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!

Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-thought-the-federal-government-banned-cloning dept.

Biotech 293

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."

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

Sigh. (4, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238119)


Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone

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

Necessary improvement (5, Funny)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238137)

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

Re:Necessary improvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238407)

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?

Re:Necessary improvement (5, Funny)

sherms (15634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238579)

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

Re:Necessary improvement (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238761)

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

All the geeks ... (3, Funny)

eck011219 (851729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238141)

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

Re:All the geeks ... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238661)

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.

All the geeks on Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238729)

...keep trying to reproduce alone anyway.

Re:All the geeks ... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238997)

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.

asexual reproduction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238143)

That just takes the fun out of it...

Re:asexual reproduction (0, Redundant)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238177)

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

Re:asexual reproduction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238431)

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

Re:asexual reproduction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238485)

Well doesn't that beat all.

Re:asexual reproduction-Obligatory Wargames Quote (3, Funny)

protolith (619345) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238705)

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.

Obligatory (0, Redundant)

yootje (770109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238147)

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

Re:Obligatory (3, Informative)

Goobermunch (771199) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238311)

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

Re:Obligatory (1)

xENoLocO (773565) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239257)

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

Re:Obligatory (4, Funny)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238417)

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

Re:Obligatory (2, Informative)

Cygfrydd (957180) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238593)

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

Re:Obligatory (5, Funny)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238787)

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

Note to self... (5, Funny)

Steve--Balllmer (1070854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238149)

don't clone dinosaurs using shark DNA.

Womyn rejoice! (5, Funny)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238151)

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

Re:Womyn rejoice! (2, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238433)

"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.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (0)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238575)

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

Re:Womyn rejoice! (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239069)

This is a scary topic to go down.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (3, Interesting)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238451)

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 ?

Re:Womyn rejoice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238513)

> 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.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (3, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238637)

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.

Mutation can still happen. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238677)

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.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238707)

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.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238763)

> 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.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238843)

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.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238457)

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.

Re:Womyn rejoice! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238623)

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

Re:Womyn rejoice! (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238911)

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.

Obligatory... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238195)

That's hot.

John Hammond... (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238207)

...have you been splicing in frog DNA [imdb.com] again? Naughty naughty.

Re:John Hammond... (1)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238387)

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.

Re:John Hammond... (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238509)

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

Maintenance payments (5, Funny)

Dude McDude (938516) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238209)

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!

Unnecessary evil? (2, Insightful)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238211)

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

Re:Unnecessary evil? (1)

loafing_oaf (1054200) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238295)

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

Re:Unnecessary evil? (1)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238399)

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

Sexual reproduction isn't necessary for evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238495)

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.

Re:Unnecessary evil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238669)

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.

Answer is a big no. (1)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238795)

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.

Re:Unnecessary evil? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238809)

I hope you die soon, woman.
You are pro-women's rights and anti-men.
I hope your car is destroyed by a large tree with you inside.
I hope your daughters meet the same fate.
And their granddaughters aswell so that the female line of your family is destroyed as the daughter learns from her wrech of a mother.

Women's rights is bad for men.
Women hate men.
Women who hate men should not be tolerated.

Men's liberty must reign.

Re:Unnecessary evil? (2, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238849)

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

Is it any wonder then... (1)

blcamp (211756) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238217)

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

Re:Is it any wonder then... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238385)

...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."

Re:Is it any wonder then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238463)

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 :-)

Movies are better than science (0, Redundant)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238241)

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?

Re:Movies are better than science (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238371)

LOL you made teh laser joke. No one saw that coming. +5.

Oh great. (0, Redundant)

Non-CleverNickName (1027234) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238251)

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.

That's why they keep blowing me off in bars (3, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238255)

"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!

Re:That's why they keep blowing me off in bars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238523)

"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?

Parthenogenesis does not create a clone (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238273)

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.

MOD PARENT UP (5, Funny)

Scooter's_dad (833628) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238585)

For clearing up a common mis-"conception."

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

Re:Parthenogenesis does not create a clone (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239341)

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.

Big Deal (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238335)

My wife does this

Not sure why the kids are black tho

They missed the most obvious answer (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238341)

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

A virgin birth after all (4, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238349)

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.

What does this remind me of? (1)

overcaffein8d (1101951) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238361)

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

Re:What does this remind me of? (1, Flamebait)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238581)

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

Good to know.

Re:What does this remind me of? (1)

overcaffein8d (1101951) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238855)

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

Re:What does this remind me of? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238797)

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.

And this finding diminishes the myth. (1)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239089)

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.

Asexual (1)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238365)

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.

Re:Asexual (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238491)

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).

Re:Asexual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19239129)

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

Re:Asexual (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19239233)

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.

On Henry Doorly (5, Interesting)

ender81b (520454) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238389)

Just a quick note, if you are ever in the Omaha, Nebraska area definitely stop by Henry Doorly Zoo [omahazoo.com] . 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 [omahazoo.com] 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.

Re:On Henry Doorly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238587)

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.

Re:On Henry Doorly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19239339)

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... ;)

Re:On Henry Doorly (2, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238617)

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

Dan East

The Immaculate (5, Funny)

poor_boi (548340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238411)



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



Re:The Immaculate (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238919)

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!!!!!"

Lightman! (0, Redundant)

pergamon (4359) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238413)

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

Life found a way... (0, Redundant)

The Orange Mage (1057436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238423)

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.

Great Whites? (5, Informative)

JRGhaddar (448765) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238425)

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. [youtube.com]

So.. (5, Funny)

DeeVeeAnt (1002953) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238439)

Nobody jumped the shark then?

Yes and no (3, Funny)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238785)

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

Great White Jesus? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238445)

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.)

Related Story (1)

baboonlogic (989195) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238511)

How on earth is Females Outnumber Males Online related?

Tags (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238537)

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

Why Did They Interview This Guy? (1)

ShiNoKaze (1097629) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238545)

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.

Sharks.... (5, Funny)

curecollector (957211) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238571)

...can go fuck themselves.

so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19238605)

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....

Shark School (1, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238675)

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.

Lesbian Sharks Reproduce? (1)

sonciwind (970454) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238695)

I don't have anything else to say.

My wife (1)

Perp Atuitie (919967) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238699)

does that all the time.

Dang (1)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238727)

I thought the shark christ had finally come.

old news (1, Funny)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238759)

"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 [wikipedia.org] (the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male)."

species nitpick (1)

BubbaFett (47115) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238771)

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.

"And who can tell me" (3, Funny)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238781)

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

Ferris: "Uhm...Your wife?"

Bueller? Bueller?

nature (1)

drDugan (219551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238913)

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

What would Jesus say? (1)

Browzer (17971) | more than 7 years ago | (#19238955)

Virgin Birth?
BFD!

Lawyers? (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239035)

Lawyers can reproduce without sex? What?

this is go)atsex (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19239211)

Big dEal. Death [goat.cx]

Moo (1)

wamerocity (1106155) | more than 7 years ago | (#19239225)

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!"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?