Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the they-must-play-dungeons-and-dragons-too dept.

Science 343

zyl0x writes "The Times has an interesting article online on the discovery of a 100-million-year-old micro-organism which has survived its entire lifespan without sex." From the article "A tiny creature that has not had sex for 100 million years has overturned the theory that animals need to mate to create variety. Analysis of the jaw shapes of bdelloid rotifers, combined with genetic data, revealed that the animals have diversified under pressure of natural selection. Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".

cancel ×

343 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nothing to see here... (5, Funny)

Veroxii (51114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439503)

This happens on Slashdot all the time.

Move along...

Yeah... (4, Funny)

FigTree (1076935) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439743)

...but they're all female.

Re:Yeah... (1)

Meph_the_Balrog (796101) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439797)

so there really might be millions of micro-orgasms in the water hereabouts? :P

Re:Yeah... (1)

Menelkir (899602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439895)

Thanks god I'm not a micro-organism.

Re:Nothing to see here... (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439751)

I had an organism once.

99.999 million years to go... tumtetumtetum..

Re:Nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439801)

Damn! 99,999,981 years to go.

Re:Nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439839)

100 years without sex looks like a typical life of any common IT support guy.

About the title... (5, Funny)

oOo Shiva oOo (582339) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439893)

I would have found "Organism Survives Without Orgasm" at least a hundred times more entertaining :)

Re:About the title... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440059)

Well now wait a minute. I didn't read the article or anything (you know) but, wouldn't that also imply that the little bugger hasn't "made itself happy" for 100 million years either?

I mean, I haven't ever had sex, but since age 14 I'm sure I've had THOUSANDS of orgasms. (Okay you didn't need to know that - would it help if I mentioned that I'm a girl?)

Re:About the title... (4, Funny)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440193)

Funny, I initially read it as 'Orgasm Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex'.

Indeed (5, Funny)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440027)

Sounds a lot like my marriage...

Re:Nothing to see here... (1)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440155)

April Fools seems to have come a bit earlier this year...

Re:Nothing to see here... (2, Funny)

nytes (231372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440249)

I'd like to welcome our sexless over...

Wait a minute!

I mean - I'd like to welcome our fellow slashdotters. (Or is it that you're simply married? Wow, I thought 25 years was a long time.)

Welcome to slashdot (5, Funny)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439507)

It should be right at home here.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (0, Offtopic)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439571)

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

But - 100 million years without sex. That's gotta suck... or NOT!

Re:Welcome to slashdot (5, Insightful)

ari_j (90255) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439611)

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

But - 100 million years without sex. That's gotta suck... or NOT!

Presumably, it's not your original sense of humor that you rely on in these matters.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439627)

At this point it's more of an in-joke than an actual lamenting of our lonely state. There's a canonical geek out there we all think of fondly, and perhaps we even were that guy at some point, even if we've grown out of it now. Slashdot is much more diversified than it used to be.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439697)

You must be REALLY new here...

Re:Welcome to slashdot (4, Funny)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439811)

Yeah I used to think how awesome it is to not be one of those lonely slashdot guys who has a redundant penis.

Then I hit the 3'rd year of being with my girlfriend, anyone want a redundant penis?

Re:Welcome to slashdot (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439861)

Having a girlfriend and not having sex are completely different things. The optimal situation is to get the sex and not have the girlfriend. After that, it's a matter of what is more important to you -- sex or your sanity? Then you choose accordingly.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (5, Funny)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440127)

The optimal situation is to get the sex and not have the girlfriend.

I wouldn't call masturbation optimal...

Re:Welcome to slashdot (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439913)

I'm still a virgin, you insensitive clod!

