What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
69 Comments
- humanrobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+98me: What is... Digg users?
alex: Correct for $600, pick again. - Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+68No, she liked sex. Just ask your best friend.
On topic-- So you can survive without sex, but where's the fun in it? - KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+59Yeah, still, we are lucky. I hear at slashdot they have to wait 3.4 billion years between sessions...
- AKBryant54, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54"A group of organisms that has never had sex in over 40 million years of existence..."
If you call that existence... - CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48Woah, woah, too much info dude!
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28At Slashdot, they've even alienated their hands.
- Sharkee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+39Hmm, maybe my exgirlfriend didn't hate sex, it just turns out she was a bdelloid rotifer. How did I not see THAT coming?
- godmode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22coming 2008, Steve Carell is...the 40 million year old virgin
- benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I dont see why they are astounded that something can evolve while reproducing asexually. Cells are dividing which will eventually introduce a mutation. If the mutation is beneficial they continue to divide. Seems pretty simple to me.
Sex would just provide faster evolution with a broader range of availible matierial availible to mutate. - matthewaaron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Finally there is hope for the continuation of the WOW player species...
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Don't have sex, or don't need sex to reproduce...there is a big difference...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10No sex for 40 million years? Thats almost as big as the combined virginity of digg!
- MasterChi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"genetic clones of the mother – there are no males."
Hmm, i wouldn't mind some hot twin milf's going at it without the chance of sexually reproducing. Bring it on baby :D - asauterChicago, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9really you haven't met my wife. 40 million years... lucky bastards...
- BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1440 million years?
Evolution?
The fundies must be pissed at this article! :P - ButterBuddha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6sounds like my last marriage....
- torstens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There is no assumption that sex is necessary for evolution in the scientific community. Sex just allows for an increased rate of evolution, but most importantly, it allows for the permanence of good characteristics in a population, rather than relying on one asexual line to come up with everything good. Different environments favor different reproductions.
- adeze, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5it must belong to the genus "blueis ballus" or "frigidis bitches"
- TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"This article flies in the face of the normal understanding of evolution which is distinctly sex based."
No, evolution is about natural selection, which requires reproduction, not necessarily sexual.
Sex is in fact a bit of a problem for evolution. Sex and bisexual reproduction is much more costly to an organism than asexual reproduction would be, and in fact there are some species of frogs, for example, that usually reproduce bisexually but can reproduce asexually in a pinch.
So why do organisms invest so much energy into bisexual reproduction? The prevailing theory has been the advantage in fitness of the offspring is much greater because there's a greater variance without decreased viability (ie, you can be different just because your parents were a new mix, not because of some mutation, which would most likely be lethal, but this new finding calls this into question (in a minor way). - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6...and I thought my dry spell was getting pretty long.
- Polymathic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@benito - from the article - "Asexual creatures like the bdelloid rotifers were known not to be all identical, but it had been argued that the differences might arise solely through the chance build-up of random mutations that occur in the 'cloning' process when a new rotifer is born. The new study proves that these differences are not random and are the result of so-called 'divergent selection', a process well known to cause the origin of species in sexual organisms."
They have apparently removed the "beneficial mutation carry-over" argument from the equation already. - tsunamisteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Most of us will die virgins? Speak for yourself. Or maybe I'm giving Digg users too much credit.
- moskrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because it's much more fun to make jokes about married life...
- TheWiseNoob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Don't worry, according to my college health class the average human being has sex over 2000 times in his/her life. So for all of you non-virgin Digg users, expect it at least 1999 times...
- cygnusx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3These critters had no sex for 40 million years and they look like something from a B-grade horror movie. Meanwhile, humans have been doing the rumpy-pumpy for years and we end with Scarlett Johansson.
Clearly demonstrates why sex is superior, IMHO. - Dested, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thats what I've been trying to tell you!
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4in all fairness, most of us will die virgins, and I think those asexual beings shouldn't be counted in the average.
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It seems to me that a favorable genetic mutation would be a much faster way to evolve compared to sex....
- grubwort, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wikipedia has a pretty good summary on all this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex - m00n1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4We can beat these little critters! Let's see, with the average digg user having had no sex in 25 years, we need 1,600,000 digg users to comment below this to prove no slime is better than us!
- XandraX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why are people who actually know what they're talking about getting dugg down?
- vuseless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@TechGeekNet
I'm sure it does. Digg and the previous article about Virtual Women. ;-) - R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It could be readily explained if the organism is prone to mutations because it does not contain the same error correction processes that are present in most lifeforms... Such as when DNA is Copied as RNA and contains the redundant code neccessary to create the same process anyway... but I'm just kinda pulling that outa my ass.
- TomRitchford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2milf == microscopic organism I'd like to fsck?
- Anigav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The movie would be called "14600000000 days and 14600000000 nights"
- Alawn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is just dumb. Bacteria reproduces asexually and it evolves into new species. The idea that something can evolve into a new species asexually is not new at all.
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was told that only humans and dolphins actually enjoy sex... but I can,'t assure it myself! :-(
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I thought it said "A group of orgasms that has never had sex in over 40 million years of existence"
- nipterink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@lixie: you know sex is actually painful for a lot of different species. humans are one of the few species that get pleasure from sex.
- EricJD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Buried as inaccurate.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, the "why" isn't the problem. Science cannot explain the rate of evolution, not the fact it could occur. In complex organisms, sex is pretty much the only way evolution happens over millions of years instead of billions of years.
- cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1source with no ads and easier to read - http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_20-3-2007-9-54-56?newsid=8155
Tutorial: Find the source on the bottom of the page. Copy and paste into Google and click "I'm feeling lucky"...follow link with big headlines on that page..kthx. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know I am as ardent a fan of evolution as anyone, but not every damned story there is needs to be twisted to try to stoke up the same old arguments.
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If we don't count virgins, how do we keep a record of number of years without sex?
They are all virgins... - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The study challenges the assumption that sex is necessary for organisms to diversify and provides scientists with new insight into why species evolve in the first place."
Hmm... It seems most geeks will have to devise a similar strategy... - iObstinate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and I thought I've gone a long time without it!
- dstz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Diggers?
- cliffordmerkel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wow! good ;)
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That'd be a molf :)
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is