[aldo_14]

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. ®

[redsniper]

So they basically evolved by beneficial mutations alone... Cool. 8)

[IceFire]

Wow...10 million years of sexual frustration.

[Flipside]

Sod that, I'll stick with sex, thanks

[Bob-san]

Sod that, I'll stick with sex, thanks

As will I.

[Nuclear1]

Sod that, I'll stick with sex, thanks

That's the first thing I said when I read the article too.

[Mongoose]

So there's hope for all of us nerds, then.

[karajorma]

Only if you know chat up lines that work on horny microscopic bacterium though.

[aldo_14]

Why the **** was this thread moved here?

[Mefustae]

Because it doesn't concern life, the universe, and everything?

[aldo_14]

Because it doesn't concern life, the universe, and everything?

It concerns life, and sex - which is next to everything.

[Wobble73]

Evolution without sex!!?? Isn't this more like Spontaneous Mutation??

[Bob-san]

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).

[vyper]

Why the **** was this thread moved here?

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

[Unknown Target]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[vyper]

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.

[Desert Tyrant]

No Scssioring?!! NO!!!!!!!!!

[Thor]

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?

[Inquisitor]

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.