Slashdot Mirror


Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone

mikesd81 writes "The Washington Post has an article about a team of American and Irish researchers that have discovered that some female sharks can reproduce without having sex, the first time that scientists have found the unusual capacity in such an ancient vertebrate species. Their report concludes that sharks can reproduce asexually through the process known as parthenogenesis (the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male). Scientists started investigating after a female hammerhead shark was mysteriously born at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in a tank that housed 3 female sharks. It was originally thought one had stored sperm from a male shark before fertilizing an egg. However, baby shark's genetic makeup perfectly matched one of the females in the tank, with no sign of a male parent."

293 comments

  1. Sigh. by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone

    If male sharks had ST:TNG on DVD they'd be indistinguisable from human male geeks.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, at least this research explains how there came to be so many lawyers in the world.

    2. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great, just what we need... a bunch of Jesuses floating around.

    3. Re:Sigh. by belmolis · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I guess a female shark without a male is like a woman without a bicycle, or something like that.

    4. Re:Sigh. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Kind of a Soviet Russian Jesus, where you die for the shark.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  2. Necessary improvement by 6Yankee · · Score: 5, Funny

    They were forced to evolve this ability after all the males were killed in frickin' laser accidents during mating attempts.

    1. Re:Necessary improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists started investigating after a female hammerhead shark was mysteriously born at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in a tank that housed 3 female sharks.

      Cool pajama party, huh?

    2. Re:Necessary improvement by sherms · · Score: 5, Funny

      So does this mean attorneys will be able to reproduce without sex soon?

    3. Re:Necessary improvement by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean giving birth to frivolous lawsuits isn't enough?

    4. Re:Necessary improvement by iamacat · · Score: 4, Funny

      You missed two thousand years of history. Jesus was a lawyer's son with XX-male genotype. He was famous for writing laws that everyone can interpret as they wish.

    5. Re:Necessary improvement by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      So does this mean attorneys will be able to reproduce without sex soon?

      Waddya talking about? They've always done it this way, it's called a Law Degree. Granted, sometimes sex is involved, but it's not a requirement.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    6. Re:Necessary improvement by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 0

      Man, let's hope so, I'm sick of getting fucked by them.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    7. Re:Necessary improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew something was odd with this story. It's not tagged "lasers"!

    8. Re:Necessary improvement by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      So does this mean attorneys will be able to reproduce without sex soon?

      Yes, but lawyers eat their young.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    9. Re:Necessary improvement by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      Laser tag - what fun!

    10. Re:Necessary improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad moderation here...

      I am a Christian and I still think this is funny.

      (Even if what Jesus said isn't as interpretable as the poster seems to think...)

    11. Re:Necessary improvement by stonedcat · · Score: 3, Funny

      So..... Mary was a female shark?

      --
      You can't take the sky from me.
  3. All the geeks ... by eck011219 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... at splashdot.org were just ruled obsolete. Slashdotters, beware ... we're next!

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:All the geeks ... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as people don't want to have sex for other reasons than reproduction. *looks in the mirror* ...and maybe a few other reasons too.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:All the geeks ... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      If Slashdotters don't figure out a way to reproduce alone, they'll be worse than obsolete, they'll be extinct. We sure as hell won't find anyone else who'll reproduce with us.

    3. Re:All the geeks ... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Funny

      It as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened. The entire splashdot community dissapeared.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  4. asexual reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That just takes the fun out of it...

    1. Re:asexual reproduction by sqrt(2) · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Hey, it's been working for me for 20 years :P

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:asexual reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you have been reproducing on your own? Or just jacking off?

    3. Re:asexual reproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well doesn't that beat all.

  5. Obligatory by yootje · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new female shark overlords. Or should I say hermaphrodite sharks?

    1. Re:Obligatory by Goobermunch · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, you shouldn't. Hermaphrodism is the presence of sex organs for both genders. These sharks are all female. They just happen to be able to parthenogenically reproduce.

      --AC

    2. Re:Obligatory by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one welcome our immaculately conceived virgin-born shark messiah overlords

    3. Re:Obligatory by Cygfrydd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, 'immaculately conceived', in Catholic dogma, refers to the idea that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. 'Virgin birth' is what you're looking for. But it ruins so many jokes... immaculate contraption, etc.

      @yg

    4. Re:Obligatory by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 5, Funny

      I for one welcome our immaculately conceived virgin-born shark messiah overladies

    5. Re:Obligatory by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      That was such a slashdot thing to say... lol

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    6. Re:Obligatory by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Mary was impregnated without Original Sin. You're getting active and passive voice mixed up and in the process saying that Mary was the messiah. The Lord shall striketh thee! Or something.

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:Obligatory by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      No, he got it right. Immaculate conception

    8. Re:Obligatory by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0

      Actually, parthinogensis does occur in human beings, albeit very rarely. This fact could actually be a rational, scientific explanation for Mary's 'immaculate conception', if indeed an historical Mary and an historical Jesus ever existed.

    9. Re:Obligatory by MrNaz · · Score: 3, Funny

      No he did not. He got it wrong, and so did Wikipedia. When an object or idea is "conceived" it is called into existence. A person is conceived by the meeting of a sperm and an ovum.

      The phrase "the conception of Mary" refers to the event that calls Mary into existence, that is the conception of Mary by her mother and father. It should say "the conception by Mary of Jesus", although that would have all kinds of other implications as, according to the belief, it was God who conceived Jesus, not actually Mary. To be correct syntactically and to be true to the story, I'd say "The miraculous conception of Jesus within Mary".

      This is a very commonly misused active tense for the verb conception, but it becomes clear when you think of it from the point of view that "the conception of a person" refers to the point at which that person was called into existence.

      --
      I hate printers.
    10. Re:Obligatory by stedo · · Score: 1

      No, he really did get it right, as did Wikipedia. He was talking about the conception of Mary by her mother and father

    11. Re:Obligatory by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      well , i don't know .
      who are the mother and father of Mary ?

    12. Re:Obligatory by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thank you for the English lesson, but in Catholic dogma the "Immaculate Conception" refers to the conception of Mary without original sin. This is quite commonly confused by many with the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus. Catholic dogma views Mary's conception as a miraculous event all by its self and necessary in preparation for the later miraculous birth of Jesus.

      Hopefully, you will be more likely to believe that the people at catholic.com were able to get it right.

    13. Re:Obligatory by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Funny

      the sharks were conceived without sex-sin repent, all you fornicating sharks having babies out of wedlock!

    14. Re:Obligatory by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      despite claims in primitive societies, and societies where sexual intercourse outside of marriage is forbidden, there is no authoritative scientific source that claims such a thing is possible in humans. The offspring would have to be female, and I don't think the idea of a transvestite Jesus will fly in most Christian circles.

    15. Re:Obligatory by Gobiner · · Score: 1

      You must be Catholic.

    16. Re:Obligatory by koreaman · · Score: 1

      I am intrigued by your incorrect use of the article "an" and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      We're not speaking French, we pronounce h's, get over yourself.

  6. Note to self... by Steve--Balllmer · · Score: 5, Funny

    don't clone dinosaurs using shark DNA.

  7. Womyn rejoice! by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, proof that Mother Nature never intended males to exist at all.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Womyn rejoice! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Finally, proof that Mother Nature never intended males to exist at all."

      Sure you might think that, but, without us...who'd mow the lawn, or kill the big scary spider?

      :-)

      On the other hand...the only reason we talk to ya'll...is because you have tits.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Womyn rejoice! by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I realize that was intended as a joke, and I am not an evolutionary biologist, but wouldn't this type of reproduction completely eliminate the possibility for evolution ?

      I don't mean to imply that this is evidence contradicting the occurrence of evolution, just that if animals were to reproduce asexually, and thus essentially be clones of their parent, then evolution is not possible for that particular species ?

      So what are the benefits ?

    3. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

      Finally, proof that Mother Nature never intended males to exist at all.

      Don't get too excited, women are still going to need us to get the lids off of jars and reverse the car out of the driveway.

    4. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > and thus essentially be clones of their parent

      Except for random mutations...
      Plenty of life reproduces asexually. Evolution isn't limited to sexually reproducing species.

    5. Re:Womyn rejoice! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 0

      Ladyboys prove you wrong. It's not the tits we're after, it's the vag.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Male inventions solely to justify their own existence. Like computers.

    7. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Rycross · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it wouldn't eliminate it. Its more accurate to say it would slow evolution. After all you'll still get mutations, and you'll still get selection from the environment. It just lowers the diversity and a big selection pressure (getting chosen as a mate). There was a time when asexual reproduction was the norm (bacteria, single-celled life forms), and you can see for yourself the result of that.

    8. Re:Womyn rejoice! by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The benefit is that they can reproduce without a mate, not that they have to. Obviously to have diversity in the species, mating is necessary, but it's better to have offspring with no diversity rather than no offspring at all. This type of reproduction is good as a last resort, not as the norm.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Womyn rejoice! by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > wouldn't this type of reproduction completely eliminate the possibility for evolution ?

      Not completely. Clearly the ability to reproduce sexually EVOLVED from organisms that existed before sexual reproduction. But correct in that asexual reproduction can only evolve through extremely slow random mutations. Sexual reproduction allows a very fast way to 'try all the variations' of a gene pool and thus find local optimums for existing conditions.

