8

I noticed that the question "Do we know why animals have evolved to have sex for reproduction?" was closed by the community. I am curious why this is the case, as I can't see any comments explaining directly how this question is off-topic.

I could of course just reopen it, but I think this case deserves some discussion. I think there is a perfectly viable and notable claim in that question, that we don't understand the advantage of sexual over asexual reproduction.

Should that question be reopened, or is there an argument I'm missing why this question is off-topic here?

  • 1
    +1 Fabian, I was wondering the same thing... – Sklivvz Dec 12 '11 at 10:14
  • 2
    I think people may believe it isn't an actual question, and assumed it's a crackpot author with a wild theory (which it isn't, is very well reasoned) – Chris S Dec 12 '11 at 12:07
  • 1
    I've reopened the question now, though I am still confused why it was closed in the first place. – Mad Scientist Dec 12 '11 at 21:06
  • Amen. I didn't realize it was closed but can't for the life of me see how it's offtopic. May be the deceptively obvious "intuitive" answer fooled some people? – user5341 Dec 22 '11 at 16:52
1

The question is not really skeptical of anything other than the authors belief that asexual reproduction is better. His argument is that the belief that sexual reproduction is better is wrong.

Questions of belief are off topic. I think there is no answer because both asexual and sexual reproduction have produced successful specie. If the OP wanted to pick out some specific claims made in the book we might be able to address them.

  • 2
    The claim by the author is that the origins of sexual evolution are a big unexplained mystery in biology. – Sklivvz Dec 17 '11 at 10:46
  • @Sklivvz - The author of the paper or the OP? – Chad Dec 19 '11 at 14:17
  • the author of the book – Sklivvz Dec 19 '11 at 14:19
  • But the op did not ask about that. It is not skeptical of anything that I can tell. There probably is a decent question in there but as written appears to be nothing more than muckraking of the creationism vs evolution argument. – Chad Dec 19 '11 at 14:30
  • @Chad - wasn't he quoting Richard Dawkins? That's a somewhat unlikely source of creationist wisdom :) – user5341 Dec 22 '11 at 16:54
  • @DVK - Was he? I could not tell if he was. – Chad Dec 22 '11 at 18:47
  • @Chat - seemed that way, though admittedly I was a lot more interested in scientific sides of the claim than its origin. – user5341 Dec 22 '11 at 18:48
  • He was most definitely quoting Dawkins. – Sklivvz Dec 23 '11 at 10:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .