You should continue. The article discuss the relation between the nucleus ADN, the mitochondrial ADN and sex. I'm still not convinced about the conclusions, but it's an interesting theory.

I really don't like the title, it looks like a confusing linkbait. Following the unofficial extended guidelines, I suggest the subtitle that is much better: "Did sexual reproduction evolve to keep up with mitochondrial mutation? "

Perhaps you should continue reading the article to find out.

Welcome to the internet, where people only read half the story and make up opinions :P

Off topic.I am student and in last year I felt this drawback.I spent almost all of my day reading internet (scientific material, watching courses).But recently I can feel internet makes person a shallow, without deep understanding about topics.(I don't know how to express clearly). I recently completely switched from internet to reading exclusively book/papers.

Except for HN I suppose ;)

Exactly, because there are huge differences between people in HN and other people on the internet. most (not all) stuff in HN is quite good and the links to books/papers are my favorite ones.

The article is full of gross approximations and falsehoods. The author later states things like

That link lies in the fact that mitochondria are not just cellular batteries. Billions of years ago they were actually independent organisms. They are an example of how the human body is not entirely “human.”

and (quoting someone else):

“Until recently, science has basically ignored the fact that we are all walking around with two genomes in every cell,” Dowling says, “that of our own nuclear genome, and that of the mitochondria.”

Both the statements in quotes are true.

They are both unfalsifiable and bizzare.

How are you reading the second statement? Mitochondria have their own DNA separate from the DNA in the nucleus of human cells.

"Recently" in the first sentence is problematic. It hasn't been true for at least twenty years.