      I imagine that sexual reproduction, for example, allows a species to take a few light sensitive cells and evolve them into a well placed bulb. However that first jump from not light sensitive at all to light sensitive seems like it had to be a random mutation that repurposed some of the processes behind photosynthesis into light-detection.

      There have been hints that some organisms can do some "splicing" of genes encountered in the wild, for example some plants can somehow incorporate fragments of DNA from completely unrelated plants that happen to be nearby. If those genes included Monsanto patented genes the mutation incredibly includes a team of lawyers attached to the insertion site.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    10. Re:Womyn rejoice! by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Clearly the ability to reproduce sexually EVOLVED from organisms that existed before sexual reproduction. But correct in that asexual reproduction can only evolve through extremely slow random mutations.


      Or the insertion of DNA from, e.g., viruses.
    11. Re:Womyn rejoice! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      There was a science fiction story where a spaceship jumped into the future after going around the sun to find an Earth where only the women survived and the all-male crew became a scientific curiousity. Really, if it wasn't for the spermies providing the other half of the genetic diveristy, women don't need men that much for anything.

    12. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      This is a scary topic to go down.

    13. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?" by James Tiptree, Jr. She wrote some genius-y short SF stories.

    14. Re:Womyn rejoice! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I remember it, it ended badly too - of course, in these stories, the men are always shown to be power-crazed sex maniacs who can't sit still without fighting something over someone. you never read sci-fi stories where an all-women crew spend all the time bitching, backstabbing and gossipping, but I suppose all these stories are written from an insecure male perspective.

      C.J. Cherryh did write a story about male/female role reversal though - the Chanur series. Basically took the idea of 'lions in space' where the females do all the work and the males are just brutes not good for anything other than fighting and f*cking. She shows a different side to the male/female stereotypes in the end too.

    15. Re:Womyn rejoice! by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Also "Alph", by Poul Anderson (I think). Full length book. In it, women simply take over and eliminate men. A few hundred years pass of rewriting history so that men never existed, and then they discover a frozen dead guy and recover his wigglies and produce a boy. The boy is a scientific curiousity, etc, etc.

      All I remember after that is the moral: it would be bad to get rid of men because women still want the high hard one.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    16. Re:Womyn rejoice! by clydemaxwell · · Score: 1

      While you are technically correct in that sexual reproduction is only one of a few methods for promoting genetic variability (genetic drift), most species-differentiating evolution has been spurred by the presence of sexually reproducing populations. Thus, when we speak of evolution, we almost invariably refer to sexually transferred evolution. In this vein, parent poster was correct (genetically). The only remaining viable choice for evolution of the species in this case is natural selection.

      --
      Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
      no hidden comments and I only mod UP
    17. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't necessarily slow evolution, but it may speed it up. Species exist in populations that are distributed throughout a landscape and natural selection acts directly on a gene's phenotype. Therefore, if a sub-population of a species happens to have greater fitness due to a trait that is best maintained by asexual reproduction, it is possible that that sub-population may quickly diverge from the greater population.

    18. Re:Womyn rejoice! by LouisZepher · · Score: 0

      The phrase "go down" should never be used in reply when someone refers to shims...

    19. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says you...

    20. Re:Womyn rejoice! by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the Volvo "Your Concept Car (YCC)". Designed by women, for women.

      "The car includes features not typically found in man-made cars. Among the dozens of unique items: no hood; no gas cap; easy-clean paint; numerous exchangeable seat covers of various colors and materials (linen, leather, felt, etc.); compartments for handbags; gull-wing doors that make it easier to load and unload larger items and children; computerized assistance for parallel parking; and improved sight lines. Owners carrying large items can set the doors to open automatically when they reach the doors."

      So apparently, even women designers think other women are incompetent at caring for their cars (no hood), and care more for color coordination.

      I don't need to be sexist - "professional" women do it for me.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    21. Re:Womyn rejoice! by zrk · · Score: 1

      You forgot the split headrests, so womyn with ponytails would be more comfortable. Speaking as a member of the IT community, I feel the need to point out that that option isn't necessarily a female-only thing.

    22. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      [SF stories depict men] ... who can't sit still without fighting something over someone. you never read sci-fi stories where an all-women crew spend all the time bitching, backstabbing and gossipping, but I suppose all these stories are written from an insecure male perspective.

        Actually, that's fairly realistic. An experiment run several years back by military researchers studying the feasibility of placing women in combat roles* showed something a little surprising.
        During ordinary (relaxed) situations, men got along very well while women tended towards a bit infighting and societal jockeying for position. However, when placed into a stressful situation, the male camaraderie came apart (which is well known, most of the military's training is geared specifically to try to override this problem) but the female group actually came together better as a unit the more stress they were placed under.
        It also showed women have better stamina, survive extreme environments better, and have a much higher pain threshold. Not that any of this is new, the whole mythological archetype of the amazon is well-grounded in real-world examples, and the vikings, for example, were quite happy to have women fighting alongside them -- called "shield-maidens", they were seen as rare but valuable on the battlefield.

        * Of course, while the study found the female unit would perform admirably, political realities still hinder the acceptance of female combat units.

    23. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Hmm... well, Parrotfish and Wrasses (wiki lacks much useful info on wrasses), think enough of males that one of the females in a harem converts to male if the dominant male disappears. I guess Mother Nature wants males to run harems of women, as well (not sure how you women-folk are gonna pull off the transformation thing, but I'm sure you'll figure it out).

    24. Re:Womyn rejoice! by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      Some cases yes: NBA
      Some cases no: PGA

      I kid, I kid

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    25. Re:Womyn rejoice! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      This type (cloning) yes, but female to female sex no. The Y chromosome carries no evolutionary function at all so we would be better of by only mixing X chromosomes I guess.

      The Y chromosome are probably doomed in the end anyway.

      I guess evolutionary mixing of DNA owns cloning any day thought, aslong as you have a partner atleast.

    26. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Basically, if you can't combine your genes with someone else's, using your own is the next best thing. Think about it, evolutionarily (is that a word) the best tactic seems to be to mix your genes with others. However, if that is not an option, what is left for you to pass on your genes?

    27. Re:Womyn rejoice! by sheepweevil · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I am far from an expert on this subject. The simplest creatures, bacteria, reproduce largely by binary fission (asexual reproduction), yet they still evolve. The way this is possible is by random genetic mutations. Most mutations cause the cell to die immediately, but a precious few give an advantage, and are thus retained. I believe things such as radiation can cause genetic mutations. As to the advantage? What the basic drive is for all life, to make more of itself.

    28. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you die, feminist woman.

    29. Re:Womyn rejoice! by HeadlessNotAHorseman · · Score: 1

      Apart from the possibility of some minor mutations, the child would be an exact clone of the parent. Whilst this method of reproduction severely limits evolution in the short term, it is not completely useless. A shark has a finite lifetime, and if she is not able to find a male within that time, she will die and her genes will never be passed on. However, if she is able to clone herself, there is a chance that her daughter will find a male, thus allowing the genes to be passed on via sexual reproduction.

      --
      I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
    30. Re:Womyn rejoice! by m0rm3gil · · Score: 1

      Continuation of the species?

    31. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally proof that females are blood thirsty monsters that will consume every one who gets in the way!!!

    32. Re:Womyn rejoice! by skeptictank · · Score: 1

      An very long lived female that can hang around until a male does show up, from a genetic point of view the offspring would just be a continuation of the mother. The ocean is a very large place and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a very small probability that the female could produce a male clone that was genetically identical to the mother - since you really on need about 1 male to every 300-400 females to get all the females 'knocked-up' (in most species). A new sexually reproducing population could emerge if the 'budding' produced a male 1 time out of a few hundred; in the evident all they males were killed off.

    33. Re:Womyn rejoice! by vikstar · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to imply that this is evidence contradicting the occurrence of evolution, just that if animals were to reproduce asexually, and thus essentially be clones of their parent, then evolution is not possible for that particular species ? Evolution is still possible via mutation. What's more, mutation is more important than reproduction in the long term, since without mutation you'd just be mixing the same code over and over again, which reduces variability.
      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    34. Re:Womyn rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hermaphrodite moose bit my sister once...

    35. Re: Womyn rejoice! by NouvelleChimie · · Score: 1

      If every baby shark is an exact copy of its mother, the population will eventually be just handfuls of clones from the original 3 (or however many there were).

      Are the behaviour patterns the same, then? If you've got Shark A, who's a girl... and she likes to eat a certain type of fish, and swim to this area, and splash around in a particular way; will her baby, Shark A' also prefer the same type of fish, the same swimming area, and the same motions?

      Imagine if that happened to humans... you had Jane, who always wore khakis and a red shirt, who ordered the #3 latte from Starbucks, and walked in the park. Would the future Jane Primes also wear the same stuff, eat the same stuff, and go the same places?
      (of course this is entirely hypothetical; most people aren't creatures of habit (to that extreme))

      --
      Analytical chemists do it with fancy and expensive toys
  8. John Hammond... by u-bend · · Score: 1

    ...have you been splicing in frog DNA again? Naughty naughty.

