Are there evolutionary reasons for reproduction?

Hi allI have been studying evolution recently with more attention. There is one question that I couldn't find an answer for. I hope somebody here can enlighten me.The question is in all texts of evolution life correlates to reproduction and reproduction is a key driving force in the evolution process. But nobody actually said why is that the case?! I mean, reproduction is very energy consuming process. Why would a cell is programmed to reproduce itself from evolutionary perspective? Also if you can elaborate on the origins as well. Like if we assume the life came from organic molecules in the earth atmosphere or in a primordial soup, why on earth should a molecule suddenly decide to reproduce or even forced to reproduce? I have read wikipedia about selfish gene. It says Dawkin's claim that a reproducing molecule have an advantage over other molecules. I don't understand where is this coming from. What I think is that whist reproduction can increase the density of the molecule in a solution but also soon the resources will finish and the process ends there. Much like when a fire starts. It extends as far as it has fuel and air to burn and then stops. I don't understand what is the advantage here?!Regards
MrQEdited by MrQ, : Title changedEdited by Admin, : Fix title.

"An Evolution question" is a pretty poor topic title. I would like something that helps define the topic theme.Is "Why is reproduction is a key driving force in the evolution process?" the evolution question you are looking for an answer for? If so, I'd like to make that the topic title.Adminnemooseus

---

HiSorry about that. I am new here. I changed the topic. I hope it is ok.Regards
MrQ

Thread copied here from the Is there evolutionary reasons for reproduction? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Modify subtitle.

You need to go further back than thinking about cells reproducing. You need to go back to replicating molecules that replicate as a result of chemistry where some molecules bond with others and so on and so forth.Don't get stuck on thinking about modern cells. It's like asking how a nuclear reactor works without knowing about the basics of atomic physics.Evolution does not deal with origins of lief, either.

Your message 1 is rather muddled, but the above quoted seems to be the key item.Evolution is the genetic change of a species population from one generation to the next generation. No reproduction, no next generation, no evolution. So, while I wouldn't really call it a "driving force", reproduction is a requirement for evolution to happen.Moose

What do we see in the universe? We see cells reproduce themselves. We see multi-cellular organisms reproduce themselves. We see that this reproduction is not perfect, that in the new being there are changes in the materials that result from these reproductive processes. We see these changes affect the properties of the new being. And we see further changes in materials and properties in the offspring of this new being.Reproduction happens.Evolution does not require reproduction. Reproduction is not a force that drives evolution.Evolution is just a word. It is the word we use to label these processes of life we see around us.We see decent with modification, reproduction with changes. We see the reality of the life systems and their diversity in this world.We needn't justify reproduction as a mechanism. It is a fact. One that must be a part of any explanation of the diversity of life.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : better syntaxEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Thanks for your replay. I understand that evolution may have been started from reproducing molecules. I mentioned that in my second part of the message. But my problem still exist at molecular level. The point is molecules follow physical laws to react with each other. As I gave example like burning. For a example, a spark starts a fire in a jungle and it continues to burn as far as it has fuel and air. Molecular reproduction has no control and once it starts it uses all the material to produce new molecules. This brings no advantage to the environment or the molecule itself. It is like a chain reaction. Also if your point is that the same kind of reproduction later on evolved to more sophisticated reproduction system in single cells, then still problem exists. Reproduction is energy consuming process rather than chain reaction which is like rolling a ball down the hill. Therefore, reproduction it is more like going up the hill. As evolution prove to be very selective and trims any unnecessary energy consumption, then why didn't it stop reproduction? I hope you have understood what I meant. Basically, for everything developed in the evolutionary process there should be an advantage. Like Giraffes developed high legs and neck to use leaves of trees as food as well as escape from predators. But I don't see any advantage in reproduction what so ever. So I don't know why it has been developed in the first place and stayed there in the second place.

