This has long been an interest of mine. It dates back to the old talk.origins days, prompted by a Creationist taunt with familiar tone – “I’d like to see someone explain the evolution of sex …” (with the implicit “hurr, hurr”). I articulated some thoughts, then was rounded on by the ‘mainstream’ community. I got a flavour of the world through Creationist eyes – an equally familiar tone: some very sharply expressed contempt and an invitation to f*** off back to high school and learn meiosis.
But, the more I thought about it, the more convinced I became that the ‘twofold cost’ picture traditionally presented, one that demanded an offsetting benefit of similar weight, was simply incorrect, however lofty the figures proposing it. The problem as expressed for a dioecious population (one with separate males and females: the ‘twofold cost of males’) or from the perspective of a locus on a genome (the ‘twofold cost of meiosis’) leads to the same result: an apparent halving of reproductive output for a female, or of survival odds for an allele. Yet since dioecy is quite rare, and ‘selfish alleles’ only exist when recombinant sex does, these cannot be taken as relevant to the origin of sex, and not all that relevant beyond it. The sensible perspective, it seems to me, is that of the haploid genome. From such a perspective, we are binary organisms – temporary unions of haploid genomes. It cannot be inherently more costly to unite then separate than simply to do nothing. The view that sex (as syngamy) should have existed for only a moment before being erased by permanent diploidy seems wrong. Meiosis is the brief return of the native organism – the haploid. Permanent diploidy is cancer: a trap.
I have written the above essay summarising my views. It is a bit of a dry and technical read – few pictures, even fewer jokes! This venue is not particularly conducive to a sensible discussion of the subject. It may be of interest to no-one: too amateurish for the professionals, too technical for the interested layman. Almost none of it is really original thought, being more a synthesis than anything groundbreaking. Beyond the choice of perspective, there are only a couple of ideas I have not seen elsewhere (I might remain coy about which those are!).
I’d prefer comments to be held off until the paper has been read (a big ask; it’s 50 pages!) but I hope it doesn’t descend into yet another discussion about semantics, metaphysics, the evidence for common descent, or any other of the conversations we have all had on a few dozen other threads.
My own time defending this is limited – I’m off to the Pyrenees for 5 weeks on June 24th. But, if anyone is interested …