    --
    u-bend
    1. Re:John Hammond... by Psx29 · · Score: 1

      Ok I think this makes me a super JP nerd or something. But the splicing of the frog DNA as described in the movie (no idea of its basis in reality) actually was that certain frogs randomly changed sex in a single sex environment. What's happening here with parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction. A little bit different.

    2. Re:John Hammond... by u-bend · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected... so how's your love life?
      :)

      --
      u-bend
  9. Maintenance payments by Dude+McDude · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet this bitch shark names an innocent male as the father, and the courts force him to pay $2000 in maintenance every month! Fuck!

  10. Unnecessary evil? by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So evolution could eventually make the need for males obsolete...

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
    1. Re:Unnecessary evil? by loafing_oaf · · Score: 1

      Really, it pretty much means no more evolution for those sharks. Every generation will be the same.

      --
      Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
    2. Re:Unnecessary evil? by that+IT+girl · · Score: 0

      Aww, yeah, I know. Ignore my jaded sarcasm ;D

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    3. Re:Unnecessary evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider that life has been evolving long since before sexual reproduction existed. Mutation can occur even in asexual reproduction. Also, this strategy seems to be a fallback in the case that no males are present. A clone may be sub-optimal from a genetic diversity standpoint but it beats having a portion of the population die out before they could find mates.

    4. Re:Unnecessary evil? by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Interesting

      whos to say science wont evolve to point where we can just grow humans in a lab and females become obsolete.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    5. Re:Unnecessary evil? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Well, as much as some of us would like that, I would much rather 'attempt' to reproduce once in a while, even though I know I might not have any kids. I think humans are one of a few species that actually enjoy reproducing, I can't speak for them, but it doesn't seem that cows, dogs or horses 'enjoy' each other and use reproduction as a way to make, emphasize and strengthen relationships

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Unnecessary evil? by cyngus · · Score: 1

      Sexual reproduction I believe came after asexual reproduction in evolution. Certainly many organisms, mostly single cell (and even our own cells), reproduce asexually. Sexual reproduction seems to have in evolutionary advantage in that it increases variation from one generation to the next. Essentially, sexual reproduction tends to increase the speed of evolution through trait selection.

      Organisms that reproduce asexually won't have this mixing of genetic traits, but will still evolve as a result of random mutations during DNA transcription. It sort of makes sense in terms of sexual reproduction that you tend to end up with a better organism if you cross the traits of two successful individuals. Hopefully through the combination you get the union of the set of winning traits from each organism.

    7. Re:Unnecessary evil? by loafing_oaf · · Score: 1

      You're right though. I wasn't aware that there was a need for males anyway.

      --
      Always someone has power over you. The thing to consider is this: Is the power good, or bad?
    8. Re:Unnecessary evil? by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Dolphins are one of the other mammal species on the planet which have sex for pleasure, independent of the reproductive process. There might be some other species out there that do the same thing.

      Being a man, it terrifies me a little to think of a world where women no longer need us to contribute to genetic variability. Would we still have the same place within a woman's life, or within culture? Would we be relegated to second-class citizen status since women would no longer need us to continue the species? What would happen in a few generations as the men died out and women became the only sex? To me, it seems that something more would have to happen in order for such a drastic cultural upheaval to happen.

      --
      SRSLY.
    9. Re:Unnecessary evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We men allready are second class citizens in the western world.

    10. Re:Unnecessary evil? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      No but science is making both sexes obsolete...

      Sex evolved for a reason. It increases the diversity of the population. It allows a species to evolve faster and gives genes a better chance of surviving. Read Dawkins "The Selfish Gene".

      --
      Deleted
    11. Re:Unnecessary evil? by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      Well, as much as some of us would like that, I would much rather 'attempt' to reproduce once in a while, even though I know I might not have any kids. I think humans are one of a few species that actually enjoy reproducing, I can't speak for them, but it doesn't seem that cows, dogs or horses 'enjoy' each other and use reproduction as a way to make, emphasize and strengthen relationships
      Sex isn't the same as reproduction, unless you count 9 months of watching your body bloat and other fun changes as sex. ;-) An alternative method of reproduction doesn't mean people can't still have sex.
      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    12. Re:Unnecessary evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And then, combined with a form of fusion, ...

    13. Re:Unnecessary evil? by LocoMan · · Score: 1

      I remember watching a discovery channel show about a kind of monkey that did too... and even engages in group and homosexual sex and prostitution (some females exchanged sex for food). It was a looong time ago, though, but I do remember one thing they said that some scientists believed that the way those monkeys behaved would be the closest of how a human society would behave without a set of morals being thaught at us since childhood

    14. Re:Unnecessary evil? by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      bonobos aka pygmy chimpanzees, they aren't monkeys they're apes, specifically great apes. and no pygmy does not mean small, it refers to an area.

    15. Re:Unnecessary evil? by that+IT+girl · · Score: 0

      Plus, you know...it's fun.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
  11. Is it any wonder then... by blcamp · · Score: 1

    ...why we refer to attorneys... you know, those nice folks who would prosecute and litigate issues of paternity and whatnot... ...as "sharks"?

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Is it any wonder then... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...why we refer to attorneys... you know, those nice folks who would prosecute and litigate issues of paternity and whatnot... ...as "sharks"?

      You're mistaken there. Lawyers don't reproduce asexually. But they do kill and consume their mother when they emerge from the womb.

      Joke as Corollary: "It is possible to get pregnant resulting from anal sex. This is how lawyers are born."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Is it any wonder then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once dated a lawyer. The very last thing I said to her was, "Go f*ck yourself." I feel warm and fuzzy now knowing that I may have inadvertently started a family with that.

      Nah. I'm sure she ate any young she may have produced :-)

  12. Movies are better than science by datapharmer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well Duh! Anyone that's seen Jurassic Park knows that anytime you create a habitat of only females offspring will mysteriously appear.

    By the way does the baby have a friggin' laser on its head?

    --
    Get a web developer
  13. Oh great. by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is just great.

    Now the female sharks are going to dump all the males, and we're gonna be stuck with a bunch of angry lonely male sharks...

    If they find frickin lasers, we're all screwed.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  14. That's why they keep blowing me off in bars by jfengel · · Score: 3, Funny

    "She must be a dyke," I'd say.

    "No, that's just wishful thinking," my wingman tells me. "Maybe you should change your socks more often."

    Shows him!

    1. Re:That's why they keep blowing me off in bars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "She must be a dyke," I'd say. Hey, but then why are you going to a dyke bar? Are you the male equivalent of a fag hag?
  15. Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    the baby should not have been genetically identical to anything in the tank unless its mother was also a parthenogen. parthenogenesis creates a homozygotic offspring that can have any random mix of the two chromosomes the mother carries for each pair. so if the mother has AB, the parthenogenic offspring can have either AA or BB, which is not identical to the mother since the mother has AB. the only way it can be identical is if the mother is also homozygotic and therefore a parthenogen.

    1. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Also, from TFA:
      This, in turn, would result in "genetically disadvantaged offspring,"

      I don't see how clones are necessarily genetically disadvantaged. If you have good genes to begin with then there is no harm in passing on those genes to your clone. Even over millions of years natural selection will still occur and random mutation will introduce genetic variety into clones. I doubt sharks have evolved much in the past million years, why would they be rapidly evolving in the next million years? They are pretty much at the top of their game already.

    2. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Timesprout · · Score: 1

      why would they be rapidly evolving in the next million years?
      They need to evolve somewhere to mount the fricken lasers and the power packs for stealth mode.
      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    3. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by ozborn · · Score: 5, Informative

      determined that a byproduct formed when sharks produce eggs, known as a sister polar body, had fused with an unfertilized egg to produce the baby shark, whose DNA had only half as much genetic variability as the mother.

      You've misread the article (which in fairness was not precisely written) and you're misunderstanding how parthogenesis is working here. The article claims only that the offspring is a perfect genetic "match" for the mom, not that it is identical to the mom since it also says the offspring has half the variability. What this means is the genetic test they did not pick up any polymorphisms not found in the mother. That's what they mean by "identical match".

      Also parthogenesis does not create homozygotic offspring (although given enough generations it will), the immediate offspring is a result of a fusion event between 2 products of meiosis - the egg and one of the polar bodies. Thus the offspring will have a different genetic makeup to the mother. In particular half (on average) of the mother's heterozygous loci will become homozygous in the offspring. Thus the offspring has half the genetic variability.

      This has potentially bad consequences because of the # of recessive lethal alleles the average organisms carry. Think of parthogenesis as the worst form of incest possible.

    4. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      The summary did not say identical, it said no sign of a male parent. That doesn't mean that every gene was the same, just that every gene was a valid result of the mother's two chromosomes. If the mother is AA and the child is AB, then we would have reason to suspect another parent.

    5. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clones are genetically disadvanteged because you don't have good genes. Over time they start to fall apart, so your clone will inherit your age and gene related problems. (oversimplified? well yeah..)

    6. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the disadvantage for a population of clones is that the entire species is equally susceptible to a single virus that can wipe them out. with genetic variability, environmental pressures aren't so likely to cause extinciton.

