An article published in American Naturalist magazine found that sex evolved in the ' protection ' of parasites.
Although there is a central role in biology, sex still has some evolutionary mystery. Reproduction without ' sex ' like germs, some plants - even some reptiles - seems like a better way to understand. Each individual in the species ' without sex ' (asexual) has the ability to produce his own ' personal ' without having to do ' that '.
New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) has two fertility simultaneously, one 'needs sex' and one 'does not need sex'.
Whereas in sexually reproducing species, also called ' need sex ' species, two concentric individuals must be born to produce the next generation. Thus, if theoretically, the ' no sex ' species is capable of multiplying twice (regardless of whether male or female, giving birth to a child). So why is sex a priority strategy, while the ' self-sufficiency ' process is more effective?
One theory is that parasites that inhibit 'sexless' organisms do not allow these creatures to fulfill their abilities. When an organism 'does not need sex' to give birth to a child, it is nothing more than ' cloning ', to create its own genetic copies.
Because these versions all have the same genome, when the parasite attacks, it will "die" in a series. If some parasite appears and exploits this ' dangerous ' disadvantage, the parasite can wipe out a species of 'no sex'. In contrast, each individual of the next generation of 'sexually needed' species is a unique genetic unit that is difficult for the parasite to encroach upon, in other words, they only attack a certain number but Can attack all.
Thus, in theory, it is sex that maintains stability for 'sexually needed ' species, and populations of organisms that ' do not need sex ' must cope with extinction due to parasites.
