Sex Evolved as an Escape From Parasites, Study Suggests



Why is sex the dominant form of reproduction on the planet? Scientists think they know why--and it all has to do with evasion of parasites.


NGS photo of elephants mating by Michael Nichols

Sex may have evolved in part as a defense against parasites, an article published in the July issue of the academic journal American Naturalist suggests.

"Despite its central role in biology, sex is a bit of an evolutionary mystery," says a news release about the article.

"Reproducing without sex--like microbes, some plants and even a few reptiles--would seem like a better way to go. Every individual in an asexual species has the ability to reproduce on its own.


"But in sexual species, two individuals have to combine in order to reproduce one offspring. That gives each generation of asexuals twice the reproductive capacity of sexuals.
"Why then is sex the dominant strategy when the do-it-yourself approach is so much more efficient?"

One hypothesis is that parasites keep asexual organisms from getting too plentiful.

NGS photo of water spiders mating by Robert Sisson

"When an asexual creature reproduces, it makes clones--exact genetic copies of itself.

"Since each clone has the same genes, each has the same genetic vulnerabilities to parasites. If a parasite emerges that can exploit those vulnerabilities, it can wipe out the whole population.


"On the other hand, sexual offspring are genetically unique, often with different parasite vulnerabilities. So a parasite that can destroy some can't necessarily destroy all.
"That, in theory, should help sexual populations maintain stability, while asexual populations face extinction at the hands of parasites."

There have been few attempts to see if this hypothesis holds in nature, according to the article.

"Enter Potamopyrgus antipodarum, a snail common in fresh-water lakes in New Zealand. What makes these snails interesting is that there are sexual and asexual versions. They provide scientists with an opportunity to compare the two versions side-by-side in nature."

NGS photo of Gelaba baboons mating by Michael Nichols

Jukka Jokela of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Mark Dybdahl of the University of Washington and Curtis Lively of Indiana University, Bloomington began observing several populations of these snails for ten years starting in 1994. They monitored the number of sexuals, the number asexuals, and the rates of parasite infection for both.


NGS photo of ladybugs mating by Robert Sisson

The team found that clones that were plentiful at the beginning of the study became more susceptible to parasites over time.

"As parasite infections increased, the once plentiful clones dwindled dramatically in number. Some clonal types disappeared entirely.
"Meanwhile, sexual snail populations remained much more stable over time."

This, the authors say, is exactly the pattern predicted by the parasite hypothesis.

"The rise and fall of these female-only lineages was surprisingly fast and consistent with the prediction of the parasite hypothesis for sex," Jokela said. "These results suggest that sexual reproduction provides an evolutionary advantage in parasite-rich environments."

Everybody wants to have sex! It feels good!

And sometimes it's just for fun!

When God creates something, He creates it with purpose and design. The Genesis account of creation makes it clear that God's creation is “good” (Genesis 1:31). But mankind has a history of distorting what God has made, whether out of ignorance or just plain stubbornness. The golden calf (idol) of the Israelites, for example. Gold is beautiful to look at, but God clearly did not want His people worshipping it.

Sex (and yes, sex was God’s idea) is no different. God created it, and therefore it is reasonable to expect that it is good. But when man distorts it by ignoring God's specific standards, it becomes harmful and destructive. So the question we've asked “why save sex for marriage” is really a question of understanding God's purpose and design for sex. We can choose to do things God's way, and experience the beauty of His plan, or we can choose to do things our way, and experience harm and destruction (Proverbs 16:25).

So, let's talk first about why God created sex. One reason is obvious: procreation. When God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), they probably figured out that He wanted them to have sex. But God also wanted them to develop intimacy with one another, and He knew that sex would help them do that, in a way that nothing else could.

God also knew that because sex is so powerful in creating intimacy that there must be some constraints on how it was to be used, so He specifically relegated sex to the arena of marriage. The kind of intimacy that God desires between a married couple cannot occur between one person and several others; it can only be experienced between one man and one woman. Hence God has specifically said, “Do not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14), and “Flee sexual immorality” (1 Corinthians 6:18). That is, do not have sex with someone who is not your spouse. Obedience requires that sex be reserved for one’s spouse.

