Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sexual reproduction can involve an asexual (which would be hemaphroditic) partner.
Why would you evolve the necessary organs to sexually reproduce with your self, with no one else around?
Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations
101–102 of 102 posts
Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations
#102I like how the article starts but I think it got lost a bit in hypothetical and anecdotes towards the end. Not holding it against the article though. As the article rightly points out, anything involving sex drags in biases as well. I wonder how convergent evolution [0] fits into this? Maybe one form of reproduction leaves a large niche open for another type of reproduction to fill in. Could it be that there was sexu…
> Could it be that there was sexual reproduction first and asexual reproduction came later? Unlikely. You can't mate with copies of yourself unless there are already multiple copies of yourself floating around. I like the story they present in the article. For simple organisms, it's fairly inexpensive to let defective individuals die off. As organisms get more complex, it starts to become more costly to allow defects…
We don't know if early replicators were inside lipid membranes or not. If they were in the goop they'd be floating with their clones and siblings.