Conjugation versus Binary Fission (a.k.a sexual reproduction versus asexual)

[Erienne]

In nature, most if not all animals practice sexual reproduction, a process in which a male contributes the sperm and the female the ovum to create the new baby of that species. But is it the best? I mean, in sexual reproduction you have a higher chance of passing beneficial traits to your children, while in asexual reproduction you just copy your own DNA and hope that somewhere along the line the DNA Polymerase will screw up and make some beneficial mutation.

Bacteria, which most practice binary fission--splitting themselves in half after copying all their DNA and organelles--are the most reproductive life on the planet, with over 10^29 bacteria on this planet. I'm not going to count viruses, since technically they aren't even alive.

A few weeks ago, I guess, scientists found a way to splice the ovum of a female mouse and insert the genetic material of it into another ovum, and it fertilized correctly. They don't know if it would work in humans, a la Vandread series, but it brings up a point that in the future, there might be children who weren't born from a dad and a mom, but maybe from a mom or a mom, or a dad and a dad (which I don't know if that's even possible, because the sperm is highly underdeveloped and much smaller than the ovum). Will there one day even be a need for two partners?

 

[oooo]

I think most people will prefer to have babies the old fashion way, though. Although admittedly, gay couples might be inclined to try this.

 

[Zenotwapal]

What?

Humans? producing Asexually?

Interesting, though having babies the old fasioned way is better.

 

[Erienne]

What?

Humans? producing Asexually?

Interesting, though having babies the old fasioned way is better.

But what if it really isn't an option? Like, what if that person has a problem down there and can't have sex? Plus, it is more efficient.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

Hopefully, humans will one day evolve into an asexual species, so that we don't spend half our time chasing around the opposite sex.

Think of the accomplishments.

 

[Zenotwapal]

But what if it really isn't an option? Like, what if that person has a problem down there and can't have sex? Plus, it is more efficient.

Its not that i have a problem with the artificial "test tube" babies, its just that I think sex is better.

 

[Dr. Ste]

The events of meiosis and conception drastically enhance mutations. With sexual reproduction, we are a diverse, intelligent species which has extreme survival capabilities. With asexual reproduction we're all copies of the same person, female, unable to survive the slightest environmental change.

 

[Erienne]

The events of meiosis and conception drastically enhance mutations. With sexual reproduction, we are a diverse, intelligent species which has extreme survival capabilities. With asexual reproduction we're all copies of the same person, female, unable to survive the slightest environmental change.

So why do bacteria still exist? They are subject to very diverse environments.

 

[Dr. Ste]

So why do bacteria still exist? They are subject to very diverse environments.

-They are too many, and too small. They die massively, we humans value each single life.
-They're not really subject to diverse environments. Each type lives in a very specific tissue of your body, under very specific conditions (eg temperature).
-Use a single substance, like an antibiotic, and they're all gone. Unless part of the population resists that substance from before, which is usually due to a single gene.
-They have some mechanisms to protect themselves. Plus, they exchange DNA through plasmoids, which -guess what- requires the physical contact of two bacterias.

 

[Ethan]

There's a reason why only small organism can reproduce asexually. If larger animals like mammals could just split in half there would be so many of them that the enviroment would reach its carrying capacity. Resources would die out in a flash, and then we would too.

 

[Erienne]

There's a reason why only small organism can reproduce asexually. If larger animals like mammals could just split in half there would be so many of them that the enviroment would reach its carrying capacity. Resources would die out in a flash, and then we would too.

You know that in biology, when an organism passes carrying capacity, they die out, right? Look at any graph and you'll see that. It's up to a sentient species to continually expand its carrying capacity.

 

[Captain Brain]

There are some species (multicultural) that reproduce both sexually and asexually, this common example is a specific kind of lizard, where the female can produce clones of herself by deloping a clone in the ovum, this allows her to propagate the species quickly, but is bad against fighting diseases.

As for humans, if it were guy-gur they would probably strip an egg nuclues of the DNA and implant the spliced DNA, a little artifical insemination with a paid mother pow.

