Re: Evolved Preferences

The Low Golden Willow (
Sun, 27 Apr 1997 14:12:35 -0700 (PDT)

On Apr 27, 9:36am, "Peter C. McCluskey" wrote:

} Asexual reproduction has always been possible for DNA. DNA has evolved
} the more expensive sexual reproduction because it produces better
} adaptation. I haven't seen any reason to think that a permanent change
} to this principle is about to happen (although short term fluctuations
} in the ratio of asexual to sexual reproduction are likely as new reproduction
} mechanisms are tried).

Adaptation through DNA is looking fairly obsolete these days, if you
haven't noticed. Genetic alteration of children; construction of
children to order; application of technology such that given a decent
brain the natural body doesn't really matter. One could have diverse
children by mixing genes from more sources than sex could have
accomodated (or accessed, with artificial genes) or by copying oneself
and letting the clones claw out new niches in their desperation to be
different from their siblings.

Whether this 'asexual' reproduction matches what was being talked about
in the papers, I don't know. I haven't read the sex-connected papers
yet, but Robin's comments made me think that the mechanisms were based
on the children being genetically identical to the parent, rather than
sharing half their genes.

Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*>

"Actually, I've always been rather fond of Lucifer. He was, after all, the
brightest of all the angels before his fall."
-- Rhydon of Eastmarch, _High_Deryni_