There is more than one way to reproduce. Some sharks clone themselves when they cannot find a mate. So do komodo dragons. The bdelloid rotifer even picks up genes from other species. Sex is evolutionarily problematic, which includes the trouble of finding a partner, increased vulnerability during the act, and a lengthy gestation period, and thus seems far less favorable than cloning. Biologists could not solve why sex became so prevalent until now.

At first appearance, sex seems obviously more suited for genetic variance, and thus for a greater ability to adapt. But in the short term, any cloned offspring would do about as well as, if not better than, the clone’s parent. Sex, taking much longer than cloning to reproduce, should have been phased out by the sheer number of clone reproductions.

Then there was the “Red Queen” hypothesis, so-called after the Alice in Wonderland monarch, which held that sex would be beneficial if the species were subject to deadly parasites. This is true, but was not enough for sex to be the great reproduction method it is today.

It has been shown, however, that sex would also win out in an environment of already great genetic variation, when mutation rates are high, and selection pressures are great.

It is postulated that the first eukaryotic cells were invaded by mitochondria, which involved themselves in the cells’ DNA, increasing mutations. These mitochondria also brought with them early forms of introns, forcing themselves into the genomes, increasing the genetic diversity and selection pressure.

More research is needed to confirm some of the theory’s proposals. If successful, the theory provides the raison d’etre of sex to creationists and evolutionists, perhaps a clue to finding our own.