Re: Article: No sex for 40 million years? No problem
- From: "Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:17:00 -0500 (EST)
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <rstonjek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ett4q8$3ft$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
... The study challenges the assumption that sex is
necessary for organisms to diversify ...
I am a neophyte in the study of biology and evolution, but I
wasn't aware that such an assumption was made by our standard
theories.
Don't bacteria evolve without sex? Don't many single celled
eukaryotes evolve without sex? Don't some multi-celluar plants
and animals evolve without sex? Aren't many types of mutation
caused by radiation, ultra-violet light, or errors in mitosis
without requiring any sex?
It has been demonstrated that even bacteria can exchange DNA.
However, if there were no evolution without sex, there would be
no differences in DNA to exchange.
This reminds me of a major announcement made by a professor of
agriculture at the University of Illinois when I was a student
there in the early 70's. He told the newspapers that he had
found a way to make unpalatable beans palatable. When asked what
he did, he said he boiled them in water for 20 minutes. He had
apparently thought that boiling beans was a new and unique
discovery.
Alan
.
- References:
- Article: No sex for 40 million years? No problem
- From: Robert Karl Stonjek
- Article: No sex for 40 million years? No problem
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolution on earth: directional and progressive?
- Next by Date: Re: Article: No sex for 40 million years? No problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: No sex for 40 million years? No problem
- Next by thread: Re: Article: No sex for 40 million years? No problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