    7. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Celarnor · · Score: 1

      It creates disadvantaged offspring because they would no longer able to develop through natural selection. The whoel point of natural selection is that the more successful members of the species--presumably made successful because of their genetic makeup--produce more offspring. This way, any new mutations that are good for the species get introduced to the gene pool. With no new introductions to the gene pool, there will be no new adaptations. Resistance to disease isn't going to improve, but the viruses and bacteria sure will.

      Even if you're in first place, if you stop running, you're going to do worse.

    8. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by fhage · · Score: 1
      And... in some cases the Female produces only Males and they are Fertile.

      This happens with Komodo Dragons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komodo_dragon

      It's an interesting genetic logic puzzle.

    9. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of parthogenesis as the worst form of incest possible. My great grandmother would probably disagree with you if only I would untie her.
    10. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's largely a science fiction myth (the clones of clones of clones problem). The problems we have with cloning are more similar to the problems we have with fabricating chips on silicon; that is, we're using chemical processes on things that are very small, and it's hard. Think of it more along the lines of 'yield'. The 'yield' on a batch of things being cooked up is how many are perfect when they are finished. Difficult processes return low yields. It's no more than that with genetic cloning. The simpler the cloning process, the more perfect cloned cells we turn out.

      The DNA degradation thing is science-fiction born out of the VHS era...

    11. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if the mother has AB, the parthenogenic offspring can have either AA or BB, which is not identical to the mother since the mother has AB. the only way it can be identical is if the mother is also homozygotic and therefore a parthenogen.

      So therefor the offspring will either be non-viable or a male (I dont think sharks are homozygotic). If parthenogenic offsprings are male their mothers can't very well also be a parthenogen.

      see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/6196225 .stm

    12. Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone by elakazal · · Score: 1

      This assumes that sex determination and viability are the same as in the Komodo dragon. I wouldn't bet that they are.

  16. Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My wife does this

    Not sure why the kids are black tho

    1. Re:Big Deal by lixee · · Score: 1

      Are we supposed to assume that an Anonymous Coward has to be white?

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    2. Re:Big Deal by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I like to imagine all ACs are green. It helps solidify the credibility.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Big Deal by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      The joke only requires that neither he nor his wife is black.

    4. Re:Big Deal by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Why would you do that? Just because this one is? Hmm...

    5. Re:Big Deal by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Look at me making a stupid assumption. We actually can only assume that this one is not black. Well, heck, we can't really even assume that. He could just be really stupid, and not realize that kids often look like one or both of their parents.

    6. Re:Big Deal by prelelat · · Score: 1

      do you have a milk man

    7. Re:Big Deal by laejoh · · Score: 0

      He, he doesn't, she on the other hand...

    8. Re:Big Deal by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

      Well, if you both are mulattos but not aware of that, there's a pretty decent chance that your child might be darker than either of you. Genes are funny that way.

    9. Re:Big Deal by zolaar · · Score: 1

      Gawd, dude, read the source -- the code is self-documenting...

      In the argument list for the CBaby constructor, if the 2nd argument ( CMale& babyDaddy ) isn't specified it uses a default one, which has all its member variables initialized to their respective defaults -- usually zero.

      Or did you forget that 'color:#000000' and 'color:black' are the same thing?

      Newbs...

      --
      One man's constant is another man's variable.
    10. Re:Big Deal by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      My previous sig was relevant but I forget what it was.

  17. They missed the most obvious answer by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

    The shark just ate the stork...nothing to see here

    --
    A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
  18. A virgin birth after all by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we know how mankind really evolved. First there was the virgin birth, then we crawled out of the sea and after a few millenia, started to walk upright.

    Er wait, I'm confused.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:A virgin birth after all by megaditto · · Score: 1

      A-HA!

      So Man is the Pinnacle of Creation, just like the Good Book said. Make perfect sense why the womyn have to be subserviant to us evolved creatures.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  19. What does this remind me of? by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

    OK... I am an atheist... but this does remind me of a certain story in the bible. [wikipedia.org]

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    1. Re:What does this remind me of? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Parthenogenesis can only result in female offspring... so Jesus was a woman?

      Good to know.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:What does this remind me of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well in that case it was more likely that she had a kid out of wedlock and decided to not fess up to it. Probably took advantage of some religious fervor/cult that was going about which allowed her to get away with such a claim. Maybe it was a social "fad"/"quirk" where people who had such out-of-wedlock children routinely claimed they were virgin births, everyone else knew better of course but it wasn't "proper" to say the truth or some such.

    3. Re:What does this remind me of? by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

      i never thought of that...... i'd mod you up if i knew how or could.

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    4. Re:What does this remind me of? by middlemen · · Score: 1

      That explains why (s)he had 12 dudes following him(her!?)...

    5. Re:What does this remind me of? by Darby · · Score: 2


      OK... I am an atheist... but this does remind me of a certain story in the bible.


      Except the whole virgin birth thing was purely the result of a mistranslation.
      It was "young woman", not "virgin".

      Of course the nutters can't exactly be honest about it now ;-)

    6. Re:What does this remind me of? by Rycross · · Score: 1

      Do you actually have some sources for that? I'd be interested in reading up on that.

    7. Re:What does this remind me of? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 0

      Well in that case it was more likely that she had a kid out of wedlock and decided to not fess up to it.
      Actually, it's a translation error. 'Virgin' should instead be 'young woman', and the whole miracle-of-the-virgin-birth was made up by the Church based on this false translation.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:What does this remind me of? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's a translation error. 'Virgin' should instead be 'young woman', and the whole miracle-of-the-virgin-birth was made up by the Church based on this false translation.

      Another explanation is: A common process in many languages has been the conversion of a word meaning "young woman" into a word that implies no sexual experience. For a modern example, in German the term "Jungfrau", which literally means "young woman", has the connotation of virginity. Some linguists have claimed that the same thing happened in late Latin. 2000 years ago, the term "virgo" supposedly referred simply to a young woman. Then it went through the usual process, and took on its modern meaning in Latin's descendants. This gave the church a miracle that hadn't been in the original Latin. But if this derivation is correct, it wasn't a mistranslation; it was a shift in meaning of a word in an old text.

      I wonder how good the evidence is for this sort of explanation? After all, most old texts simple use words; they rarely give detailed definitions of words that (at the time) everyone understood. One possible bit of evidence I've read is that the biblical "prophecies" of the virgin birth were in Hebrew, and the term (bakhura) was used in other passages for women who were clearly not virgins. But I'm not an expert in the topic; others probably know more about this than I do.

      In any case, I doubt that the sharks in question think there was anything remarkable about this particular virgin birth.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    9. Re:What does this remind me of? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Here's a bunch.

      I'd just point you at one of the results, but then somebody would just jump in and say that one doesn't count for some arbitrary reason ;-)

    10. Re:What does this remind me of? by Rycross · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'll have to go through these when I have some free time. :)

    11. Re:What does this remind me of? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Parthenogenesis can only result in female offspring"

      I don't know why this shark event is even remotely surprising. It's not unknown in fish circles.

      There's a class fo fish called "killifish" - around 700 species. One of them, Rivulus marmorotus reproduces by parthenogenesis exclusivly they're all females.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    12. Re:What does this remind me of? by skeftomai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the record, I asked my brother -- who has a degree in linguistics -- about this, and he said the following:

        1. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html?20 0724#mistranslation
        Parthenos means "virgin" in Greek. The site author says that it's
      Hebrew equivalent "almah" means only young woman and not virgin.
      Hebrew isn't my specialty so I can't speak with authority, but I have
      heard there is debate on this. I will, however, give a cultural
      explanation. A young woman (whether almah means explicitly virgin or
      not) would almost always be a virgin in Hebrew society, because of the
      obvious penalties for promiscuity, i.e. being shamed and then stoned
      to death.

        His Proverbs 30:18-19 example could be turned against him. Again, in
      Hebrew society, young women were usually virgins. So it could easily
      be translated "the way of a man with a virgin". As for the harem
      example, perhaps the semantic range of this word allows the meaning of
      "young woman" and sometimes "virgin". That is beside the point, in my
      mind. Women in a harem weren't virgins, but they were sort of
      "married" to the king in a way. Again, I think the cultural argument
      of the purity of young Hebrew women holds up. The Greek alternative
      word "neanis" presented does nothing to uphold his argument in the
      face of the cultural argument. Remember, we must consider not only
      LINGUISTIC, but also CULTURAL evidence and their combined
      implications. So I feel his using this sole vocabulary item attempting
      to invalidate the virgin birth is not only misguided but a weak
      argument. In archaeology and history one looks at language, culture,
      genetics, artifacts, and many other forms of evidence to see if they
      all point in a similar direction.

        Later in this article he states that this Isaiah passage doesn't
      specifically mention or prophesy the virgin birth. It is a fact that
      many OT passages with prophecy don't actually directly state what they
      are prophesying. There are others such as "I brought my son out of
      Egypt" which may have meant something different when they were written
      and were reapplied to Christ. I know this is a hard issue to accept
      sometimes.