So far we have two basic reasons to save sex for marriage: (1) God tells us to, and (2) God's purpose and design for sex cannot be fully achieved any other way. Many, though, have argued that non-marriage sex is not all that harmful. Let's look carefully at the potential consequences for this particular area of disobedience.

Sex outside of marriage causes damage in at least two areas: (1) physical consequences, and (2) relational consequences.

The physical consequences are becoming increasingly obvious and increasingly dangerous in today's society. AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases are frightening realities. “Safe sex” is more accurately described as “reduced risk sex.” The only truly safe sex is abstinence. There is also a very real risk that children could be born — and possibly grow up without two parents. Your actions affect your life, your partner's life, and the lives of your family. They can result in handicapping an innocent baby's life as well. Worst of all the willfull destruction of human life often results from pre-marital sex.)

The relational consequences are just as real, though they may be more difficult to grasp. First, sin always damages a person's relationship with his God. Psalm 66:18 says, "If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened." Intentional disobedience of God's command to not commit adultery dishonors and displeases God. Conversely, God is pleased when His children choose obedience and self-control instead of the immediacy of pleasure.

Second, relational damage happens between a Christian and those who are watching his life. The sin of adultery (i.e., televangelist scandals) causes a person's friends and even “outsiders” to view the adulterer as less committed to obedience, and more prone to hypocrisy. But a Christian who saves himself or herself in obedience to God wins the respect of those who see his or her life.

Sex outside of marriage also damages the relationship between the persons involved. Trust is the main issue here. If two people do not cherish sex enough to wait for a marriage commitment, how can they trust one another for fidelity? Conversely, a man and woman build trust and respect for one another when they both survive the struggles of self-control — each will have the confidence that the other respects them, and cherishes their intimacy.

Similarly, if a person has not carried sexual purity into marriage, his or her marriage relationship is affected by the past. If a man or woman has previously had sex with someone else, their marital intimacy has already been affected. One or both spouses will have to deal with real or perceived comparisons with “former lovers” and feeling that intimacy was not important enough for the other person to wait for it. But if both have waited for their wedding night, the intimacy has already begun with a solid foundation.

The Joy of Christian Sex

It was barely a century ago when Lady Hillington, on the eve of her daughter’s nuptials, advised the young woman to "lie back and think of England". Today, sex is no longer an unpleasant secret; indeed, it’s not a secret at all. We live in a culture that worships sex.
The church has responded to this attack on family values by manning the battle stations, arguing loudly against gay marriage, abortion, infidelity, and promiscuity. We say "no" so often that many outside the church—and perhaps even some inside—believe that Christians still revere Lady Hillington’s counsel.

Surveys, however, reveal otherwise. A large-scale study of 1,100 American adults by the Family Research Council found that 72% of married people who attended church weekly reported being "very satisfied" with their sex lives, thirty points higher than their unmarried counterparts, and thirteen points higher than other marrieds.

In these days when we are being bombarded with attacks for our stance on sexuality, perhaps it’s time to remind ourselves why sex, in the Christian context, can be so wonderful.

(Suprised? Only if you do not understand and have not experienced true intimacy and oneness of sex the way God intended it!)

Oh gawd, here comes the bible thumpers marching "straight" in form the southern conservative evangelical Protestantism nazi clan!

Well preecher man, you can put that cross down, cuz that voodo ain't workin' on me bra!

Thump away brothah, thump away!

I know dear, I cannot expect you to understand. When humans fornicate like pigs/sluts/animals that is the level of enjoyment. Real romance and life time union they may never enjoy, like the savage in the jungle cannot grasp classical music. I guess you found your level. Maybe some day you will find the right man and if you are not all used up you may exerience a limited amount of what you now do not understand

You’re Teaching My Kid What?

Exposing the Sex-Ed Biz

By Chuck Colson|Published Date: November 10, 2009

Are you squeamish when it comes to talking with your kids about sex? Well, you’d better get to them fast, before they’re exposed to sex educators in school.