As for ethical implicationsm since gay people are finding it difficult to adopt this method also seems that would very early on be put under very strict guidlines to protect the innocent.

This process would be easily utilized by heterosexual couples (who various reasons) can't normally produce offspring. ;025;

 

[chuboy]

In nature, most if not all animals practice sexual reproduction, a process in which a male contributes the sperm and the female the ovum to create the new baby of that species. But is it the best? I mean, in sexual reproduction you have a higher chance of passing beneficial traits to your children, while in asexual reproduction you just copy your own DNA and hope that somewhere along the line the DNA Polymerase will screw up and make some beneficial mutation.

Bacteria, which most practice binary fission--splitting themselves in half after copying all their DNA and organelles--are the most reproductive life on the planet, with over 10^29 bacteria on this planet. I'm not going to count viruses, since technically they aren't even alive.

A few weeks ago, I guess, scientists found a way to splice the ovum of a female mouse and insert the genetic material of it into another ovum, and it fertilized correctly. They don't know if it would work in humans, a la Vandread series, but it brings up a point that in the future, there might be children who weren't born from a dad and a mom, but maybe from a mom or a mom, or a dad and a dad (which I don't know if that's even possible, because the sperm is highly underdeveloped and much smaller than the ovum). Will there one day even be a need for two partners?

My question is, how is this better for a couple than actually having sex to make the baby? Apart from the fact that sex itself is intimate and helps to maintain the relationship between the mother and father, having a million sperm all fighting for the same egg means theres competition, which in nature means the best will win, thereby ensuring the strongest possible offspring.

Having an egg fertilised with another egg seems silly, to me. Other than guaranteeing a female child, I see no reason why it is necessary. As for sperm with sperm, I don't know if it's even biologically possible - eggs and sperm are like a key and lock, they are useless unless you have both. If sperm could even be fertilized no the pregancy would probably fail due to the high risk of a YY chromosomed child, something which everyone here knows can't/shouldn't happen.

I don't know why people feel the need to meddle with reproduction. Nature has systems which have been working splending for the last millions of years - what makes you think this minor discovery is going to change the face of the planet?

 

[Ethan]

You know that in biology, when an organism passes carrying capacity, they die out, right? Look at any graph and you'll see that. It's up to a sentient species to continually expand its carrying capacity.

Well yeah I know that, uh, that why I said it. Hello?

Anyhow it doesn't matter how brilliant you are as a species or what witty or clever invention you come up with. One earth cannot support trillions of humans, period. Bacteria can multiply like they do because their enviroment compared to their size is much more vast than ours. Even if humans could manage to extend their carrying capacity it wouldn't be able to match the pace of their own reproduction.

 

[Fujitsu]

There's a reason why only small organism can reproduce asexually. If larger animals like mammals could just split in half there would be so many of them that the enviroment would reach its carrying capacity. Resources would die out in a flash, and then we would too.

Sea anemone have that capability, but I don't see them everywhere.

 

[Erienne]

Also, hello... why would we have millions more? The death rate would be the same, and we wouldn't reproduce more than now. Plus, we can and will always expand elsewhere, like to Mars and the Moon.

 

[Fujitsu]

Exactly. Not everybody wants thousands of clones.

 

[Kitsune]

This would be the answer to a lot of my own personal issues. I would love for the possibility to have my own, biological child with a homosexual lover. It would be great to me.


Of course, I don't see how this could logically be used toward that purpose. But hey, I can dream.

 

[chuboy]

Well, we can't really expand to Mars or the Moon, but your point still stands.

 

[Ethan]

Sea anemone have that capability, but I don't see them everywhere.

Gee I don't know, maybe that's because they live in the ocean and not on land? Maybe that why you don't see them everywhere...golly.

Also, hello... why would we have millions more? The death rate would be the same, and we wouldn't reproduce more than now. Plus, we can and will always expand elsewhere, like to Mars and the Moon.

Well if you're reproducing asexually that takes away the stresses of finding a mate. Instead of only some people being able to reproduce, every single person on the planet could. Thus increasing your chances of reproduction, therefore much more people.