Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on March 22, 2007, 10:54:29 am

Title: Evolution without sex?
Post by: aldo_14 on March 22, 2007, 10:54:29 am
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/bdelloid_rotifers/


A microscopic animal has shown its ability to evolve without reproduction, thereby refuting "the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species', the Times reports.

That's according to an international team of researchers, including experts from Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge, and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, who studied exclusively-female bdelloid rotifers and discovered that although they'd not had sex for 100 million years, they had "diversified under pressure of natural selection".

Specifically, two sister specimens were identified living in close proximity on a water louse's body - one around the host's legs, the other near the chest. Genetic analysis and the shape of the animals' jaws showed they were different species, but, as Tim Barraclough of Imperial College explained, they "almost certainly arrived on the louse as one species and later evolved to take better advantage of the environment".

While "asexual" species don't usually last long in evolutionary terms (they can evolve through mutations "into another species, but only into one species and at the cost of its original form", the Times clarifies), the bdelloid rotifers have rather cleverly diversified into various species. This ability "may explain why they have survived so long" - so long, in fact, that one example was trapped in amber 40 million years ago, while DNA analysis points to their having survived 100 million years without a shag.

Barraclough summed it up with: "These really are amazing creatures, whose very existence calls into question scientific understanding."

The team's research is published in PLoS Biology. ®
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: redsniper on March 22, 2007, 04:14:34 pm
So they basically evolved by beneficial mutations alone... Cool. 8)
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: IceFire on March 22, 2007, 05:59:59 pm
Wow...10 million years of sexual frustration.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Flipside on March 22, 2007, 06:06:29 pm
Sod that, I'll stick with sex, thanks :D
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 22, 2007, 07:40:13 pm
Sod that, I'll stick with sex, thanks :D
As will I. :lol:
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Nuclear1 on March 22, 2007, 07:41:51 pm
Sod that, I'll stick with sex, thanks :D
That's the first thing I said when I read the article too. ;)
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Mongoose on March 22, 2007, 10:00:35 pm
So there's hope for all of us nerds, then. :p
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: karajorma on March 23, 2007, 02:52:41 am
Only if you know chat up lines that work on horny microscopic bacterium though. :p
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: aldo_14 on March 23, 2007, 04:06:54 am
Why the **** was this thread moved here?
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Mefustae on March 23, 2007, 04:14:17 am
Because it doesn't concern life, the universe, and everything?
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: aldo_14 on March 23, 2007, 05:58:07 am
Because it doesn't concern life, the universe, and everything?

It concerns life, and sex - which is next to everything.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Wobble73 on March 23, 2007, 06:02:15 am
Evolution without sex!!?? Isn't this more like Spontaneous Mutation??
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 23, 2007, 07:11:50 am
Something like that. Point is life and sex go hand-in-hand. WOuldn't have one without the other (at least that we could recognize).
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: vyper on March 23, 2007, 08:24:53 am
Why the **** was this thread moved here?

The administration is terrified of debates over evolution, because generally someone goes home crying.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Unknown Target on March 23, 2007, 08:26:39 am
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/bdelloid_rotifers/


A microscopic animal has shown its ability to evolve without reproduction, thereby refuting "the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species', the Times reports.

That's according to an international team of researchers, including experts from Imperial College London, the University of Cambridge, and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, who studied exclusively-female bdelloid rotifers and discovered that although they'd not had sex for 100 million years, they had "diversified under pressure of natural selection".

Specifically, two sister specimens were identified living in close proximity on a water louse's body - one around the host's legs, the other near the chest. Genetic analysis and the shape of the animals' jaws showed they were different species, but, as Tim Barraclough of Imperial College explained, they "almost certainly arrived on the louse as one species and later evolved to take better advantage of the environment".

While "asexual" species don't usually last long in evolutionary terms (they can evolve through mutations "into another species, but only into one species and at the cost of its original form", the Times clarifies), the bdelloid rotifers have rather cleverly diversified into various species. This ability "may explain why they have survived so long" - so long, in fact, that one example was trapped in amber 40 million years ago, while DNA analysis points to their having survived 100 million years without a shag.

Barraclough summed it up with: "These really are amazing creatures, whose very existence calls into question scientific understanding."

The team's research is published in PLoS Biology. ®


Well I'd figure asexual evolution is possible - after all, we all started out as single-celled organisms and had to evolve from there.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: aldo_14 on March 23, 2007, 08:26:49 am
Why the **** was this thread moved here?

The administration is terrified of debates over evolution, because generally someone goes home crying.

Even thought this only has the word evolution as a title.  What sodding idiot* made that decision?

*and yes, I mean that with all sincerity

Something like that. Point is life and sex go hand-in-hand. WOuldn't have one without the other (at least that we could recognize).

Asexual reproduction with, I'd imagine, mutation through various copying etc errors.  I think rotifers are capable of producing eggs asexually, although I'm not 100% sure.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: vyper on March 23, 2007, 02:19:47 pm
Why the **** was this thread moved here?

The administration is terrified of debates over evolution, because generally someone goes home crying.

Even thought this only has the word evolution as a title.  What sodding idiot* made that decision?

*and yes, I mean that with all sincerity

Something like that. Point is life and sex go hand-in-hand. WOuldn't have one without the other (at least that we could recognize).