Re:Welcome to slashdot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440017)

Speak for your fucking self.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439693)

Which moron modded this a troll? It's an attempt at humor. ( Ok, maybe not the most succesful attempt, but we all bomb now and then ) Lighten up guys. Have a splif. Go get laid....ohhh, now I get it, it a troll because you haven't gotten laid in years. Never mind.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (3, Funny)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439731)

Hey, shower in prison doesn't count.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (1)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439793)

But you'd have to admit that January 23rd once a decade is pretty darn regular.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (2, Funny)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439829)

Me thinks the person who boasts sexual conquests protesteth too much.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440179)

Indeed. The truly skilled do not boast...it's just a normal thing. It's the guy who "gets lucky" once in a while (or not at all) who feels the need to boast about it.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (2, Funny)

CouteauTM (985458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439881)

laid .... off?

Re:Welcome to slashdot (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439983)

Let's face it, most of the people here are shy, nerdy guys who at most are in some girl's inescapable friend zone.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440045)

Fricken inescapable friend zone... been stuck in a few too many... and then there's the painfully awkward reverse situation with the girl that doesn't quite do it for you stuck in yours...

Re:Welcome to slashdot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440087)

Am I the only slashdotter who gets laid on a regular basis?
When we talk about sex, we mean with another person, sparky. Your hand doesn't count.

Re:Welcome to slashdot (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439575)

Wow, 11 comments and only 2 that are making variants of this joke. I am UNIMPRESSED people, get to work!

Re:Welcome to slashdot (4, Funny)

yintercept (517362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439713)

"It should be right at home here."
The article says that all of the bdelloid rotifers are females.

Your point is refuted.

Slashdotters (1, Redundant)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439515)

Now you know how Slashdotters will look after a hundred million years!

On a serious note, no sex, no evolution -- doesn't look like this organism has changed all that much in hundred million years.

Support evolution: get laid now!

Re:Slashdotters (5, Informative)

niloroth (462586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439579)

actually, the main point of the story is that it has changed, has evolved. There is no reason to believe that evolution stops if there is no sex, natural selection is quite happy to use mutation as a tool for evolution, just as it does sex. The difference being that sex tends to speed the process up with different combinations of genes with most offspring.

Re: Slashdotters (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439867)

> actually, the main point of the story is that it has changed, has evolved. There is no reason to believe that evolution stops if there is no sex, natural selection is quite happy to use mutation as a tool for evolution, just as it does sex.

Which is hardly news, since we've long known that the whole family tree stems from asexual organisms. If they didn't evolve, we wouldn't be here to comment on it.

Re:Slashdotters (4, Funny)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440083)

Well, clearly sex isn't the only way to achieve diversification.

It's just more fun that way.

Re:Slashdotters (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440055)

On a serious note, no sex, no evolution -- doesn't look like this organism has changed all that much in hundred million years.

Come on, I know reading the article is too much but you could at least read the summary.

Scientific name (2, Funny)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439517)

Scientists have named this new species Republicanus Typicalus.

Re:Scientific name (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439555)

If Republicans aren't having sex then how is the human population being sustained? Surely not by liberals who murder their own unborn.

Re:Scientific name (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439655)

is it wonderful how conveniently human thinking settles down into two discrete groups like that.

You can tell everything about what a person believe and thinks simply by asking him who he intends to vote for

Re:Scientific name (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439699)

Do you even know what murder means?

How on earth can you kill someone who hasn't even been born yet?
Next you'll be saying woman who have periods are murderers. ...that's another embryo aborted. In your opinion we are all genocidal maniacs, since we could have all reproduced millions of times but have not (something to do with rape laws) and so millions of embryo's have been effectively aborted via periods which could have otherwise formed children.

Re:Scientific name (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439845)

Actually, the standard right wing Christian viewpoint is extremely concise... for sexually reproducing organisms, life begins at conception, the union of a sperm and egg. That's when GOD puts the soul in there. So a woman's menstrual cycle is not murder, as the egg is not alive at that point. If you are going to take a stand as to when abortion is morally wrong, at the very least that is far more concise and easy to legally prove than "before the second trimester" or whatever.

Not that I agree that that's the right place where the law should say life begins, but it far more defensible than some arbitrary time such as second trimester.

Re:Scientific name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439873)

It's not an embryo until the oocyte is fertilized by a sperm (usually after sex).

Once it's fertilized it will start dividing, growing, will implant into the uterus and form a placenta.

