TP: More interesting stuff. This reminded me of how difficult it is to explain the advent of sex from a pure RM+NS point of view.

How about simply explaining erectile function using an incremental, selection approach? What were the precursors to that system?

I am going out on a limb because I haven't read the latest party line on this. But isn't sex a built-in evolutionary function making DMC1 an "evolutionary gene" by definition?

There are many different hypotheses attempting to explain why sex exists. If we could nail down that question, why might have better luck then explaining the origin of sex (something that still remains a mystery). But there is a little critter known as the bdelloid rotifer that is making the problem even more troublesome.

I'm not sure what I think about you marking your science stuff with "crank alert!". Although I suspect the reason you do it is similar to why I sometimes call myself "Quantum Quack".

Anyway, let's do science!

More interesting stuff. This reminded me of how difficult it is to explain the advent of sex from a pure RM+NS point of view.

Sex is altruistic. It does nothing for an individual set of genes; its benefit comes from sacrificing the individual for the betterment of others. What was selected and maintained was the flexibility to intentionally corrupt the purity of a given set of genes.

I am going out on a limb because I haven't read the latest party line on this. But isn't sex a built-in evolutionary function making DMC1 an "evolutionary gene" by definition?