Joe Felsenstein <joe at evolution.genetics.washington.edu> wrote in article
<5ikrmc$mhp at nntp3.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <E8FtMJ.9Ln at gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>,
> L.A. Moran <lamoran at gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> [in response to postings about how easy it was to explain "sex"]
>> >"It is worth noting that Maynard Smith's argument invalidates the
earliest
> >genetic argument for the evolution of recombination, that advanced by
East
> >(1918). That argument is also the one commonly found in textbooks, which
> >tend to be a bit out of date (in this case, by over 50 years)."
> >
> >J. Felsenstein, "Sex and the Evolution of Recombination" in THE
EVOLUTION
> >OF SEX, R.E. Michod and B.R. Levins eds. Sinauer Associates 1988 (p.78)
> >
> >"We have the anomolous situation that a detailed population genetic
analysis
> > reveals not only that the standard explanation for the evolution of
> > recombination will not work, but also that there is a good evolutionary
> > reason for believing that modifiers will be selected to eliminate
> > recombination." (ibid, p.79)
> >
> >Sex is very definitely a problem for evolutionary biology in spite of
what
> >the introductory biology textbooks say.
>> Whoa. Cited that way, it sounds like my paper of 1988 concludes that
> there is no decent explanation for "sex" (actually the argument is about
> outcrossing-plus-recombination but it is conventional to call it "sex" so
> as to attract more excitement). A more careful reading will disclose
> that my position is that we have a whole bunch of explanations of "sex"
> and that the problem for evolutionary biology is not to come up with an
> explanation of "sex", but to distinguish between different possible ones.
>> The passages cited are building up to mentioning a bunch of different
> explanations people have advanced.
>> --
> Joe Felsenstein joe at genetics.washington.edu (IP No.
128.95.12.41)
> Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Box 357360, Seattle, WA
98195-7360 USA
>
I took the words of Mr. Moran to be on the original topic that started all
of this --- that Dr. Eldgrede has pointed out in his 1995 book that sex is
a paradox from the "ultra-Darwinist" point of view. Your words seems to
support that.
What is your position on Eldredge's claim that sex represents a problem
for those like Dawkins who see game as simply the contest to leave as many
copies of one's own genes?
Regards , Joe Potter
