Slashdot Mirror
Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex
zyl0x writes "The Times has an interesting article online on the discovery of a 100-million-year-old micro-organism which has survived its entire lifespan without sex." From the article "A tiny creature that has not had sex for 100 million years has overturned the theory that animals need to mate to create variety. Analysis of the jaw shapes of bdelloid rotifers, combined with genetic data, revealed that the animals have diversified under pressure of natural selection. Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
I see they finally studied the mating habits of the married American male...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
But - 100 million years without sex. That's gotta suck... or NOT!
Presumably, it's not your original sense of humor that you rely on in these matters.
At this point it's more of an in-joke than an actual lamenting of our lonely state. There's a canonical geek out there we all think of fondly, and perhaps we even were that guy at some point, even if we've grown out of it now. Slashdot is much more diversified than it used to be.
You must be REALLY new here...
This discovery doesn't refute anything. Sex has never been a requirement for diversification. That's just silly. Single celled organisms reproduce clonally, and there are millions of species. (they do utilize gene transfer, but that isn't the same as sexual reproduction)
Inheritable differences and selection are sufficient. Mutation is a fine source of inheritable differences. Sex allows greater rates of diversity and retention in the population of undesirable traits that are not dominant for longer, allowing them time to mutate into something useful or show up when environmental factors make them useful. Sexual reproduction is far and away the most common mode in multicellular organisms, probably because it helps the species be resilient to environmental changes. But it isn't required.
Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
I have never even heard the idea (during a degree in genetics) that sex is necessary for diversification into species. Bacteria do not have sex (although they can share DNA through other means, such as plasmids) and yet that are incrediably diverse and continue to evolve rapidly (e.g. antibiotic resistance). Therefore, if sex were necessary for speciation we would only have one species of bacteria.
The term "evolutionary species" is also strange. All "species" are by definition "evolutionary", since that is the process by which individual species arise.
Speak for your fucking self.
So how long before the Cristian Right tries to use this study as "proof" that evolution is just a hoax and has been "proven wrong" by science. Or do they ever even bother giving actual sources for their claims anymore?
Indeed. The truly skilled do not boast...it's just a normal thing. It's the guy who "gets lucky" once in a while (or not at all) who feels the need to boast about it.
The law shouldn't worry about "when life begins". As long as it's inside a woman's body, the woman should be able to do whatever she wants to it.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Most married people of both parties are getting no sex at all. Everyone knows that. Your statistic just shows that all those years of Bible-thumping have brainwashed the Republicans into being satisfied with no sex. After all, sex is an abomination!
You do A INTERSECT B for every major party and the biggest resultant set gets your vote. Notice the word "major", because people - smart people - realise that the world is not an ideal enough place to vote for someone who will clearly not win, or to simply not vote at all. You cannot pretend to understand all the people who voted Republican, monsieur I-know-how-your-mind-works AC. [Feels joke coming].
On the other hand you are partly correct in that the political right-left thingie is rather consistent, globally even. There seems to be a politically evolved benefit to "clumping" ideals/agendas based on certain outlooks.
I am pretty sure they are not the only organisms that reproduce asexually and still mutate. What about viruses, bacteria etc?
Original article states: "Bdelloids (the "b" is silent) reproduce through parthenogenesis, which generates offspring with essentially the same genome as their mother from unfertilized eggs. Biologists have yet to find males, hermaphrodites, or any trace of meiosis--the process that creates sex cells--challenging the long-held assumption that evolutionary success requires genetic exchange."
So, essentially as I understand, offsprings have the same genes as parent. Still, natural selection works across millions and millions of years, plenty of spacetime for genes shuffling due to radiation and whatnot, for one thing.
a) He's a homosexual, and you're implying that for some reason he just hasn't thought of getting a boyfriend.
b) He's not, and you're posting because you have to tell everyone that you're gay, because it's so controversial and we're so interested.
While I'm posting, what is the point in gaybuntu.com ? What do gay people get out of gaybuntu.com that they don't get out of ubuntuforums.org, or FreeNode?
Are gay people discriminated against in these sites? No. Can people even distinguish between sexualities online (when people aren't broadcasting their sexuality to everyone)? No.
Taken from Is Gaybuntu really necessary?: No, it doesn't. You're not brave, no-one cares, get over it. By building separating people into communities instead of just being who you are in any community, aren't you effectively reversing the work that brave homosexuals did decades ago?
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
on when life begins. It begins at birth, by extremely well established common law. You get to vote when you are 18 years old, that is, 18 years after your birthday, you get to legally drink alcohol 21 years after your birthday, etc. Even among the "right-to-lifers," I've never met one who celebrated "conception day."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
How do you even clearly define a species if it doesn't have sex?
This is an excellent question, and strongly suggests that if we view evolution from a mathematical perspective that there are strong attractors in the environment that maintain species boundaries. Otherwise, we would expect a lot more diversity amongst asexual species, as every individual would spawn a whole bunch of imperfect copies that would all do about equally well.
It may be that ecological competition is the key to maintaining the morphological integrity of asexual species. That is, rather than competing for mates, each member of an asexual species is competing with all other organisms in their environment for ecological resources--fundamentally, food. If this competition is strong, each generation will be culled of all but the best competitors. This is quite different from sexual species, where competition for mates tends to dominate the selection process, although that is obviously not independent of the ability to find food, shelter, etc. But individuals of all other species in the environment will be direct competitors for individuals of an asexual species, which is much less the case for sexual species, who are primarily competing with other members of their own kind for mates.
There are people who challenge the general validity of the "biological species concept", pointing out that in plants, for example, hybrids are extremely common, making species-classification very difficult. But the fact that we can readily talk about asexual species suggests that the evolutionary landscape has some rather deep, narrow minima where individuals thrive, surrounded by high rocky plateaus that are practically inaccessible.
As to the original poster's question: science journalists are trained in journalism school to lie and make stuff up. No science journalist is allowed to publish without first swearing a solemn oath to never tell the truth about any discovery. Science journalists all hate science. They understand neither the content of any field nor any aspect of the scientific process, and don't think anyone else should either.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
You gotta be kidding me! haha
You think masturbation will make you a better lover you're in for a surprise when you lose your virginity.
"Listen baby, I may be a virgin but I've been practicing for 15 years on my own! Hey what are you doi-- oh wait dont touchit dont touchit! Ohh..oh....I guess the knowledge of how to get myself off wasnt as important as I'd previously hoped"
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.