If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?
If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?
Indeed.Sex -> more genetic diversity.
If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?
Just so you understand, an answer can be rationalized for any question. Now that the advantage of sexual reproduction has been stated, ask the opposite question: If sexual reproduction is advantageous, why are there asexual organisms?
It's a fun little game.
And a rather mathematical one
Asexual reproduction gives a large (twofold) and immediate selective advantage, so it can arise easily. The lack of recombination greatly reduces the long-term effectiveness of selection, however, and as a result asexual species tend to become extinct, so sexual reproduction is more common among multicellular organisms. That's what current evidence suggests, as far as I know.Now that the advantage of sexual reproduction has been stated, ask the opposite question: If sexual reproduction is advantageous, why are there asexual organisms?
Sort of. How much do you want me to pontificate on that subject?
Show us how selective pressure changes the desirability of asexual reproduction with the consequent survival of all on one's genes.
Sorry. I wasn't referring specifically to that issue, but more generally to how "mathematical" it all is. It was a philosophical comment.
If evolution is true, then why did some species evolve two different genders when it is easier and faster to reproduce asexually?
By the way, the question in the thread subject should be "Why are there boys?" Girls are needed because they make babies; boys don't.
Or you could start with something that doesn't make multiple blatantly false statements on the first page.You could start here:
Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
You could start here:
Introduction to the Mathematics of Evolution
Or you could start with something that doesn't make multiple blatantly false statements on the first page.
Quite possibly.Is that supposed to be a joke?
I think the difference between biology and physics has much more to do with the subject matter than with historical contingencies in the development of the field. There have been plenty of mathematically savvy biologists who have applied mathematics to aspects of biology, but the field does not lend itself to the kind of mathematical generalizations that physics does. That's my take, anyway, as someone who's been both a physicist and a computational biologist.Biology has a much longer qualitative history, and as a result there is no single mathematical foundation (as far as I can tell).