Re: why did we lose our fur?


NashtOn kirjoitti:

> > There is an entire book which answers this question in clear, layman's
> > language; it's called "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridgely.
> >
> So what? If I want to read fiction, I wouldn't ask in an ng packed with
> scientists.

Matt _Ridley_ is a scientist.

> Is there *any* experimental proof that sexual reproduction is more
> beneficial, in an evolutionary sense, than asexual

Yes, water fleas (Daphnia) and rotifers switch between sexual and
asexual reproduction all the time depending on what benefits them. If
you think the results have been misinterpreted, and sexual reproduction
is actually HARMFUL to these animals, you can do your own experiments
on them and prove it. Look for them in your nearest pond.

-- w

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why did we lose our fur?
    ... >> scientists. ... I thought _Mark_ Ridley was a scientist and Matt was a popular science writer... ... > asexual reproduction all the time depending on what benefits them. ... > you think the results have been misinterpreted, and sexual reproduction ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: If you believe any of your theories, youve turned science into a religion.
    ... >You misunderstand macro-evolution. ... >All mutations are accidental. ... Relying on sexual reproduction rather than random mutations to change the ... Some species can even switch between sexual and asexual reproduction: ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)