As well as making an argument which basically makes no sense, since there can be no evolution without some sort of self-replicating entity, you are making a whole lot of totally unwarranted assertions.The species which adopt your favoured strategy of never reproducing tend to die out very quickly, funny that. Species which adopt the arguably more wasteful reproducing strategy tend to increase in number comparatively. The advantage of reproduction is that the numbers of a particular type increase so they are less likely to be totally extinguished by some chance event.The waste is allowable since there is a continuous influx of energy into the system. If there were only a very limited amount of energy available then a more cautious strategy might be neccessary. Indeed we see trade offs in how much investment an organism makes into its offspring and the number of offspring it has, so limited resources clearly do play their part.I really hope this is some sort of joke.TTFN,WK

Hi Wounded KingThanks for your reply."since there can be no evolution without some sort of self-replicating entity, you are making a whole lot of totally unwarranted assertions."I don't believe this will solve any problem. Everything that happens ultimately needs a reason or preconditions to happen. For example, if somebody asks why big bang happened? and you answer because we are here then you end up in a loop. As reproduction is a requirement for evolution then it should have been around before it otherwise it doesn't make any sense. It will become like chicken and egg problem."The species which adopt your favoured strategy of never reproducing tend to die out very quickly"Death is something else which I haven't touched yet. You could easily reproduce less but have a longer life to keep species going. But there is small point here, less reproduction means less generation and less changes in species as well but certainly it consumes less energy.Regards
MrQ

Evolution started with the first imperfectly reproducing organisms. Such a species would have less variation within the population. This would make the species less adaptive to new challenges at the genetic level. Slower reproducing species like us have overcome this by using our intelligence, not our genetics, to overcome new challenges. Bacteria adopt the exact opposite strategy by overwhelming a problem with billions of bacteria at a time with generation times measured in minutes.

It almost sounds to me like you are asking "why did the molecules have to reproduce" as if the molecules were intelligent beings that decided to reproduce because they "knew" it would lead to this beneficial thing called evolution. I know you don't actually believe that, but it seems like you can't imagine how it could have happened otherwise.If, as is almost certainly the case, at the beginning of life on this planet there were molecules that self replicated - reproduced - then it was only because the chemical/physical composition of those molecules demanded that they do so. It would have been a violation of physical laws had they not done so. No intelligence or purpose or grand plan was required.

An individual organism that spends no energy on reproduction (e.g. myself!) is not going to produce any offspring. I.E. I will not produce any offspring with the same trait of not spending energy on reproduction.Whereas individual organisms that do spend a lot of energy on reproduction are likely to produce lots of offspring that also have the same characteristic.Hence all existing species are abundant with individuals that have the inherited trait of spending a lot of energy on reproduction, and remarkably few weirdos like myself who prefer to spend their energy on other things!

Ahh, the question becomes clearer.We do not have a consistent theory of abiogenisis. There are some good hypotheses on several proposed mechanisms but nothing that we have such evidence for that our confidence in any one is high.What we do know to a very great level of confidence is chemistry.We know that each reaction requires a specific level of energy for it to take place. If the environment does not provide a sufficient level of available energy then we put the chemicals in a test tube heat it up (apply a thermodynamic excess) until the reaction occurs.We also know that any reaction that can occur will occur if the materials and energy are available.The beauty of the carbon atom is the 4 valence electrons. It also is not a heavy atom like silicon or sulfur. Therefore, we know carbon is easily reactive yet stable under moderate energy levels. This is why, when we look out into the cosmos, we see very few silicon or sulfur (or any other element) compounds, but we see an abundance (in the 80s by my last look) carbon compounds. Some of these are large molecular structures.This planet exists within a thermodynamic excess. Not strong enough. This planet exists within an enormous thermodynamic excess. This is not just from space onto the surface but from the core outward.By whatever abiogenic process that did occur those billions of years ago a life system arose. As long as the thermodynamic excess continues these life-system processes will continue.

Hi Jumped Up Chimpanzee"An individual organism that spends no energy on reproduction (e.g. myself!) is not going to produce any offspring. I.E. I will not produce any offspring with the same trait of not spending energy on reproduction."I assume that if what Taq said is true then you are the most intelligent one!I kind of got the idea but it is really counter-intuitive. I mean the precedence of the events is the tricky part. But still reproduction at molecular level is some how mysterious. Chemical reactions go to lower energy. Otherwise they need energy to happen. As they are dumb, they use all the energy to reproduce. This is all fine. But what about variations?I sum up the argument based on my original question. I was looking for reasons(advantages) of reproduction in evolutionary process. Taq mentioned that "Such a species would have less variation within the population". Then the answer to my original question was "variations". It means the evolutionary reason for having reproduction is only to produce variations. But at molecular level we don't have any variations so there is no reason to reproduce. Edited by MrQ, : make it complete