First, let me express my congratulations and thanks for an extremely thorough and thought provoking writeup.
My question to Malmesbury is: the theories expressed are very elegant but it is far less clear just how well these theories are backed by evidence.
Granted, definitive evidence is probably never going to be possible given that single celled creatures don't really leave fossils, but the inherent risk in any elegant theory is "turtles all the way down".
It is also less clear to me why there cannot be intermediate means of "sexual" reproduction - in particular, the core concept of mitochondria being vital to sexual reproduction + female lineage of mitochondria seems to represent a divergent angle than pure "fitness".
If successful procreation and presence in the ecosystem is the true measure of genetic success, then all the sexual fitness games are just froth around our mitochondrian overlords.
First, let me express my congratulations and thanks for an extremely thorough and thought provoking writeup.
My question to Malmesbury is: the theories expressed are very elegant but it is far less clear just how well these theories are backed by evidence.
Granted, definitive evidence is probably never going to be possible given that single celled creatures don't really leave fossils, but the inherent risk in any elegant theory is "turtles all the way down".
It is also less clear to me why there cannot be intermediate means of "sexual" reproduction - in particular, the core concept of mitochondria being vital to sexual reproduction + female lineage of mitochondria seems to represent a divergent angle than pure "fitness".
If successful procreation and presence in the ecosystem is the true measure of genetic success, then all the sexual fitness games are just froth around our mitochondrian overlords.