At that point the human embryo can either be aborted (killed) or left alone to be born 9 months later. There may be good reason to destroy this life, but the abortion is usually done because the daddy was too lazy (or dumb or drunk) to put on a condom.

Objections to abortions have nothing to do with procreation; goodness knows most of you can't afford to support your kids anyways and our taxes go through the roof. So, what most people object to is that instead of using a condom or getting a blowjob, or fucking a guy up the ass... I say, instead of all that, you liberals chose to go all the way, create human life, then kill it.

Re:Scientific name (1, Offtopic)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439989)

How on earth can you kill someone who hasn't even been born yet?

Your question is full of assumptions, not all of which are warranted. An unborn human being is still a human being, still a member of the species homo sapiens. Biologically, they join the human race at conception. Whether or not they are legal "persons" entitled to government protection is a completely separate issue.

Next you'll be saying woman who have periods are murderers. ...that's another embryo aborted.

Menstruation does not kill an embryo, which is what you seem to be implying. If you want a better example, may I suggest "miscarriage"? Now to answer your amended question, as why we don't call women who have miscarriages murderers, is because those events are unintented, unwillful and accidental. The technical term for an intended miscarriage is "abortion".

Re:Scientific name (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439799)

haha, well I thought it was funny :-)

Re:Scientific name (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440021)

Flamebait? This is satire at its greatest.

Re:Scientific name (1)

ChameleonDave (1041178) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440057)

That would be Respublicanus typicus, or perhaps exemplaris.

Hey (-1, Troll)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439519)

Only 9 so far.

Fuck you!

Huh? (1)

CPNABEND (742114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439521)

*cough* BULLSHIT! *cough*

Let me guess... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439523)

...it's married.

Finally, my 15 minutes of fame (4, Funny)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439527)

It is gratifying to see an article about me, but why did they add in the irrelevant stuff about bdelloid rotifers?

So...uh... (1)

mushadv (909107) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439529)

...y'know...uh...does it like...touch itself? You know like, down there?

Blue Balliticus (5, Funny)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439539)

Is that what you would name this micro-organism?

Perhaps It Is Married - Would Explain Everything (3, Funny)

littlewink (996298) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439543)

While 100 million years seems like a long time, perhaps it is married and has a wife. That would explain everything.

Re:Perhaps It Is Married - Would Explain Everythin (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439955)

While 100 million years seems like a long time, perhaps it is married and has a wife. That would explain everything.
I'm not sure how deep your humor was meant to go,
but the organism in question is female & reproduces asexually.
So if anything, it's a woman married to herself.

Maybe there really is something to those stereotypes...

About time they got around to this study! (3, Insightful)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439547)

I see they finally studied the mating habits of the married American male...

Re:About time they got around to this study! (4, Funny)

mollog (841386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439641)

Maybe it only seems like 100 million years. Either way, I can sympathize. I, too, tell myself that I have evolved.

A New Hope..... (1)

LoneGNUman (882696) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439553)

There is hope for all you geeks!!!

Is it only me... (5, Funny)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439559)

...who read this as a single organism living for 100 million years without having sex? First part said "wow", second part made me feel like I had been out-geeked...

Re:Is it only me... (1)

ari wins (1016630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439957)

No, but I read it as a single orgasm that lasted for 100 million years without sex. Can I burn some karma and come back as one of those?

Obligatory Joke (4, Funny)

Telephone Sanitizer (989116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439561)

From the look of those mandibles, it's the foreplay that kills 'em.

...Huh? (4, Interesting)

Razzendacuben (985660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439581)

Who ever said sex was necessary for diversity? It just speeds it up - what's the big deal about this discovery? There are a crazy number of organisms that don't have sex and have changed a hell of a lot over time.

Gene Transfer? (3, Interesting)

logicnazi (169418) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439589)

It was discovered wearing a ratty linux t-shirt.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously however the article was very unclear. What is it that asexual organisms aren't able to do? Surely it isn't that they can't diversify into different species. After all every organism on earth is descended from the same intial life form and some organisms are still asexual hence establishing that the initial lifeform diversified into some progenitor sexual organism as well as branches that remained asexual.

