Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex

Posted by samzenpus on from the they-must-play-dungeons-and-dragons-too dept.

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".

3 of 343 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Welcome to slashdot by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Am I the only slashdotter who gets laid on a regular basis? Feels like it sometimes.

    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.

  2. Silly reporter, sex is not required by CCW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Horribly misreported by warm+sushi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.