This commentary contains material that may not be suitable for children.

Dr. Miriam Grossman was lecturing at a Philadelphia college about sexual health. The students had invited her to talk about something they’d never encountered in all their years of sex education—the dangers of non-marital sex.

[COLOR=#990030][B]Grossman will never forget the girl who told her that everything she’d said about sexually transmitted diseases was correct. “I always used condoms, but I got HPV anyway, and it’s one of the high-risk types,” the girl said. If the infection did not go away, she had a 40 percent chance of developing cervical cancer.[/B][/COLOR]
In her new book, You’re Teaching My Child What?, Grossman says she felt “a wave of sorrow” at the girl’s words—but she was hardly surprised. The girl was yet another victim of a destructive philosophy that has been forced on America’s youth under the guise of “sex education.”

The sex-ed lobby has always claimed it was all about health—teaching kids how to stay safe. But in reality, their goal was not preventing disease, pregnancy, and emotional distress. It’s about indoctrinating them into a radical ideology—sexual freedom. Kids are urged to consult websites that urge them to begin “exploring” their sexuality at a young age, insist that sex at any age is a right, and encourage them to engage in bizarre and dangerous activities.

The findings of science are not allowed to interfere with these radical teachings. If new research proves the dangers of the behaviors they advocate, the so-called “sexperts” simply ignore it.

For instance, sex educators urge kids to avoid pregnancy by engaging in oral sex. But two years ago, cancer specialists found that oral cancers were on the rise among young adults, who used to be at very low risk if they did not smoke or drink.

If kids interact with five or more partners, they increase their risk “a whopping 250 percent.” And yet sex educators, Grossman writes, portray this activity as safe and normal.

What’s the result of this teaching? One in four American girls now has a sexually transmitted disease.

What do the sex educators say about this? They shrug it off, telling kids that “most” people contract an STD in their lifetime—as if such a thing were normal and unavoidable.

This ought to make us really angry. The “comprehensive” sex educators have done enormous harm to our kids. They keep right on teaching kids that life is a sexual-free-for-all with no consequences as long as they use so-called “protection.”

Read Dr. Miriam Grossman’s book, You’re Teaching My Child What? You can get a copy at BreakPoint.org. And then, share it with the teens in your life. They need to know the truth—that while STDs, cervical cancer, and heartbreak may be increasingly common, they are no more “normal” than swine flu.

[B]Once again, science is backing up the truth of the Judeo-Christian worldview. That is, sex ought to occur exclusively within the context of marriage. And anybody who tells us otherwise is sacrificing truth, science, and the health of our children.[/B]




Dr. Miriam Grossman vs. Sex Educators
Dr. Miriam Grossman M.D, a board certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist, recently wrote a book called “You’re Teaching My Kid What?”.

She writes about the fact that sex educators as well as the SIECUS [Sexual Information and Education Council of the US], the organization that sets the standard for sex education, are not presenting the medical facts thus rather than empowering people to make the right decisions, they are giving them a false sense of security with disastrous results.

One example is how sex educators urge kids to avoid pregnancy by engaging in oral sex. But what about the medical facts?

- HPV can be transmitted during oral sex, and can cause cancers of the throat.

- Unlike girls, guys are not routinely screened for HPV. So even if his STD testing came back negative, a guy can unknowingly give you this virus, even if he uses a condom.

- If kids interact with five or more partners, they increase their risk [of oral cancer] “a whopping 250 percent.” And yet sex educators, Grossman writes, portray this activity as safe and normal.

Dr. Miriam’s Goal: Educate the Youth to the Medical Truths of Sexual Freedom
Her aim is simple: “As a physician who has spent hundreds of hours with young people with sexually transmitted infections, I’m on a one-woman mission to expose the falsehood of those claims.” What claim? Planned Parenthood, one of the biggest names in sex education says on their homepage “We deliver comprehensive and medically accurate information that empowers women, men, teens, and families to make informed choices and lead healthy lives.”