My best guess as to the claim made in the article is that multi-celluar organisms require sexual reproduction to select for organism wide traits. Not sure why it would be true (maybe different cells don't have enough incentive to look out for the whole organism) but that's my best guess.

Anyway saying that the organism doesn't have sex isn't very clear. Many bacteria exchange genetic material without having sex. Such a system might let this creature gain some of the benefits of sexual selection.

Does anyone understand what this article is actually trying to say? I know it's a funny title but some info would be nice too.

Re:Gene Transfer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439711)

The article basically says the original species has split into species that are better adapted to their particular conditions. This usually only happens with sexual creatures because the "survival of the fittest" is done by passing the genes (and memes) through generations.

Nerd trifecta (5, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439601)

Front page stories

* Dungeons & Dragons and IT
* Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex
* Gifted Children Find Heavy Metal Comforting

Did anyone see suck's parody of slashdot?

http://www.suck.com/daily/99/12/13/daily.html [suck.com]

Doesn't seem so funny now, does it?

Re:Nerd trifecta (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439915)

YOU'RE WRONG!!

If anything, this makes it even funnier :)

Re:Nerd trifecta (5, Funny)

Deathbane27 (884594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440163)

That's not a very good parody of Slashdot. There's no dupe on the front page!

Those organisms must be nerds. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439603)

While all the other organisms are having sex everyday.

Blisters (3, Funny)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439615)

Of course, it had one hellashish case of masterbation blisters....

Re:Blisters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440035)

If you're getting blisters, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Blisters (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440151)

Of course, it had one hellashish case of masterbation blisters....

So they were blind as well?

Orgasm vs. Organism (4, Funny)

Fastball (91927) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439617)

Did anyone else read that headline as "Orgasm Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex?" That'd be a pretty impressive feat!

Not even (1)

onpermvaca (988042) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439723)

oral?

Impressive, except that..... (2, Informative)

Livius (318358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439739)

...scientists *don't* say "that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".

Sex *does* lead to diversity *within* a species, which can be good for keeping ahead of parasites and diseases, and all the genetic duplication can help accelerate diversification. But sexual reproduction, in the absence of other sources of genetic variation, does not lead to speciation.

so what? (3, Informative)

eobanb (823187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439753)

I actually don't see what the big f**king deal is. If you understand evolution, you probably know that natural selection does not depend on sexual reproduction. It just depends on reproduction, period. It's not as if this single, individual organism has lived 100 million years; its asexual offspring have lived that long, and any time in asexual reproduction, mutations can also occur. I repeat, IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO SEXUAL REPRODUCTION.

I would fathom that mutation might happen more often with sexual reproduction, and thus asexual reproduction could slow the pace of evolution, but again, that's not to say it doesn't happen. Because it very surely does, as we know from the mutation of all those single-celled asexual organisms we know about. Like every disease out there. It is absolutely nonsense to claim otherwise. Bacteria multiply asexually. Protists do too. This is why diseases resist new drugs. Countless species of plants reproduce asexually. Myriad species of all these kingdoms have survived for 100 million years.

The headline might as well be, 'there has been life on Earth a long time.'

Re:so what? (2, Informative)

tijnbraun (226978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440189)

Well... some biologist do have a problem with the Bdelloid rotifers.
John Maynard Smith [wikipedia.org] , not a small thinker among biologist, called these creatures "An Evolutionary Scandal" [harvardmagazine.com] .
It is true that bacteria produce asexuall, but they still exchange genetic material using conjugation [wikipedia.org] .

Silly reporter, sex is not required (5, Insightful)

CCW (125740) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439777)

This discovery doesn't refute anything. Sex has never been a requirement for diversification. That's just silly. Single celled organisms reproduce clonally, and there are millions of species. (they do utilize gene transfer, but that isn't the same as sexual reproduction)

Inheritable differences and selection are sufficient. Mutation is a fine source of inheritable differences. Sex allows greater rates of diversity and retention in the population of undesirable traits that are not dominant for longer, allowing them time to mutate into something useful or show up when environmental factors make them useful. Sexual reproduction is far and away the most common mode in multicellular organisms, probably because it helps the species be resilient to environmental changes. But it isn't required.

you nerds and your stereotypical jokes (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439785)

Personal, I have a great sex life! I just had sex a few minutes ago.

