won't likely evolve (without genetic engineering). E.g. there's no good reason why humans have a blind spot. We wouldn't have it if our optic nerves were attached behind our retina instead of in front. But we're stuck with it because evolution can't conjure a discontinuous jump in our anatomy.

PepeGomez 11y ago

It's premise, that the costs of sex obviously outweigh the benefits, is false. Sex is an extremely advantageous ability. There is no discussion to be had, because the assumed problem doesn't in fact exist. What does punctuated equilibrum have to do with it?

Confusion 11y ago
That's not its premise. Its premise is that the benefits tend to be subtle and become evident only over many generations, [while] its costs are heavy and immediate and so sex *seems* like a waste emphasis mine. Your reading of the article is extremely uncharitable.
- PepeGomez 11y ago
  The costs aren't heavy, the math in the article is wrong. Yes, each of your offspring will have half of your genes, but twice as many offspring counts as yours.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
lukasLansky 11y ago
Punctuated equilibrium is a reaction to your claim that evolution speeds up exponentialy with the size of the population. In practice, it's more like you need very small, separated group to move things forward. It's explained by the fact that one gene contribution to fitness is heavily dependent on other genes, so an in-one-context-advantageous mutation has problems with crossing-over destroying some conditions of its success.
- PepeGomez 11y ago
  Oh that, yes, but that's exactly what sex allows to happen. Imagine there are three populations of desert flowers, each with its own adaptations to drought. One population has mutations a and b, other has c and the last one has d and e. When these populations meet, their genes recombine and in a few generations there will be individuals with all five, much more resistant than any of the parent groups. This is entirely impossible with asexual species - the strains would merely compete with each other and nothing interesting would happen.
Double_Cast 11y ago
Consider a startup. In the long run, it may have a large advantage over its incumbent competitors. But at inception, it often needs a capital investment to overcome a barrier of entry. Without the initial investment, the startup may never see the light of day. The article's thesis is analogous: though sexual selection may be a global maximum, evolution might have gotten stuck in a local maximum (asexual selection) if not for a little boost. Off the top of my head, I can imagine possible adaptations which humans would find strictly beneficial, but we won't likely evolve (without genetic engineering). E.g. there's no good reason why humans have a blind spot. We wouldn't have it if our optic nerves were attached behind our retina instead of in front. But we're stuck with it because evolution can't conjure a discontinuous jump in our anatomy.