Difference between revisions of "Sexual Reproduction"
From WikiManual
(Discussion) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Because relatively little is known for sure about the role each has in sex and evolution, the safest (if most intensive) course of action is to model all of them. "How" becomes a hotly debatable question. | Because relatively little is known for sure about the role each has in sex and evolution, the safest (if most intensive) course of action is to model all of them. "How" becomes a hotly debatable question. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Perhaps I could give some answers== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * I like Richard Dawkins' short answer why there's sex. Because there's a gene, a selfish gene for that. | ||
| + | * Diploidity is not nessesary for sexual reproduction. Plants have sexual reproduction on their haploid stage, for example. | ||
| + | * Dominant/recessive is even less required feature for explicit implementation, since what we call a "dominant" gene is just a gene that does his work "right" (e. g. coding some pigment protein), since its recessive allele is a mutant, which does not code this protein properly (so no right pigment is produced). Try to think further, and you get all that Mendel's laws. Dominant/recessive gene stuff is just trivial consequence of diploidity and mutations. | ||
| + | * Crossing over is an interesting feature. But I don't see any problems to implement it through viral transfer. As well as fertilization could be replaced with sexual process (as in infusoria) with tieing and interchanging genes with a mate before mitosis. | ||
| + | * Chromosomes are the only really valuable suggestion you did, as it seems to me. The most valuable is genetic linkage they allow. And they cannot be simulated with existing set of instructions. All other features, including (para?)sexual process, sex, di(poly)ploidity, crossing over are implementable for now, even without .sexrepro (I consider it to be evil). | ||
| + | Sorry for my English. [[User:Gobo|Gobo]] 15:03, 11 November 2007 (MST) | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 11 November 2007
The main problem with implementing sexual reproduction is that since science doesn't even know why actual organisms have sex (there are some theories), so we aren't sure what we really need to implement, if we can take any shortcuts, etc.
There are several, possibly inter-related features of organisms that have sex.
- Dipoidity - Although diploidness is the most common, many funguses even have up to dozens of each chromosome.
- Dominant, Co Dominant and Recessive expression - Most real life genes are either dominant, recessive, or more commonly co dominant. Is this required for sexual reproduction to be effective?
- Crossing Over - A shuffling of the parents' DNA before gifting to the child. Does crossing over need to happen between the parents' DNA itself, or can crossing over work between haploid strains of both parents?
- Chromosomes - Physically seperated sections of DNA. Perhaps to seperate certain genes from being able to cross over with each other? Perhaps totally pointless? If so why do organisms maintain it?
Because relatively little is known for sure about the role each has in sex and evolution, the safest (if most intensive) course of action is to model all of them. "How" becomes a hotly debatable question.
Perhaps I could give some answers
- I like Richard Dawkins' short answer why there's sex. Because there's a gene, a selfish gene for that.
- Diploidity is not nessesary for sexual reproduction. Plants have sexual reproduction on their haploid stage, for example.
- Dominant/recessive is even less required feature for explicit implementation, since what we call a "dominant" gene is just a gene that does his work "right" (e. g. coding some pigment protein), since its recessive allele is a mutant, which does not code this protein properly (so no right pigment is produced). Try to think further, and you get all that Mendel's laws. Dominant/recessive gene stuff is just trivial consequence of diploidity and mutations.
- Crossing over is an interesting feature. But I don't see any problems to implement it through viral transfer. As well as fertilization could be replaced with sexual process (as in infusoria) with tieing and interchanging genes with a mate before mitosis.
- Chromosomes are the only really valuable suggestion you did, as it seems to me. The most valuable is genetic linkage they allow. And they cannot be simulated with existing set of instructions. All other features, including (para?)sexual process, sex, di(poly)ploidity, crossing over are implementable for now, even without .sexrepro (I consider it to be evil).
Sorry for my English. Gobo 15:03, 11 November 2007 (MST)