        He also states that the earliest "Christian" sources don't say
      anything about the virgin birth. This probably comes because he may
      believe the Gospel writings came much later than Christians say they
      did. Many people say this because they don't want to believe that the
      early sources, close to the time of Christ, made such extravagant
      claims about Jesus. However, there is large evidence that the Gospels
      and other NT books were all written within 100 years of his death. He
      also says pagan sources had virgin birth examples. Pagan sources have
      all kinds of strange thinking, but we don't find all these included in
      the Bible. The fact that the virgin birth also happens to be found in
      pagan ideas doesn't mean they ripped it off from pagans. Pagans also
      had fertility cults and temple prostitutes, but Corinthians (1 Cor 6)
      warns Christians against these pagan practices, as well as against
      meat sacrificed to idols.

        There were certain false teachings, like Gnosticism, which did
      includes features from Greco-Buddhism. These are some of the ideas
      found in the Da Vinci Code. Also, strangely enough, many of the
      mainstream "pop theology" found in stores today includes ideas which
      seem to have sprung from New Age thinking. This doesn't nullify
      Christianity, in my mind. It just means a smart, discerning person
      checks their sources and verifies if what they read elsewhere fits
      with the Bible's truth. You and I already know that many "Christians"
      don't verify things, and just blindly stupidly believe whatever
      nonsense comes their way. James warns against these "double-minded"
      people. And I think anyone is at risk unless they learn discernment.

          That's my take on this, in a short way of writing it.

    13. Re:What does this remind me of? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Not true. You're very very wrong. My authentic, divinely-inspired German version uses the term "jungfrau".

  20. Asexual by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1

    How does this effect biodiversity. Thought one of the benefits of having multiple sexes was to insure a genetic mixup so that a single strain of genes doest become to prominent and things like bacteria/virii that adapt to that single code isn't as effective. Interesting post though.

    1. Re:Asexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Parthenogenesis has an advantage as well; the genetic line of the female in question will survive, despite the current lack of make diversity to add.

      This shark's daughter (or daughter's daughter, etc) may outlive her, but go on to mate the normal way with a male; thus the line survives this generation (which missed a male's input).

    2. Re:Asexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you suppose slashdot users catch busii to get around on their campii? Interesting post though.

    3. Re:Asexual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How does this effect biodiversity. Thought one of the benefits of having multiple sexes was to insure a genetic mixup so that a single strain of genes doest become to prominent and things like bacteria/virii that adapt to that single code isn't as effective. Interesting post though.

      It is, but the point isn't that sharks will suddenly start reproducing asexually as the norm. This is simply a fallback mechanism to help the species make it through the "lean times". Mother nature is betting that one or two generations with a lack of diversity is better than 0 generations.

  21. On Henry Doorly by ender81b · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just a quick note, if you are ever in the Omaha, Nebraska area definitely stop by Henry Doorly Zoo. It's probably the nation's second best zoo behind San Diego's, and the shark tunnel is fantastic. As are the penguins, and the desert dome, and indoor jungle, and... A few winters ago we went to the Zoo and the place was deserted. Was able to just lay down in the Shark Tunnel and watch the sharks swim overhead for about a half hour with no one coming down. Was fantastic. At any rate, also -- as far as the article goes -- I wish someone would have some more explanation for how this works. Kindof freaky.

    1. Re:On Henry Doorly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno precisely how it works, but in essence just some way of self-induced way of triggering the egg to start dividing rather than the chemical trigger provided by a sperm.

      Neat trick to be able to breed both sexually and asexually as the conditions warrant - would seem to be an improvment over the sexual-only way. Some lizards also can do the virgin birth thing.

      This kind of reproductive flexibility in the face of extenal conditions reminds me of some fish species where having a single sex population will cause some to flip sex! Kinda like prison.

    2. Re:On Henry Doorly by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Ripley's Aquarium in Gatlinburg, TN has a really nice aquarium with a tunnel. They have a program called Sleeping with the Sharks that schools and other groups can participate in, allowing them to sleep in the tunnel underneath the sharks.

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:On Henry Doorly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parthenogenesis is nothing out of the common in lower life forms. It's especially common in parasites because it's a way of spreading at very high speed. The special thing about this is that it's happening in vertebrates.
      Remember, however, that egg cells are haploid and usually need a second germ cell to get a full chromosome set. So either there is a special mechanism to duplicate the chromosome number without cell division, the offspring is haploid (haplo-diploidy, which is, i guess, out of question in sharks), there is meiosis without reduction division (apomictic parthenogenesis), the haploid chromosome sets merge again directly after being seperated (automictic parthenogenesis) or there are diploid germline cells involved...

      Having said that, I don't know which of the above actually happens in sharks... ;)

    4. Re:On Henry Doorly by Cragen · · Score: 1
      Not too freaky really. Apparently, this goes on, more or less, quite often, in quite a few species. The catch is that, while it seems to be good for species survival, no DNA from DAD means less (or no) genetic variations over time, so if and when the environment changes, this can become a bad thing.

      (This is what little I understand on this subject. I may be wrong. Again.)

    5. Re:On Henry Doorly by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      They have a program called Sleeping with the Sharks that schools and other groups can participate in, allowing them to sleep in the tunnel underneath the sharks.
      Oh, so is THAT what The Godfather meant when he said someone was sleeping with the fish?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    6. Re:On Henry Doorly by Spleen · · Score: 1

      The Henry Doorly Zoo and the San Diego Zoo are always in the process of trying to one-up the other. They are regularly trading the title of "Best Zoo in the USA" back and forth almost on an annual basis. Definately go visit, it's well worth it.

    7. Re:On Henry Doorly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish someone would have some more explanation for how this works. Kindof freaky.

      If it's anything like the way the Geeks here do it they would need lots of napkins...
    8. Re:On Henry Doorly by jomama717 · · Score: 1

      Was able to just lay down in the Shark Tunnel and watch the sharks swim overhead for about a half hour with no one coming down. Had it occurred to you that no one came down the tunnel because there was a strange man laying down in it? ;)
      --
      while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
    9. Re:On Henry Doorly by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      I live in Omaha, and go there at least once a year.

      My only complaint is that once Simmons creates an exhibit... that's it. It seems if any part of it breaks, or starts to wear down, it just stays that way forever, until it's "replaced" by a new exhibit for people to go to.

      For instance, in the aquarium, in the first room they have a huge 3-part screen that loops a video. Unfortunately, it's the same video that's been running since the damn thing opened more than 10 years ago - you can tell the film has seen better days, and I wonder if any gift shop works have gone crazy listening to that music over and over.

      The rest of it is awesome, especially that tube of jellyfish. I haven't checked to see if they've completed that "tides" exhibit next to it though - always seems to be a work in progress.

      Same with the Lied Jungle too. It used to have a lot more stuff to see, but an entire pathway has been closed off since it opened. I forget what was even back there now.

      Their new thing is the brand new Gorilla complex, and they're working on getting a Panda (they're building the entire panda house, and they haven't even been guaranteed it yet!)

      Also, they're FINALLY revamping the Mutual of Omaha building after almost 20 years.

      Finally, go check out the cool rotating globe of Earth in front of the desert dome. My challenge to you is to stop it from spinning - I've only done it once, and had like 6 kids helping me out. Of course we made it spin again, but that was fun to finally accomplish after so many years of attempts :)

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
    10. Re:On Henry Doorly by caluml · · Score: 1

      Bristol Zoo has an albino penguin. Very rare. I asked Linus via email if we should kill this abhoration, but he said no, diversity is good.

  22. The Immaculate by poor_boi · · Score: 5, Funny


    They should name the baby shark "Jesus." I think that would be kind of funny.



    1. Re:The Immaculate by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      SO.

      Um. What does the Bible say about the second coming - in the form of a shark?

      Makes for a great Michael Bay script (particularly if you work in the lasers), but I think the Vatican is going to have problems with this.

      Pope: "Your holyness - we would like a statement about predetermination and free will - AIIGH WHAT ARE YOU DOING????! NO - Stop CHEWING ON MY ARM!!! AAIIIIGH!!!!!! (*blub-blub*)"

      Cardinal Lackey enters 2 minutes later: "Anyone seen the Pope? Helloooooo Pope? Uh - Pope?....AIIIGH STOP AIIIIGH Holy SHIT MY LEG AIIIIIIIGH STOP MUNCHING THAT!!!!!"

    2. Re:The Immaculate by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      AND somewhat prophetic... as the shark pup in question was later found dead, presumably killed by other sharks in the habitat.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  23. Lightman! by pergamon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Who first suggested the idea of female sharks reproducing without sex?

    1. Re:Lightman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your wife sir ?

    2. Re:Lightman! by pergamon · · Score: 1

      Alright, what moron moderated this as -1 redundant? My comment is #19238413 (11:57AM), and the first other one is #19238705 (12:09PM) which would make *that* one redundant, not mine.

      And I was going to make whoever it was King of the Winter Carnival...

  24. Life found a way... by The+Orange+Mage · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Luckily, this doesn't spell doom for mankind!

    Now, if life found a way to give birth to sharks with lasers pre-mounted, THEN we're doomed.

  25. Great Whites? by JRGhaddar · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is actually really interesting, and makes a lot of sense. Shark's genetics haven't evolved that much from its ancient relatives so this reproduction method would definitely limit variations. But I am curious as to if this is how the great white reproduces. Very little is known about the great whites breeding habits. One of the prevailing theories centers around whale carcasses.

