"Anthony Cerrato"  wrote in message
news:bnve1j$2sn6$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...

>
> Hi Bill. I'm sorry that I didn't explain what I really meant
> more clearly. I put "complex" life in quotes initially since
> I didn't mean it in the usual biological technical sense (I
> guess--I'm a chemist not biologist :).) What I meant was
> complex in the very subjective sense of larger animals for
> example; e.g., increased complexity being from
> bacteria/prokaryotes, to your dandelions and rotifers, to
> fish, reptiles/small mammals, to horses, monkeys, and
> finally, man.
>
> While evolution isn't necessarily directed, there has been a
> persistent increase in complexity with time in my,
> admitedly, loose view of complexity (unfortunately, I am not
> familiar enough with more precise current non-traditional
> definitions of this kind of complexity tho.) Do you agree
> that in my above "list" that the higher degree of some loose
> form of complexity demands (bi)sexuality, or, would it ever
> be possible to reach animals as complex as horses, monkeys
> and humans through evolution without sex?
> ....tonyC
>

A very deep and difficult-to-answer question!

(Am not surprised no one has dared to dive in to debate it, until now. ;->)

In spite of all that, my bet is that it could not have happened without sex.

Sex adds (is in itself) a 'higher gear/degree of biological complexity'. And
it seems that (apart from being confusing to parasites) it may act as a
lever or building-platform, upon which, (or that constitutes a relatively
fundamental opportunity, or launching pad, from which) a 'next evolutionary
stage' of correspondingly more complex organisms can emerge.

Yours never inEPT,
%-}

Peter F.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/16/03 6:08:50 AM