Do any prokaryotes reproduce sexually?
550765
No, not sexually per se-but bacteria do exchange DNA, and use a long tube to do it...a suspiciously phallic thing.  It is called the "F pilus" (no, I'm serious here), and the process of exchange is called "conjugation".  But, it isnt reproduction, it's only DNA exchange.
489273
to be quite honest in about 99% of the species on this panet they only have sex to reproduce. only humans and a few other species have sex for pleasure. Humans especially have sex for pleasure even when reproducing is the last thing on their minds. I love it - and i'm sure there are millions around this world who do two - as long as both are consenting to this "Its Great..!"
779572
Prokaryotes ie; bacteria
841584
Just to add to Acraz's answer, Plants and fungi are also made up of eukaryotic cells. \nOnly bacteria are prokaryotic.
757352
Certainly not.  There are tons of unicellular organisms like amoeba and other protozoa that are quite nicely alive, but don't have any form of sexual reproduction, so don't come from an egg.
135214
survival of the species ,to procreate
383382
Eukaryotic cell division is called mitosis while prokaryotic is known as binary fission (cell divides in half - forming two daughter cells which are genetically identical)\nE- Sex cells in diploid(two copies of chromosome) therefore organisms are produced through meiosis \nP- Organisms are haploid (one single copy of chromosome), No meiosis needed
809779
1. b, because even if the father was heterzygous, there would still be a 3:1 ratio of brown eyed offspring\n2.d, autotrophs are organisms that produce their own food and do not need to  get nutrients from other sources\n3. True, I believe that fertilization occurs in all sexuallly reproducing species, but there are some organisms that reproduce asexually, but you may not be talking about those.\n4. False, There are asexual organisms that are eukaryotic
902693
The answer is an unequivocal "NO"!  For starters, lets look at the rationale against such a proposition.  \n\nEvolutionarily speaking, sexual reproduction is important in that it has the advantage over asexual reproduction of mixing genetic combinations available to the offspring.  In the human species, this sexual reproduction requires both a male and a female.  What accompanies these facts is that the female is genetically prepared to carry a child once pregnant.  Such features which are vital to this are a uterus, the hormones estrogen and progesterone which prepare the uterus for implantation, ovaries to supply eggs, and a vaginal canal for birthing.  All of these features are primary sex characteristics that can only develop in the ABSENCE of a "Y" chromosome.  Evolutionarily, then, it is to the advantage of the species that phenotypic distinctions between males and females exist, and these physical differences preclude the possibility of the male of the species to be capable of pregnancy.  On this logic alone, men can not become pregnant.  But there is more evidence.\n\nSecondly, think about this:  humans and our ancestors have had millions of years to develop such features, if it were in fact possible, but it has NOT happened.  Why not?  Because there is no SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE for the human species of men acquiring these features and abilities. \n\nThird, there ARE cases of individuals that receive extra SEX chromosomes (look up Klinefelters and Turner' syndrome, for example) where individuals are born with XXY and XYY.  XXY individuals, as a rule, are infertile and can not produce children.  XYY individuals are fertile but are phenotypically male and do not develop uteruses and other features necessary to become impregnated.  So even in the cases of chromosal conditions that might perhaps favor male pregnancy, we do not observe males with the ability to be so.\n\nSo, IF a male had eggs they could not be fertilized because there is no way that the design of a male can receive semen into the genetalia.  But even if this were possible, there would be no place for the fertilized eggs to implant.  And if even they could implant, they couldnt grow because estrogen and progesterone are not present in high enough quantities in males to prepare the uterus (high levels of these hormones would have produced a female during development of the fetus).  This all boils down to the simple and obvious reality that males can not become pregnant.\n\nSomeone might perhaps argue, well it would be possible if certain mutations occurred.  This also is false.  Why?  Because evolution is a process that moves down a one-way street.  While such capability is present in lower organisms, higher animals are too specialized to be capable of such a transformation.  Even if all the proper sets of supposed mutations had amassed in one organism, that organism would either (one) not survive and be spontaneously aborted in utero, or (two) be born as an infertile individual.  Again, only lower animals with less well specialized sexual reproductive organs are capable of self-fertilization and "pregnancy" (flowering plants, for example, are capable of this).\n\nFinally, a genotypic male could undergo gender reassignment and become female, but a uterus and other "equipment" would have to be transplanted and various hormones taken.  I imagine, in theory, that this individual would be capable of becoming pregnant but in this scenario "he" is no longer "male".  \n\nGood question, but the answer is NO!
779930
Sexual reproduction in plants is described in Wikipedia as;\n\nIn flowering plants, a stamen produces gametes called pollen grains, which attach to a pistil, in which the female gametes (ovules) are located. Here, the female gamete is fertilized and develops into a seed. The ovary, which produced the gamete then grows into a fruit, which surrounds the seed(s). Plants may either self-pollinate or cross-pollinate.\n\nYou can also find out more here \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_sexuality
96539
The previous answer is incorrect.  It will produce a male offspring if it fertilizes an egg.  Males have a Y chromosone, females have x chromosones.
804575
Most prokaryotes are bacteria, and the two terms are often treated as synonyms. Unicellular is another term for them.
51350
I was thiniking about your question, and in a biological sense yes.  But it all really depends on how you perceive love, not whether it's chemical response.    "Love" in the animal kingdom is a physical reaction to furthering the species.  But human beings are way more complex than animals.  Yes marriage was intended for procreation, but how do you get to that stage?  Love is what drives people to get married.  This question is a really good question, but there are so many possible answers.  Scientists will say it is.  Diehard romantics will say it's not.  I personally think it just depends on how you see it.
403561
yes penguins have sex! no they dont suck it, there feet are made for the ice so no, an yes all animals have sex organs!\ngo to the site below! to see them in action!
444425
Not yet, but scientists are working on it. Scientists have successfully grown eggs out of sperm cells in fish (see article). One day it will be possible for gays and lesbians to have biological children.\n\nhttp://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060206_fish_story.html
193970
>Reproduction occurs both sexually and by asexual budding. Sexual reproduction is by means of eggs and sperm, which are produced in the mesentaries and shed into the water. Fertilization results in a free-swimming larva, which attaches to a surface and secretes a skeleton, becoming (in colonial forms) the parent of a new colony.
769432
Eukaryotic...Prokaryotic are bacteria cells...Hope it helps!