  26. So.. by DeeVeeAnt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nobody jumped the shark then?

    --
    Home fucking is killing prostitution.
  27. Great White Jesus? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Scientists started investigating after a...shark was mysteriously born at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in a tank that housed 3 female sharks...with no sign of a male parent."


    Has anyone looked into the possibility that this infant shark is the Great White Jesus? (I'd hate to be the angel that messed up the avatar selection for the second coming.)
    1. Re:Great White Jesus? by pohl · · Score: 1

      +1 Funny, if only I had mod points.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  28. Sexual reproduction isn't necessary for evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two things that are wrong with your argument. First of all, there is no indication that these sharks are no longer capable of sexual reproduction. This only indicates that in the absence of males, parthenogenesis is an option.
    Secondly, even if they truly could no longer sexually reproduce, sexual reproduction is not necessary for evolution. Thing about asexually reproducing bacteria, and how quickly some of them become resistant to antibiotics. Hell, all of the first organisms were probably asexual, and sexual organisms evolved from asexual organisms. Mutation drives evolution in asexual organisms, so no sex is necessary for evolution.

  29. Related Story by baboonlogic · · Score: 1

    How on earth is Females Outnumber Males Online related?

    1. Re:Related Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of parthenogenesis, they're able to reproduce more quickly.

    2. Re:Related Story by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty obvious. The females who reproduce asexually can only give birth to more females. Hence, they outnumber the males.

  30. Tags by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

    Finally, a story where the "sharks" tag is actually relevant. Of course ... now people are going to tag it with "lasers".

  31. Why Did They Interview This Guy? by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 1
    This guy seriously said

    "We have now demonstrated that sharks are actually able to use an alternative, previously unknown reproductive pathway, which is parthenogenesis. The problem here is that this alternative reproductive pathway results in offspring that have much lower genetic diversity,"

    He just said the problem with a clone, is it's a clone! No shit! Haven't sharks been one of the longest to go without major changes in genetics anyways? They don't need to change! It bugs me when people make obvious statements and act like they're profound.

    1. Re:Why Did They Interview This Guy? by Vexor · · Score: 1

      It bugs me when people make obvious statements and act like they're profound.

      You must hate Dr. Phil then.

      --
      ~Vexed and loving it!
    2. Re:Why Did They Interview This Guy? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      He just said the problem with a clone, is it's a clone! No shit!

      Actually, they said it's parthenogenesis, which (at least in vertebrates) is something different from cloning. A clone is something that is genetically identical to the parent, because it was produced by taking a (small population of) somatic cells and growing a new individual from them.

      Parthenogenesis usually refers to producing a new individual from an unfertilized ovum. Sometimes the ovum duplicates all its chromosomes, giving offspring that is heterozygous in all genes and no genetic diversity at all. Sometimes the ovum fuses with a polar body, giving offspring that has (on the average) half the genetic diversity of the parent. In both cases, all the child's genes came from the mother, but they aren't usually genetically identical. The mother usually contains some gene variants that aren't in the child.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Why Did They Interview This Guy? by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 1

      So when half the genetic diversity is there, this means some of the things that were recessive in the parent have a greater chance of becoming dominant in the child? That's the only way I can see something hapening in an offspring that was not present in the parent.

    4. Re:Why Did They Interview This Guy? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah; that's exactly what can happen.

      Suppose the parent has a gene G, with forms G1 and G2, and suppose that G1 is the normal form, while G2 is a recessive mutation in the parent (perhaps inherited from a grandparent). That is, the parent is G1G2, and only G1 is expressed. Natural selection can't select for/against G2, because it's recessive and not expressed.

      But a parthenogenetic child could be G2G2, and would express the recessive gene. If it's harmful, the child will die. But if it's something good, the nature can now "select" in favor of the child, and that child's children will all have G2 (perhaps masked by another version of G).

      The alternative, with sexual reproduction, is that eventually you get two G1G2 individuals who mate, and 1/4 of their children will be G2G2. In this case, parthenogenesis is a bit faster than sexual reproduction. OTOH, sexual reproduction between close relatives will also produce G2G2 offspring fairly quickly. This is why most populations do have a low level of inbreeding. It brings out recessives and lets them be selected for or against. People tend to notice the bad results of inbreeding, but any breeder will tell you that it's a useful way to bring out beneficial recessives.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  32. Sharks.... by curecollector · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...can go fuck themselves.

    1. Re:Sharks.... by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Shark: "I'm not sure how we could do that Betty, unless we, you know, like scissored..."

  33. MOD PARENT UP by Scooter's_dad · · Score: 5, Funny

    For clearing up a common mis-"conception."

    And for not making a lame joke about parthenogenesis like I just did.

    --
    The road to hell is paved with Cat 5 cable.
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You surely meant miss-conception too...

  34. so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could do that, I just don't want to...

    the best part about children, is the conception! after that POP, it all goes down hill from there....

  35. Shark School by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sharks continually regenerate rows of teeth, and probably many other parts lost in sharky feeding frenzies. Their cartilage is used without immune reaction in reconstructing human tissue. Their fins are prized in Chinese folk remedies as a rejuvenating soup. Now we learn they're flexible enough to clone themselves.

    We should closely examine these creatures, in all their varied (and often endangered) species, for secrets to rejuvenation. Most likely we'll learn a lot we can apply to human stemcell therapies, which a lot of these "magic" properties seem likely to be backed by.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Shark School by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Ok, but no genetically engineered super sharks at an impractically remote, improbably designed submersible atoll, please.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Shark School by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow... a few commonly known facts and some "magic" pseudoscience and baseless speculation, and you get a +5 insightful... nice work!

    3. Re:Shark School by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      O-frickin'-K.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Shark School by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      There's no pseudoscience in there. And yes, lots of science is started on "hunches" followed up by rigorous experiment. Putting together a few commonly known facts that imply a stated hypothesis to explain them to be scientifically investigated is the scientific method.

      All of which depends on insight.

      So thank you for the kind words of support.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Shark School by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      You're telling me that talk of magical "rejuvination" and "abilities" that are, somehow, based on stemcells, isn't baseless pseudo-science? Please. Next you'll be explaining how the stemcells in shark fins will cleanse my body of nasty toxins or some other nonsense...

    6. Re:Shark School by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Most pharmaceuticals were extracted from materials (usually plant or animal) to which some folk's folklore attributed therapeutic powers.

      I didn't claim that fin soup would rejuvenate you. I just pointed out its traditional reputation, which is the typical starting point for investigation.

      And I also pointed out that these reputed and demonstrated properties of shark tissue are explainable by what we already know of stemcells, not "magic".

      So take your strawman and your obnoxious trolls and go swim with the sharks. At least that will be a meaningful contribution to using sharks to make the world a better place.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Shark School by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And I also pointed out that these reputed and demonstrated properties of shark tissue are explainable by what we already know of stemcells, not "magic".

      They are, are they? Really? Well, would you care to tell me how? Explain to me how eating stemcells could be rejuvinating. Maybe you can explain how the lack of immunoresponse to shark cartilage can be attributed to stem cells. Hey, maybe you can explain how parthenogenesis has anything at all to do with stem cells.

    8. Re:Shark School by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Sharks have very low rates of cancer which would be grounds enough for study IMO.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:Shark School by rmdir+-r+* · · Score: 1

      Well, his first name /is/ Doc. He must know what he's talking about!

    10. Re:Shark School by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Question: Is it possible that, instead of sharks having an extremely low cancer rate, shark cancers are extremely virulent, and kill them very quickly? This would sink the sharks to the bottom whereupon the evidence would be disposed of quickly. This would skew the sample toward sharks that don't have cancer.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    11. Re:Shark School by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Stemcells are pluripotent and primitive.

      Their lack of immunoresposive antigenicity makes embryonic stemcells transplantable between individuals. While there could be ways that eating stemcells could preserve their restorative effects, I did not say the folklore is literally true, but that it suggests investigation for the "grain of truth". And parthenogenesis is another example of pluripotent primitive cells.

      Any other questions I can answer, or are you unscientifically committed to insisting that shark tissue does not merit investigation by stemcell researchers?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Shark School by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you brought absolutely NOTHING to the conversation and they modded you +5 Insightful?? It's official, slashdot has jumped the shark.

    13. Re:Shark School by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that would be accounted for: similar numbers in captive sharks, higher occurrences of cancer in other marine large predators, no evidence of dead sharks with cancer washing up on shore, etc. From what I've seen on documentaries, the shark/cancer relationship is accepted by biologists.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    14. Re:Shark School by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Their lack of immunoresposive antigenicity makes embryonic stemcells transplantable between individuals.

      Ah, no, that's completely wrong. According to the Australian Academy of Science, which was the first link that popped up in Google, one of the first hurdles in stem cell therapy is immune rejection. To quote:

      "Patients receiving a graft of embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells sourced from cadavers would probably be treated in much the same way that organ transplant recipients are treated. The grafts would be matched to the individual patient and anti-rejection drugs would be used. Patients receiving brain cells may not need these drugs; the brain seems to get away with less surveillance by the immune system than other parts of the body."

