Richard M Kliman <rkliman at runet.edu> wrote in article
<5ilh1k$c5r at ruacad.runet.edu>...
> In article <01bc43ae$4b8c7d00$a84992cf at mycomputer>,
> Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > And more to the point, why sex (mixing your genes 50/50) if the whole
> >point of evolution revolves around a struggle to leave as many copies of
> >you genes as possible. Heck, you do not leave even one!!!
>> Who said there's a point to evolution?
>> You seem to be asking how sex can provide for one leaving more copies of
> one's genes (actually, a disproportionate amount of one's genes) than
> clonal reproduction. Passing on many copies of one's genes does not
> guarantee that one will disproportionately influence future gene pools.
> The carriers of one's genes must also be disproportionately successful
> offspring producers. Again, I any decent college-level evolution text
> explains why sexual reproduction is expected to be favored in certain
> contexts.
>> Rich Kliman
> Dept. of Biology
> Radford University
>
Rich, you seem to have missed some part of the thread. I pointed out
(earlier) that Dr. Eldrege called sex a paradox from the ultra-Darwinist
(his words, not mine) point of view.
He is saying that sex makes no sense if Dawkins position is correct that
evolution is simply the struggle to leave more copies of one's own genes.
This is from his 1995 book, last chapter.
Regards, Joe
