[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 8 KB, 504x295, WHAT_EFFECT_DOES_LIGHT_HAVE_ON_THE_RATE_OF_PLANARIA_REGENERATION_01[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4046163 No.4046163 [Reply] [Original]

How long will it take for humans to evolve asexual reproduction?

>> No.4046180

Should be done by next Wednesday.

>> No.4046190

then stop throwing away your cum and put it in an incubator

>> No.4046191

no one knows, far more than 10s of millions of years, humans would have to evolve into a far simpler organism, possibly single celled

>> No.4046208

50 years. like everything else in science.

>> No.4046228

Asexual reproduction evolved into sexual reproduction, not the other way around.

On the other hand,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

>> No.4046232

Sexual reproduction is better fitting.

>> No.4046341

asexual reproduction lacks genetic variation which is beneficial for our species.

We will never evolve back, because our way is superior.

>> No.4046349

>>4046341
>We will never evolve back, because our way is superior.
>because our way is superior.
>way is superior.
>superior.

>implying evolution makes us superior beings.

>> No.4046351 [DELETED] 
File: 3 KB, 126x126, thatswrong.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4046351

>>4046341
>asexual reproduction lacks genetic variation
nope, bacteria reproduce asexually and there is loads of variation; thousands of different types of bacteria.

>> No.4046356

>>4046349
i was referring to sexual reproduction being superior to asexual reproduction.

No need to be a dick about the wording, this is /sci/

>> No.4046357 [DELETED] 

>>4046349
define superior
>evolution makes the next generation more capable at surviving in the current environment
>survivability is superior.

>> No.4046359 [DELETED] 

>>4046356
it's not actually, if that were actually the case, sexually reproducing species would out evolve and outcompete their asexually reproducing counterparts, and drive them to extinction. neither method is objectively better, it just depends what type of organism you are.

>> No.4046358

>>4046208
>50 years like everything else in science

, explain what you mean please

>> No.4046361 [DELETED] 

>>4046358
thats what they say to everything
>when will we have interstellar space travel
>when will sentient AI be created
>when will we find a cure for aging
>when will a cure for aids be made

"in about 50 years, OP"

>> No.4046362

>>4046351
It's making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. Those 'variations' don't come around until there is a hiccup in the copying mechanism, causing a mutation, which is propagated with further copying, which in turn makes for new species.

It lacks genetic variation in the fact that off-spring are not receiving outside differences from the different genes of parents.

For a zoologist, you sure as hell seem to lack a basic grasp on biology subjects.

Look at a fucking Punnett square, you whore.

>> No.4046366

>>4046351
i mean variation within a population not within a kingdom.
If disease hits a population of bacteria they will almost all dies, because they are all so similar.
If disease hits humans we are so varied that many of us will be fit enough to survive.

there is variation in bacteria, but less so, as it is only due to mutations and not due to sexual variation

>> No.4046370

>>4046362
>>4046366
didn't read this before i posted

hivemind

>> No.4046377 [DELETED] 

>>4046366
>there is variation in bacteria, but less so
again, wrong.
some bacteria have more genetic variation between them than any 2 humans do.

>> No.4046379

>>4046377
*citation needed*

>> No.4046381

>>4046377
And the point goes over your head. Are you thick? Oh, wait. You're a 'woman.'

It's called a separation of species. You should look it up. You also seem to forget that humans, in their modern species, haven't been around nearly as long as those bacteria you seem spout your 'knowledge' about.

This is why your womankind shouldn't be allowed in the sciences. You have no idea what you're talking about (".51c + .51c = 1.02c, aka FTL!").

>> No.4046387 [DELETED] 

>>4046381
>You also seem to forget that humans, in their modern species, haven't been around nearly as long as those bacteria you seem spout your 'knowledge' about.

again, wrong
3 strikes, your out, hun. :D
some bacteria are very modern, and have only recently evolved to become their current species.

>> No.4046389

>>4046387
[citation needed]
Stop trying to act like an expert when you aren't.

>> No.4046393 [DELETED] 
File: 23 KB, 508x406, comeatmebro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4046393

>>4046389
*sigh*, just 1 example, then im done trying to educate stupid fucking imbeciles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

>MRSA was discovered in 1961
>discovered
>1961

>> No.4046397

>>4046393
>wikipedia
>source

>> No.4046400 [DELETED] 
File: 230 KB, 468x354, 012774364.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4046400

>>4046397
oh, disagreeing with the source? So you're saying MRSA predates homosapiens as a species then?

>> No.4046406

>>4046397
Durrrrr, Wikipedia is a fucking perfect source, I hate people who constantly say Wikipedia doesn't count as a source. Try to put fake information up and see how long it lasts. If the page is popular no doubt it will range from 1 minute to 1 day.

Wikipedia is 99.9% accurate.

>> No.4046411

>>4046400
>discovered
> =/= predates

im not disagreeing with your premise 'but be careful about what you quote, discovery doesn't prove anything.
the big bang was discovered in 1949, the universe is not 62 years old

>> No.4046415

>>4046400
>>4046393
Who is the girl in these pics?

>> No.4046426

>>4046393

I hope you realise that the resistant strain was discoverd in 1961. The species of staphilococcus aureus is much older. You're describing the onset of a new characteristic, not a new species.

Also instead of using wikipedia as reference acces the references wikipedia uses, will make you sound more legit.

>> No.4046427

>>4046415
Someone EK likes to pretend to be.

>> No.4046428

>>4046415
An ugly hoe.

>> No.4046501

>>4046349
>>4046349
he wasn't implying that you fucking retard.
read before you post.

>> No.4046506

The human race as a whole would have to completely start living thier lives on 4chan, thus creating some stimulated need for asexual reproduction

>> No.4046510

>>4046506
>>4046506
we'd just die out

>> No.4046517 [DELETED] 

>>4046506
I want to believe.

>> No.4046525

>>4046393
While it has obviouslybecome resistant against drugs, it is still basically part of Staphylococcus aureus, which I would like to point out was discovered in 1880 and that we have no idea how long it has been around for.

>> No.4046558
File: 16 KB, 250x250, happy_kramer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4046558

>Evidence against EK grows.
>EK disappears.

>> No.4046604

>>4046558
Why am I not surprised.

>> No.4046635

>scientific reasons for being a virgin

>> No.4046655

>>4046415
A Youtube child EK idolizes for some perverse reason.

>> No.4046679

How did certain reptiles evolve asexual reproduction? figure that out and you can get a reasonable estimate.

>> No.4046689

>Implying human cloning isn't practically possible already
It's not perfect, but it should work efficiently enough to result in birth, ergo successful reproduction. As you might know cloning is not a sexual process by any means. We haven't just done it on humans yet.

>> No.4046698

Listen up. If you haven't heard about apptrailers I suggest you try it now.

1. Find AppTrailers for Iphone or AppRedeem for Android on the app store

2. Download it

3. Register your email, it MUST be the same as your paypal account

4. Enter the bonus code "rotten" without the quotes and you will earn 200 bonus points ($2).

google it for proof