Richard M Kliman <rkliman at runet.edu> wrote in article
<5itc9d$8u6 at ruacad.runet.edu>...
> In article <01bc4662$fe880e40$294192cf at mycomputer>,
> Joe Potter <joe.potter at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Richard M Kliman <rkliman at runet.edu> wrote in article
> ><5ilh1k$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, 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.
>> I'm confused. I thought the point of this thread was to discuss possible
> explanantions for the persistence of sexual reproduction in the face a
> presumed cost to the female. If the point of this thread is to argue the
> merits of Eldredge's book or Dawkins' "ultra-Darwinist" viewpoint, then
> fine. If Eldredge argues that sex makes no sense in the context of
> Dawkins' argument, then either (1) Eldrege is wrong - sex is compatible
> with Dawkins - or (2) Dawkins is wrong. Either way, this has little to
do
> with the origin and maintenance of sex - i.e., the actual study of
> evolution. Neither Eldredge nor Dawkins - regardless of their collective
> contributions to evolutionary biology - should serve as a focus for
> discussions on the evolution of sex.
>> So what *is* the point to this thread?
>> Rich Kliman
> Dept. of Biology
> Radford University
>>
Beats me Rich. I did not start the thread, I only interjected a point.
Then I simply responded to those who said I was mistaken, or did not
understand simple biology --- or such like.
I only want to bring up the point that Eldredge has (if my interpretation
is correct) pointed out an inconsistency with modern synthesis. I hoped to
see others discuss this.
Regards, Joe
