Incredibly lonely zoologists have been questioning/bemoaning the fact that human beings can't reproduce asexually for generations. They might finally have the explanation to why, not to mention more material to jot down in their tear stained diaries, on a Friday night, while all the cool kids who decided to study micro-biology, score with all the hottest undergraduates at the party no one invited them to.
A recent paper, written by a sultry, seductive, zoology professor at the University British Columbia, named Sarah Otto, was published in a July issue of a medical journal called "the American Naturalist." It addresses the possible evolutionary reasons why a majority of creatures on our planet reproduce using the complicated, inefficient, wasteful method of sex, when, from a scientific stand point, its simply easier to reproduce asexually.
The report fortunately has nothing to do with the American Naturist (or nudist) movement , because despite my earlier statements, no one wants to see Sarah Otto naked.
"Reproducing without sex--like microbes, some plants and even a few reptiles--would seem like a better way to go. Every individual in an asexual species has the ability to reproduce on its own."
Well that might be so, but its also pretty fucking boring isn't it.
The really interesting part is that evolutionists really do struggle to explain an evolutionary reason for sex. To take it even further they even have trouble explaining the events that created gender. Its interesting to think that the most widely accepted scientific theory of life as we know it, doesn't have a consistent unanimous consensus on an explanation for one of the most fundamental differences between, not just human beings, but every creature, and a few plants, that procreate using sexual reproduction.
I am not a creationist. I think all the proof I ever need of Darwin's theories was taught to me when I was six and decided that all the fossils scattered across the planet hadn't been put there so god could test me.
It was just a little shocking, when researching something so widely accepted, to find the gaps that separate a scientific theory from scientific fact so gapingly large.
Asexual reproduction on paper, seems like an easier more effective way to propagate a species. No searching for a compatible mate, no real trouble conceiving, and no need to buy anyone dinner first. Its quick and its clean and all your kids look exactly like you, and therein lies the key to Professor Otto's theory on the need for sex.
When an asexual animal, like certain worms (see August 24th's article for more on the growing LGBTQ worm community), reproduces, it births an exact copy of itself. A total clone, no different than its parent.
On the other hand when two creatures, like George and Barbara Bush get together and slide out a few kids they get hideous little troll dolls created by an almost random mixing of their genetics. Some are tall, some are short, and some are just retarded.
Evolutionarily this is an important difference. One colony of amoebae (as I just learnt is the plural of amoeba) has no differences, meaning they are all completely vulnerable to the exact same diseases, parasites, and infirmities.
Us fuckers, on the other hand, take traits from both parents, and create a similar, but distinctively different offspring. We take some of our parents weaknesses, and susceptibility, but also combine their immunities and strengths.
"Sexual populations maintain stability, while asexual populations face extinction at the hands of parasites."
Meaning we win, again, we're better then jelly fish.
The only real tragedy being that even though I might live longer and be more resilient to some illnesses then my father, I'm still going to loose my hair.
No comments:
Post a Comment