2006-12-09 11:30:53 · 9 answers · asked by larrylnguyen 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Agree. Evolutionarily, sexual reproduction is more advantageous because there is more variety, whereas asexually produced organisms are nearly identical to each other in most respects. If a virus were to attack and kill one asexual organism of a certain species, that virus could also kill all the rest. On the other hand, if that same virus were to attack and kill an organism that reproduces sexually, it wouldn't necessarily be able to kill all the others. This is because of the variability that each of these organisms will have; some will possess resistance to these viruses.
2006-12-09 13:05:07 · answer #1 · answered by Jin 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In a stable environment, an organism would only evolve until it suited that environment, and once it got there it wouldn't evolve anymore. The DNA of this organism is good for the environment with no changes needed: it doesn't need to evolve to survive as a species.
considering that sexual reproduction takes much more time and energy (finding a mate, mixing up chromosomes, and so on) an asexual organism would be much more efficient in that environment than a sexual organism.
I disagree.
2006-12-09 11:43:01 · answer #2 · answered by George B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would disagree. A stable environment is the one place where you would NOT have any need for the "advantages" of sexual reproduction (recombination, etc.).
So, a stable environment would probably FAVOR asexually reproducing organisms over sexually reproducing ones.
2006-12-09 11:36:40 · answer #3 · answered by dpfw16 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Many styles of asexual duplicate, as an occasion budding or fragmentation, produce a precise duplicate of the discern. A 2004 article interior the magazine Nature stated that the favourite arbuscular mycorrhizas fungi, which reproduces asexually, is comparable to fossil information relationship back to the Ordovician era, 460 million years in the past.
2016-10-14 08:56:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi. I disagree. A stable environment does not require the genetic mutations of evolution to sustain the organism. Just my opinion.
2006-12-09 11:33:58 · answer #5 · answered by Cirric 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
On the contrary they save the energy and the time that would be used in finding a mate, mating with the mate, carrying the offspring (or laying the eggs etc.) and protecting them through the early stages of life, asexual reproduction eliminates most of that.
2006-12-09 11:32:37 · answer #6 · answered by Graham S 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree
Although the enviromnent may not change, the organism may fine tune its adaptations, always becoming more and more efficient.
Reproducing sexually will allow those with favorable traits to have higher survival rates, leading to evolution.
2006-12-09 11:39:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
disagree....stable environment is perfect for them
2006-12-09 11:33:22 · answer #8 · answered by sikla_of_dragga 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
wierd
2006-12-09 11:41:40 · answer #9 · answered by stardust 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