3 ms·

Correct. Sex is advantageous over the long term. This is not up for debate. The question is how to compensate for the considerable costs in the short term so th

Correct. Sex is advantageous over the long term. This is not up for debate. The question is how to compensate for the considerable costs in the short term so that sexual organisms are not immediately outcompeted by asexual organisms.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Asexual organisms can outcompete some part of population, but doubtfully all of it. And their competitive advantage shrinks as their numbers grow, due to clone interference. A lot of insects can reproduce asexually but they are also capable of sexual reproduction. Ones who are not eventually die off.
- jballanc 11y ago
  You're assuming that a population of asexual organisms was mixed with a population of sexual organisms. In reality, asexual reproduction came first, so the inability of asexual reproduction to overcome a large contingent of sexual organisms is irrelevant. And yes, optional sex is almost certainly how sexual reproduction arose. Even today I'd wager there are more facultatively sexual organisms than obligate sexual. That's a non-sequiter, though, as even optional sex would be bred out of a population if it could not show a benefit in a small number of generations.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    We do now know how first sexual organisms arose from asexual. If you'lll figure it out you'll become a big name in the field of evolutionary biology. It could have involved very unlikely events.
  - PepeGomez 11y ago
    Imagine three populations of desert plants. One survives by growing longer roots and storing more water. Another has roots that can extract water from dryer soil. The third is adapted by breathing during the night and losing less water. It's obvious how a sexual plant that is able to obtain the beneficial mutations from the other two populations would gain a major and immediate advanage.
    - jballanc 11y ago
      We all agree that sexual reproduction is advantageous over a long time scale. The question is what about a short time scale. Even with selective breeding, it'll be at least two (and more likely 3-5) generations before you could get all three advantageous traits in the same plant. With random partnering as would happen in the wild it could easily take an order of magnitude longer. This paper presents a hypothesis that explains how sexual reproduction could be more advantageous than asexual reproduction after one generation. This is what makes it novel and new.
      - PepeGomez 11y ago
        How more short term would you want it to be? The trait doesn't have to be advantageous every single generation in order to spread. It's two generation with or without selective breeding. The first generation will have individuals with three or four beneficial mutations, the second will have some with five. (assuming the traits are dominant)
PepeGomez 11y ago
But long term here means maybe a few dozen generations. It's not long enough to allow asexual species outcompete others. Evolutions isn't THAT slow.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

Asexual organisms can outcompete some part of population, but doubtfully all of it. And their competitive advantage shrinks as their numbers grow, due to clone interference. A lot of insects can reproduce asexually but they are also capable of sexual reproduction. Ones who are not eventually die off.

jballanc 11y ago
You're assuming that a population of asexual organisms was mixed with a population of sexual organisms. In reality, asexual reproduction came first, so the inability of asexual reproduction to overcome a large contingent of sexual organisms is irrelevant. And yes, optional sex is almost certainly how sexual reproduction arose. Even today I'd wager there are more facultatively sexual organisms than obligate sexual. That's a non-sequiter, though, as even optional sex would be bred out of a population if it could not show a benefit in a small number of generations.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  We do now know how first sexual organisms arose from asexual. If you'lll figure it out you'll become a big name in the field of evolutionary biology. It could have involved very unlikely events.
- PepeGomez 11y ago
  Imagine three populations of desert plants. One survives by growing longer roots and storing more water. Another has roots that can extract water from dryer soil. The third is adapted by breathing during the night and losing less water. It's obvious how a sexual plant that is able to obtain the beneficial mutations from the other two populations would gain a major and immediate advanage.
  - jballanc 11y ago
    We all agree that sexual reproduction is advantageous over a long time scale. The question is what about a short time scale. Even with selective breeding, it'll be at least two (and more likely 3-5) generations before you could get all three advantageous traits in the same plant. With random partnering as would happen in the wild it could easily take an order of magnitude longer. This paper presents a hypothesis that explains how sexual reproduction could be more advantageous than asexual reproduction after one generation. This is what makes it novel and new.
    - PepeGomez 11y ago
      How more short term would you want it to be? The trait doesn't have to be advantageous every single generation in order to spread. It's two generation with or without selective breeding. The first generation will have individuals with three or four beneficial mutations, the second will have some with five. (assuming the traits are dominant)

PepeGomez 11y ago

But long term here means maybe a few dozen generations. It's not long enough to allow asexual species outcompete others. Evolutions isn't THAT slow.