“[U][I]I’m a doctor who is tired of seeing a steady stream of young people come through my office, casualties of the worldview that places sexual freedom before sexual health. The only power I have to fight this calamity is the power of the pen. While the nation struggles over issues related to health, and stands on the verge of supporting organizations like SIECUS with millions of tax dollars, does someone with authority have the courage to stand up and put an end to this fiasco?” [/I][/U]– Dr. Miriam Grossman M.D.

Guelph Mercury, May, 8, 2010
Sex education in Ontario: A clash of worldviews

ROYAL HAMEL
A MATTER OF FAITH

When Dalton McGuinty recently announced and then withdrew the new sex-education curriculum for Ontario schools, he started a brouhaha that is not going away anytime soon.

The new system came under heavy fire mostly from religious groups because of its teachings on the “pleasures of masturbation,” “vaginal lubrication,” and “anal intercourse.” Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno noted that, “It pretends to be values neutral, indeed makes a virtue of this, while promulgating what is essentially an alternative moral code as defined by those who wrote the curriculum. Parents instinctively understood this.”
The opposition to the new measures came mostly from conservative Christian groups like Charles McVety and his Canada Family Action Coalition. But Catholics, too, joined the fight by making it known they were not going to accept the new curriculum.

Many secular commentators seem totally mystified by the firestorm of opposition from conservative Christians. It appears they regard their liberal view on sexuality as the new accepted orthodoxy, and all other views should have no traction in the public arena.

The issue in a nutshell is a clashing of worldviews. Secularists, by and large, view sexual expression as akin to relieving an urge or an itch. They might not put it this way, but sex to them is kind of like belching, blowing your nose, or even passing gas. It’s just something the body has to do and it’s not terribly significant, either in the short- or long-range scheme of things. So in the end who you sleep with, or how you do the “sleeping,” is of no importance. I once heard Larry King say on radio, for example, that it didn’t matter a whit to him how people came to orgasm.

But in the historic Christian worldview, the expression of sexuality is seen as something different. Far from a humdrum bodily manifestation, sexual expression is seen as a gift from God that effects propagation, promotes bonding between the couple and gives appropriate pleasure. For some 2,000 years Christians have believed that sex was intended only to be celebrated in lawfully constituted marriage between one man and one woman. (While it’s true that some forms of liberal Christianity have caved in and made peace with the culture, they have to admit their newfound sexual norms are a recent novelty when compared to historic Christianity.) Indeed, for Christians, the way in which they express their sexuality is vitally connected to their relationship with God, for the Bible is very clear that God’s good gift is to be expressed only within certain guidelines.

So why are Christians up in arms at McGuinty’s new sex education curriculum? Many Christians see the state foisting their secular worldview of sexuality onto vulnerable children, and corrupting them in the process. Christians are simply insisting that if the public school is going to continue to serve all the public, it must maintain an attitude of neutrality as opposed to pushing a particular ideology. It’s one thing to teach the basics on male/female anatomy, hygiene and personal development. But it’s quite another to impose the values of sexual libertinism upon children whose parents hold to a different worldview. In a democracy, parents should always have the primary right of teaching values to their children, and that right should never be undermined in the public schools.

I applaud the Catholic Church for holding to its rights and resisting this incursion on their religious freedom. A Catholic acquaintance of mine asks: Why would Catholic children be forced to learn something that is against their beliefs in Catholic schools?

Why, indeed. And I raise the question for Evangelicals, for Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus and whoever else has concerns on this issue. Why should we stand by while our children are force-fed a secular, mechanistic, trivial view of sexuality that may well corrupt them for life?

Why, indeed. Far better that we, too, resist the incursions of a provincial system that is hostile to our value systems. Far better that we oppose a measure that is tantamount to religious discrimination now, while we can.

And if McGuinty dares to bring this back—far better that we vote him out of office at the first opportunity. We are not obliged to meekly sacrifice our children to statist governments that pander to the sexual libertinism running amok in our times. For when worldviews collide, the victor wins the prize of the future generation—and that includes our children.

You have my agreement on both postings preacher man!