Re: Evolution vs Bisexuality
Thu, 15 Aug 1996 16:20:36 -0400

Bill wrote:

>>Although I am neither a biologist nor evolutionist, it seems
contradictory that bisexuality would evolve as the dominant lifestyle.
It makes more sense to me that asexuality, such as the simple cell
amoebas, or androgyny/hermaphroditism, (an animal or plant having both
male and female reproductive organs, such as the earthworms) would be
the evolutionary norm. After all, it evolution favors those
developments that give an edge in species survival, cultures in areas
where there are excess males (or females) would have better survival
probabilities if all members could either reproduce without another
partner (such as on isolated islands) or could mate with any other
partner and conceive. What is the evolutionary justification of

You ask a very perceptive question here. Evolutionists have
puzzled over this issue often. The consensus now is that bisexuality arose
because it allows greater variance to arise in a population. Asexual
reproduction is essentially just cloning. The only variation within a
species arises from mutations and the like. Bisexual reproduction allows
for great variation to arise very rapidly by means of genetic
recombination. For natural selection to operate it must have differences
in a population to select from. Thus asexual reproduction is great for
propagating a species but bisexual reproduction is essential for variety
and adaptability.

Mike Jaqua
7245 Balfour Drive
Kalamazoo, MI 49024
(616) 327-6570 <---(New e-mail address. Old one still works. This new
one may change again in the next few months.
Eventually it will replace the old address.)