      They do mention that "there is one type of stem cell known as a mesenchymal stem cell that seems to evade detection by the immune system", however they are limited to "treatments of bone and joint diseases or repair heart muscle damaged during a heart attack". Thus, the statement that all stem cells "lack ... immunoresposive antigenicity" is simply false.

      While there could be ways that eating stemcells could preserve their restorative effects

      And this would be where I realized you were probably just quoting a wikipedia article.

      And parthenogenesis is another example of pluripotent primitive cells.

      Only insofar as any embryonic tissue will contain stem cells. But there's nothing particularly special about a parthogenetically created embryo.

      So, would you care to try again?

    15. Re:Shark School by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Wow, you brought absolutely NOTHING to the conversation and they modded you +5 Insightful?

      I don't understand it either. The parent post should have been modded down, IMHO, but mine certainly shouldn't have been modded up.

    16. Re:Shark School by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, I don't care to continue discussing this with you.

      All I wanted from continuing was to establish that guessing a line of scientific inquiry from "circumstantial evidence" initially explained by a hypothesis to be tested was how science works, despite your protestations to the contrary.

      Obnoxious protestations. Without letup. Except that now you're at least acknowledging the scientific nature of this kind of investigation.

      So I'm done. If you'd merely disagreed politely, without so many obnoxious assaults showing you don't really understand science, I might have had some fun investigating it with you by debating the science that exists. But you've behaved so badly that I consider merely getting you to talk science a major victory. I'm sure it's all downhill from there with you, based on your past performance.

      Goodbye, and you're welcome for helping you understand how science works.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  36. Mutation can still happen. by khasim · · Score: 1

    It just rules out the ability for beneficial mutations to be acquired from different lines.

    Viruses don't have sexual reproduction, yet they mutate and form resistant strains.

    1. Re:Mutation can still happen. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      I'm a little fuzzy on this but I believe that viruses (and possibly bacteria as well) can swap DNA with each other even though they reproduce asexually. I couldn't tell you the mechanism they use to do this, however.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
  37. Lesbian Sharks Reproduce? by sonciwind · · Score: 1

    I don't have anything else to say.

  38. My wife by Perp+Atuitie · · Score: 1

    does that all the time.

  39. Re:asexual reproduction-Obligatory Wargames Quote by protolith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mr. Liggett: Alright, Lightman. Maybe you could tell us who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.

    David Lightman: Umm... Your wife?

    Mr. Liggett: Get out, Lightman. Get out.

  40. Dang by Twillerror · · Score: 1

    I thought the shark christ had finally come.

  41. All the geeks on Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...keep trying to reproduce alone anyway.

    1. Re:All the geeks on Slashdot... by HullBreachOnline.com · · Score: 1

      Apparently the sharks are just better at it.

  42. old news by hackstraw · · Score: 1, Funny

    "The Roman Catholic Bible has an article about a team of prophets that have foreseen that a female human will reproduce without having sex, the first time that prophets have found the unusual capacity in such an ancient vertebrate species. Their report concludes that some humans can reproduce asexually through the process known as Immaculate Conception (the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male)."

    1. Re:old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't really read the article did you? Immaculate Conception is about Mary being conceived without original sin through sexual intercourse. "Virgin Birth" should be applied to Jesus, not "Immaculate Conception."

  43. species nitpick by BubbaFett · · Score: 1

    Unless modern sharks can reproduce with the earliest sharks, I don't think they'd be classified as the same species. I think you mean that the Selachimorpha superorder is ancient.

  44. "And who can tell me" by TheDarkener · · Score: 3, Funny

    Teacher: "...And who can tell me the first person to suggest the idea of reproduction without sex?"

    Ferris: "Uhm...Your wife?"

    Bueller? Bueller?

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:"And who can tell me" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bueller? Wasn't that War Games?

      Right actor, wrong movie?

    2. Re:"And who can tell me" by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      Oh shit, that's right!

      GAME ON!

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:"And who can tell me" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey...Mod this up! They're right!

    4. Re:"And who can tell me" by EduardoTheBastard · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you must go to the pricipal's office now. "Lightman. What a, uh, surprise." (It was Matthew Broderick in _War Games_, not Matthew Broderick in _Ferris Bueller's Day Off_)

    5. Re:"And who can tell me" by Ster · · Score: 1

      Right actor, wrong movie. That little exchange is from Wargames, not Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
      </pedantic>

    6. Re:"And who can tell me" by Mikkelin · · Score: 1

      Actually, that line was spoken by the character David Lightman (also portrayed by Matthew Broderick) in the 1983 movie WarGames.

  45. Yes and no by ciaohound · · Score: 3, Funny

    By not jumping the shark, the male shark has finally jumped the shark.

    --
    Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    1. Re:Yes and no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliantly crafted. Thank you.

  46. Answer is a big no. by technoextreme · · Score: 1

    So evolution could eventually make the need for males obsolete...

    No unless you want humanity to die off because of genetic mutations. There is a species of lizard that has the female primarily make clones of herself. Even then these lizards still reproduce sexually once in a while.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  47. nature by drDugan · · Score: 1

    yet another reason to stop keeping conscious creatures locked up for the viewing pleasure of curious, callous humans

  48. What would Jesus say? by Browzer · · Score: 1

    Virgin Birth?
    BFD!

    1. Re:What would Jesus say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blackfathom Deeps? What does World of Warcraft have to do with Virgin Birth?

      Oh... wait. I see.

  49. Lawyers? by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Lawyers can reproduce without sex? What?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  50. And this finding diminishes the myth. by Lethyos · · Score: 1

    Well good! Continue being an atheist. Instead being able to claim it as a miricle, we now know that if there is any truth to the virgin birth story in Christianity, it can be rationally explained without invoking supernatural causes.

    --
    Why bother.
  51. Moo by wamerocity · · Score: 1
    Parthenogenesis is a technique used by other creatures that are capable of sexual reproducing as well. This is different than say snails, which can self fertilize (which does not increase genetic variability either), but likewise many of the previous posts are correct, it does not increase genetic variability. The BENEFIT of doing something like this is simply for the ability to increase population numbers. It is the exception, not the rule. If a shark in the wild isn't able to find another mate, it's line dies. However if it essentially clones itself, then it is still increasing it's chances of spreading it's DNA further down the line. (Insert jokes here). Snails do something similar for the same reason, because there is a possibility it may not find a mate in its lifetime.

    Zoidberg: "Love? Love is not known here. I'm simply looking for a female swollen with eggs to accept my genetic material."

    Fry: "You and me both brother!"

    --
    "Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
    1. Re:Moo by $1uck · · Score: 1

      I thought there exists a species of gecko (mourning gecko I believe is the common name) that did reproduce through parthogenisis as a rule and not the exception.

  52. Blows holes in Christian stance on homosexuality. by Lethyos · · Score: 1, Funny

    Considering the relations Jesus had with Mary Magdalene, I would say the Christian church now has to willingly accept homosexuality.

    --
    Why bother.
  53. OMG!!!!11!! by Aelcyx · · Score: 1

    Don't you know what this means?! JESUS was a SHARK!

    "We're gonna need a bigger ark"

  54. Hah! Knew it! by saibot834 · · Score: 1

    I think they, too, have frog genes in their DNA. Just like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park!

    Beware of the frog!

  55. So long biodiversity by duplo1 · · Score: 1

    If you bother to RTFA, it suggests that this is quite dangerous in the long run as it would seriously dilute the gene pool, wiping out much-needed bio diversity. In otherwords, males aren't obsolete yet since we see time and time again that mono-cultures don't tend to last very long.

  56. Oh no now they gone done it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the male sharks can't get it on anymore, they're gonna be even MORE pissed. It's bad enough that they have to constantly be moving and can't sleep, else they'll drown. Now that they're cut off from nookie, what's to stop them from taking their frustrations out on us?!?!? Prepare for a beachfront bloodbath. No sleep + no pussy = shark rampage.

  57. Not at all... by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    Natural selection has little to do with sex. Sexual reproduction speeds up the process among complex organisms, but bacteria evolve very quickly without it.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    1. Re:Not at all... by Tofystedeth · · Score: 1

      True, but bacteria have a much faster life cycle than us more complex organisms.

      --
      "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
  58. Sounds like baby Jesus by tactics40 · · Score: 1

    The last time we noticed that a female reproduced without a male, it was declared a miracle.

  59. Poor guy! by ErGalvao · · Score: 1

    James Woods is doomed!

    --
    Er Galvão Abbott - IT Consultant and Developer
  60. It is not as bad as I thought by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Funny

    After I read the article I realised that they meant the marine predator; from the headline I thought that they meant lawyers!

  61. And just to add to the list... by hellfire · · Score: 1

    ... Sharks don't get cancer.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  62. Men by Glothar · · Score: 1

    Answer: Men.

    It's sorta like the philosophy that the human brain can never fully comprehend itself. Science driven by men cannot progress to the point where they stop being fascinated by a pretty girl.

    Unless, of course, we're all gay by then. In which case... I guess it would be possible... and we'd all be better dressed.

    Hmm.

  63. Lots and Lots of Dyke Nerds !! by Abuzar · · Score: 1

    Purrrrrrfect.