Asexual reproduction with, I'd imagine, mutation through various copying etc errors.  I think rotifers are capable of producing eggs asexually, although I'm not 100% sure.

No idea, I'm just guessing.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on March 23, 2007, 03:51:09 pm
No Scssioring?!! NO!!!!!!!!! :eek:
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Thor on March 23, 2007, 07:45:15 pm
i feel for the poor little guys.  maybe they'll spontaneously evolve into creatures that like to get it on?  or maybe they'll evolve into super genius critters out for world domination...or a bowl of petunias?
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Inquisitor on March 24, 2007, 10:54:01 am
Is the original article available somewhere? THe only truly necessary thing i can think of is the ability to pass genetic material to their descendants, which asexual species manage just fine.

Kinda still sounds like "random" mutation, which is then passed on down the line through whatever asexual mechanism. It just happened to be a useful mutation. I would think the only way to prove/disprove that would be to find the remains of lots of failed versions though. Defining "random" is always a problem, cause and effect are unclear. Did they develop the diversification because of the environment, or did they survive the environment because of the diversification? And if they survived because of it, how was that trait passed to future generations? Depending on your definitions, that still sounds like natural selection to me, useful traits persist because their carriers survive and pass them on. Requiring sexual reproduction to define natural selection always seemed like a red herring to me. Been years since I gave this any thought beyond grad school though, so my memories are muddled as well on the various definitions and arguments for them.

It would be interesting if they cultured these critters in a controlled environment. Can you reproduce the results, etc.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 24, 2007, 01:42:09 pm
Maybe what we see is that they start the "beneficial (?) mutations" based off their own genetic code; their code doesn't mutate to change the creature, the change to the creature is based on the same code.

RNA and DNA are being contested on what is really our genetic identity; what makes us us. Last I heard, RNA was more important in characteristics than DNA.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Mobius on March 24, 2007, 01:58:43 pm
Sex is damn good. You live longer, you enjoy your life, you everything!
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 24, 2007, 02:03:09 pm
I hear chocolate has the same chemical composition as sex... I really don't care; I'd take sex over chocolate any day... though better is sex with chocolate :lol:
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Mobius on March 24, 2007, 02:36:32 pm
Ah, I know it. Chocolate=black woman and Vanilla=white woman

Yeah pretty interesting...
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 24, 2007, 02:40:15 pm
Ah, I know it. Chocolate=black woman and Vanilla=white woman

Yeah pretty interesting...
Didn't mean it quite like that... more like chocolate with my girl... anyways; so what's hispanic or asian? :lol:
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Mobius on March 24, 2007, 02:43:47 pm
Lemonade...
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 24, 2007, 02:46:18 pm
Explain.

How is Asian or Hispanic lemonade?
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Mobius on March 24, 2007, 02:58:14 pm
Let me try them first...

Let's return on topic.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on March 25, 2007, 12:26:47 am
Let me try them first...

Let's return on topic.
:lol: :lol: :D
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: redsniper on March 25, 2007, 02:05:16 am
Asian is just vanilla with more math...
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 25, 2007, 10:19:19 am
So still, what is hispanic?
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on March 25, 2007, 10:24:50 am
So still, what is hispanic?
As greasy as KFC, bob, as greasy as KFC
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Flipside on March 25, 2007, 10:28:20 am
Ok.... that's enough, it may be in jest but let's stop it now :)

I'll leave this in the hopes it gets back on topic, but people might like to consider that HLP is not browsed purely by White Anglo Saxons.
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Bob-san on March 25, 2007, 10:35:07 am
Ok.... that's enough, it may be in jest but let's stop it now :)

I'll leave this in the hopes it gets back on topic, but people might like to consider that HLP is not browsed purely by White Anglo Saxons.
I may be white but i'm not Anglo-Saxon. I had 3 of 4 of me questions answered... i will not respond to Tyrant's bs cause I don't want this to go back into the padded cell. Anyways... any thoughts beside "im sticking with sex"?
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Flipside on March 25, 2007, 10:41:48 am
It's certainly interesting from a scientific point of view, but I wonder personally how far these things could actually come without reproduction techniques like sex. They're an amazing discovery, but look to be stuck in a evolutionary 'rut' that they'll never get out of. (that's a pretty poor comparison in some ways, since it creates the image of everything conciously trying to evolve to something 'better')
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on March 25, 2007, 12:20:58 pm
Ok.... that's enough, it may be in jest but let's stop it now :)

I'll leave this in the hopes it gets back on topic, but people might like to consider that HLP is not browsed purely by White Anglo Saxons.
HEY?!, I actually am half Mexican(The other half, uh, really white.  Think ANY white european Country)
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on March 25, 2007, 12:27:11 pm
Also, I have a dirty sanchez mustache>_>
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Flipside on March 25, 2007, 12:32:16 pm
:lol: Well, if you imagine it as film dialogue, it's kinda funny, but I'd ask that people try not to get too carried away with things, I knew it was done in jest, hence the thread was left open, but other people may not have seen it that way :)
Title: Re: Evolution without sex?
Post by: Desert Tyrant on March 25, 2007, 01:19:09 pm
OK, point taken :)