This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2006. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Evolution of sex (Note that this can be reversed if someone is willing to work on the article.).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Evolution of sexual reproduction#Promotion_of_genetic_variation]] The anchor (#Promotion_of_genetic_variation) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article has a strong feeling of being written from an anti-evolutionist viewpoint: Googling to try to find sources keeps on finding anti-evolutionist/creationist websites containing similar wording and quotes. -- The Anome 12:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality or partiality

To present the truth about different researches does it mean that we have to take side of the evolutionists or creationists? I think that both viewpoints are quite well presented in the article despite of specific wording.

No, it means that we have to fairly present the positions of both sides, see NPOV. My problem was that this seemed to have a slant towards the anti-evolutionist position. Use of a wider set of sources from both sides of the debate would probably be useful. -- The Anome 07:25, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Trouble in any case

Because the controversy is there that means any of the two type of opinions you give in the end you will be in trouble. The whole thing will look a partial presentation. Maybe than, the best is to say that there is a need for further investigation to come to the real understanding.

Actually there is a say when there is a controversy the truth is not known. Sorry for my English.

From what I know, I think that the "Tangled Bank" theory is kind of in the same catagory as the "Vicar of Bray" theory in that they are both important in recognizing the revisions of theories concerning evolutionary genetics and sex but has an inherent problem that later led to a better theory. I think in this case it is the "Red Queen" Theory. I think this article should be kept since the problems that are discussed in the criticism are "real" problems that led to better theories. All in all I think it is a good summary that isn't creationist/anit-evolutionist if you consider that it led way for other theories. Maybe something about that fact would make the article seem less biased. Also, if you look at the other wikipedia summaries for the Red Queen Theory/Effect and the "Vicar of Bray" theory they worded similarly. Since this is about the specific theory, I don't think that the creation story is relevant even as another position because the "Tangled Bank" theory doesn't deal with the creation of humanity but rather the reason why there are sexual species. It's kind of like putting the "Tangled Bank" theory on the same wikipedia entry talking about "Adam and Eve" so that the page doesn't seem biased. If some note about creationism seems necessary, then maybe adding a link to "Creation" story entry in Wikipedia under external links maybe viable.

A short blurb

Here's some text i've lumped together, no proofreading =) ..feel free to pick it apart for use in the article. --Mike Spenard 19:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 1971 John Maynard Smith proposed that sex was a way for creatures, that want to migrate into a new habitat to combine their characteristics. Williams added that such ecological situations are like a genetic lottery. It therefor does not matter one bit how many young of average age and quality one has. What counts is having a handful of exceptional progeny. With asexual organisms, all will be average. When playing the lottery it is obviously best to have lots of different tickets, not tickets of all the same number. Michael Ghiselin added an economic perspective to the idea by stating "In a saturated economy it pays to diversify". The fact that your parents thrived with a character enough to produce progeny means it would most likely pay for the progeny to differ, since the habitat may be full of your relatives all doing the same thing. This idea has come to be known as the tangled bank theory. (Bell 1982; Ghiselin 1974) In general, models show that this sort of a lottery or 'tangled bank' model would only work if the payoff was very large. The theory has yet to gain full support because of this limitation. Adoption of the theory was further complicated by the lack of evidence found in nature to support it. It predicted that asexual species should be found saturated habitats and sexual in unsaturated ones, and the evidence showed the opposite. The tangled bank theory also breaks down in argument; if it isn't broken, then why does sex need to fix it? Tangled bank theory also predicts a greater interest in those species with many small offspring that then compete with each other in inter and extra-species conflicts. The empirical evidence shows otherwise. The giant sequoia, the largest plant on earth, have seeds of a most extreme difference in ratio to that of its parent. The largest mammal, the blue whale have young that may each way several tons. Both are sexual animals and there appears to be little evidence for correlation between sex, fecundity and small offspring. Mathematically modeled the tangled bank theory only works if there is high enough payment for being 'odd'. (Williams and Mitton 1973; Bell 1982; Ridley 1993) Williams was first to point out a grandiose assumption still lied at the heart of most popular evolutionary thought. That evolution is good for a species, an so a species will strive to go faster. Yet, it is stasis, not change that is the hallmark of evolution. Species strive for a mutational rate of zero. Evolution depends on the fact that it fails. (Ridley 1993; Williams 1975)