.
.

And someday, I hope to try it with another person!

Trust me (4, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439823)

it just seemed like a 100 million years.

Sex not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439843)

It might not be necessary, but it's certainly fun.

Always heard... (2, Informative)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439849)

I had always read that sex wasn't nessaccary for diversity but it excellerates the process. It would be more of a story if the microorganism had mirrored the diversity of sex based organisms without the benefit of sex. The mutation rate is higher with sex providing for a more varied gene pool and it allows for those genes to be randomly exchanged.

De-evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18439863)

How do you know whether that organism was originally not a super-intelligent being like a human that down-evolved to its current form as a result of abstaining from sex?

Beware of what awaits you! It's time to get laid!

Re:Organism Survives 100 Million Years Without Sex (1)

ekmo (128842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439897)

Seems more like a punishment than an accomplishment.

No sex? (1)

FAQdaWorld (1073930) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439909)

But where's the fun in that?

Size does matter (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439921)

The microscopic animals, less than four times the length of a human sperm

At first, I thought if I was that small I'd have a hard time finding a mate too. Then it struck me. Who the hell compares the size of anything to sperm. Couldn't they say it was less than 1/10 the width of human hair?

Yah... (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439927)

you call that living?

Horribly misreported (5, Insightful)

warm sushi (168223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439931)

Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".

I have never even heard the idea (during a degree in genetics) that sex is necessary for diversification into species. Bacteria do not have sex (although they can share DNA through other means, such as plasmids) and yet that are incrediably diverse and continue to evolve rapidly (e.g. antibiotic resistance). Therefore, if sex were necessary for speciation we would only have one species of bacteria.

The term "evolutionary species" is also strange. All "species" are by definition "evolutionary", since that is the process by which individual species arise.

Re:Horribly misreported (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18440183)

The term "evolutionary species" is also strange. All "species" are by definition "evolutionary", since that is the process by which individual species arise.

This is actually very common, especially when people want to try to sound smarter than they really are. They add extra words here and there, which end up making the terms strange, or more specifically, redundant. There are countless terms like this, "complete stop", "personal belongings", "final destination"...

Wow... (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18439943)

RMS does not look that old... aaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahhahah.
Badum-bum... we'll be here all week, try the fish...

Well... (1)

stuffman64 (208233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440047)

What's sex?

Who's first? (2, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440049)

So how long before the Cristian Right tries to use this study as "proof" that evolution is just a hoax and has been "proven wrong" by science. Or do they ever even bother giving actual sources for their claims anymore?

Re:Who's first? (2, Insightful)

redGiraffe (189625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440107)

There's just one snag (well, maybe more:) - they would have to explain how a 100 million year old organism fits into a world of only 6 thousand years old.

I'm sure logic will not hinder them in finding some lame-ass explanation - news at ten.

And I for one.. (3, Funny)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440063)

welcome our abstinent 100-million year old micro-organic losers *cough* overlords.

This just begs mentioning that one line (1)

infonography (566403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440067)

From Wargames;

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

David Lightman: Um, your wife?

First Programmer (1)

Tim12s (209786) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440091)

Looks like they uncovered the first programmer.

I guess the real question is, How much coffee has he had?

Whoa... (1)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440221)

I'd feel concerned for any creature which DID end up having sex after 100 million years.

Given all that pent-up need, they probably blow with enough force to launch the space shuttle.

Living Louse (5, Funny)

malia8888 (646496) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440277)

Two sister species were found to be living together on the body of a water louse. One of them specialised in living around the louse's legs and the other stayed close to the chest.
And I thought I had a crappy dorm room.

oh no... (1)

dropadrop (1057046) | more than 7 years ago | (#18440297)

Please don't tell my wife!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>