If you ascribe to Darwinian natural selection theory, then everything about an organism is the result of adaption -- that is to say it is either directly a selective advantage, or indirectly related to something that has a selective advantage. So what is the advantage of sexual reproduction? Why didn't life on Earth evolve differently? For example, why didn't nature stop at asexual reproduction? The answer to this question may provide the best argument against cloning.
If it turns out there is an important selective advantage to species that reproduce sexually, then cloning, a form of asexual reproduction, may have a negative effect on a species in the long-term. Is it that sexual reproduction brings about more genetic diversity, which in the long-term enables gene pools to escape from local minima in order to evolve around obstacles (like climate changes, new predators, etc.). Or is it that sexual reproduction is tied to specialization on a behavioral level which enables division of labor (child-rearing, versus hunting, for example) that overall improves the likelihood that children will survive and reproduce? Now think about the social insects such as ants -- in such species only some individuals are involved in reproduction; the bulk of the population doesn't reproduce -- only the queen and one or more lucky workers. Actually, I just started looking into ant reproduction -- wow, they've got a lot of different mating systems. It seems nature is trying everything possible to see what sticks. I wonder whether the mating systems of ants are optimal compared to humans? Ants will probably outlive the human race.
Comments