    We don't need any men. I know at least 3 other Dyke Nerds, and if we all make 10 clones each before menopause, we'll have 40 Dyke Nerds.
    Since they'll be exactly like us, we can expect at least 400 Dyke Nerds by generation 2.
    4000 by gen 3, 40000 by gen 4, 400000 by 5, 4000000 by 6 ... soon we will outpace the rest of the population.
    That means one day there will be massive Dyke Nerd Orgies and slashdotters will never get laid.

    Purrrrrrfect :)

    1. Re:Lots and Lots of Dyke Nerds !! by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      That means one day there will be massive Dyke Nerd Orgies and slashdotters will never get laid.

      Yep, but just think of the webcam site - a thousand webcams scattered all over the clone dorm, each one connected wirelessly to a linux distribution streaming server that has multiple NICs and redundant bandwidth and .. oh err.. sorry, got sidetracked a little - just think of the boobies!

    2. Re:Lots and Lots of Dyke Nerds !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? Slashdotters don't get laid NOW....

    3. Re:Lots and Lots of Dyke Nerds !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video those orgies, post 'em to the net, and on behalf of the male nerd population I fully promise we'll die out quietly and happily with minimal inconvenience to your hot selves.

  64. Oddy Enough ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the shark offspring bore a striking resemblance to Vern, the tank cleaner.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  65. Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone by mollog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone
    So you've met my ex-wife?

    Seriously, imagine the shark husbands; "That's not my pup. Who's the father???"

    Or trying to explain this to your parents; "But Mom, I didn't. Really Mom."

    And now the quotes, "A female shark needs a male shark, like a flounder needs a bicycle." - "All he's good for is opening jars and lifting heavy things." - "Not tonight, honey. I'm already stuffed."

    In some ways, it would suck to be a male shark.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re: Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Except that nobody comes after you if you eat your own (or your mate's asexually reproduced) young. Chalk up one to sharks.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  66. Re:Sexual reproduction isn't necessary for evoluti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That only works if you can get generations happening quickly enough to react to changes in environment. The genetic variance in asexually produced generations is much smaller than in sexually produced generations. So you need a lot more generations to react. Bacteria can go full life cycle in a few hours, reproducing within minutes. This is the primary reason they are able to develop resistances.

    Sexual reproduction allows for longer life cycles without losing the ability to evolve.

  67. Sharkzilla by somegeekynick · · Score: 1

    The next big Hollywood monster movie!

  68. friggin lasers? where's the sharks tag? by Werrismys · · Score: 1

    No wonder the male sharks are all pissed off.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
  69. Big deal, huh by ceeam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But can they run Linux?

    1. Re:Big deal, huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But can they run Linux?
      I think they'd happily eat penguins for breakfast. I'm not sure if that counts though.
  70. I can see it now by Khyber · · Score: 1

    THIS will be on the backs of submarines soon enough.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  71. Does that make this breed... by Enuratique · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the King of the Jaws?

    --
    A black hole is where God divided by 0
  72. Not in Omaha! by raehl · · Score: 1

    They don't watch Grey's Anatomy there.

  73. Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone

    What's the big deal? Realizing the vital importance of it to continued existence of the species, male readers of Slashdot have been attempting this for over ten years.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  74. Sex change? by Droid+Rot · · Score: 1

    I'm no marine biologist, but I understand some breeds of fish can change sex when there is an imbalance in their population. I also understand sharks are classified as fish.
    Could it not be possible that one of the other 2 female sharks, temporarily, switched sex???

  75. If female sharks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If female sharks can reproduce without having sex, why can't my girlfriend have sex without reproducing?

  76. Tagging by daybot · · Score: 1

    God dammit what's happened to the Slashdot tagging system? Where are the lasers, the yes/no/maybes? I think the revised tagging system is defectivebydesign!

  77. Great, they found out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was me. I admit it. Sorry.

  78. Ob:Evolution by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone


    No sex ? Bummer !
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  79. Re:Bacterial Conjugation by jc42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sexual reproduction speeds up the process among complex organisms, but bacteria evolve very quickly without it.

    Sure they do. Google for "Bacterial Conjugation". Of course, they don't have genitalia like we do, but they manage anyway. Pretty much all bacteria that have been studied in any depth have been found to use conjugation to exchange DNA. There's even "bacterial porn" online, videos of the conjugation process.

    Actually, most of them only engage in sex occasionally, Mostly they reproduce by cloning (i.e., dividing). When they have several populations of clones intermingling, they produce lots of random mixtures of the different populations' genes in a big orgy of conjugation. Natural selection then decides which of these mixtures deserve to survive. The result is the same sort of pooling of beneficial genes that happens in us multi-cellular organisms during sex.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  80. The sacrilege by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

    Well, like Jesus, the sharp pup is dead, and like the Crocodile Hunter, it was a stingray that did it in.

    One could dig themselves quite a hole here. :)

  81. Only if you misunderstand it :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Immaculate Conception was that of Mary. Jesus' birth was the Virgin Birth.

    Also, it'd be pretty weird to name the shark Jesus when it's a female. Parthenogenesis does not and cannot produce male offspring.

    Sorry for being pedantic, but a lot of people are getting this all wrong.

    1. Re:Only if you misunderstand it :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesusette?

  82. MAN! by axia777 · · Score: 1

    Am I the only guy here who is glad that human women can't do this? We would be sooooo screwed, and not in the good way. Let's hope they NEVER develop a way for them to have babies with out men. Sharks, okay. Human Women, not so good.

    1. Re:MAN! by steveoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No no no - its all good.

      If a chick WANTS to have a kid on their own, they should be able to, without dragging some guy into a long term support commitment by saying 'Guess wot ? Im pregnant'.

      If you want a kid together, you still can, and if she wants her own - she can, and no child support liability for a kid that you never asked for. She would only have herself to blame in this case.

  83. So that's why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's so hard to get a date with a female lawyer.

  84. That sucks by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

    merican and Irish researchers that have discovered that some female sharks can reproduce without having sex

    That must be really boring for the females, and really frustrating for the males...

  85. Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > This fact could actually be a rational, scientific explanation for Mary's 'immaculate conception', if indeed an historical Mary and an historical Jesus ever existed.

    A) No it can't be. This sort of reproduction produces only FEMALE offspring. Period.

    B) The idea that Jesus didn't exist is, at best, fringe. Most scholars believe that Jesus existed because otherwise, you need a few centuries of conspiracy theories and you have to place Paul as the 'real' founder of Christianity, which means that you have to ignore all the evidence that does not support your theory or "reinterpret" it in increasingly novel ways to prevent it from being problematic, even though no one in all of history before you ever even supposed that it could possibly be interpreted that way. And you end up claiming that that's what it "really" meant the whole time.

    Of course, most scholars also say that miracles are not a question that can be addressed by historical inquiry, so they don't claim that Jesus did anything supernatural, either. Of course, claiming that Jesus didn't exist sells a lot of books, so you do see some nobodies cashing in on the theory, but they're not being taken seriously by actual, reputable scholars, atheist or otherwise.

  86. Not vertebrates, just chordates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to clarify: sharks are just chordates, having no backbones as such.

  87. Well... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    We don't have compulsory service in the military anymore anyway. If we did, there might be imputus from those interested in evolving tactics to draft women into mixed and segregated training units as well.

    However, we have a voluntary service. And women don't want to serve in separate units (by and large) so... there you are.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  88. not so unusual by nanosquid · · Score: 1

    Parthenogenesis has been observed in many vertebrates and some mammals, and it may rarely occur naturally in humans (even without divine intervention). So, this isn't all that unusual.

  89. This is OLD news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is OLD news! Everyone already knows that Hillary had Chelsea.

  90. Shark Evolution by Varvs · · Score: 1

    Maybe this will help explain why sharks have stayed relatively unchanged for thousands of years?

  91. the obligatory nerd joke? by DarkManaX · · Score: 1

    Seriously, no one has yet to make the most obvious nerd joke here... the midichlorian thing from star wars... I'm not even going to bother trying to formulate something clever here, just pointing it out.

  92. Something similar already found in Komodo Dragons by satyakam · · Score: 2, Informative

    See the Komodo Dragon tale The tale explains the concept of parthenogenesis, which is simply put, "virginal birth". There are two interesting types in this : 1. Cloning, where the offspring is genetically identical to the parent 2. Selfing. where a female may produce two sets of chromosomes that mate. One set would behave like a sperm.

  93. We already knew this... by krycheq · · Score: 1

    Yes... Dick Cheney's daughter and her partner just had a baby... so it must be true! No men required.

  94. Dr. Ian Malcolm by drunkrussian · · Score: 1

    I'm simply saying that life finds a way.

  95. Cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't know Mary Cheney was a lawyer..... go figure.

  96. So - shark Jesus born, they kill it the same day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical.

  97. Male sharks by FullySickGovt · · Score: 1

    What a life without sex, no shark support payments for 18 years, no moving out of your own ocean, no sharks in wigs to say YOU HAVE TO pay big-time,no need for DNA tests,no wonder they have survived for so long and not suicided !

    1. Re:Male sharks by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      More male sharks are going to come to slashdot now, . . . complaining about why they don't have a girlfriend! Oh no!

  98. Offtopic, but by the way... by pnuema · · Score: 1

    ...the St. Louis Zoo is better than either one of them, according to Zagat. Free, too.