i opine that the facts of the creaturee can certainly refute the theory that creature need to mate in order to give birth

Wong Man Yi, Hong Kong, China

Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
How come the Environment chap comes in to count how many sex I had. I am not warming the glob. Am I? Do not know. I have lost count of sex everyday I have. My doctor has warned me of heart beats. I get tired in the day and night I do not sleep. You talk many years. Yes? No? I am confused. Sex no have. Not man. Gay. Lesbian. Priest. Teacher castrated. No idea I give up. Don’t take.

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD, Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania

haha 100 million years without sex would be horrible hell even like 10 years without it would blow!

Brittany, Holly, michigan

poor guy...
Maybe it reproduced with itself?
Serious Question.

Tara Lightfoot, Truro, Cornwall, UK

Frankly, Man should figure it out - no sex, no people. No people, no global warming, no pollution, no crime, etc. etc. etc. What's the problem?

Rise Briggs, Roseburg, Oregon, USA

After 21 million years, it's probably worried it'll be rubbish in the sack.

Golfball, Leeds, England

21 years without sex is a wimp. Try 36 :-).

Chris, Los Angeles, CA
----------------------------------------
Chris,
21 million years, mate, not 21 years!

Jacqueline, Osaka,

21 years without sex is a wimp. Try 36 :-).

Chris, Los Angeles, CA

It saddens me to see participants in a discussion of science hurling insults at those who disagree with them. There are many very intelligent people who having studied the facts believe that the theory of Evolution explains them best. Similarly, not all intellectuals are atheists, and to those who believe in God, special creation would be far more logical. The belief in creation or evolution hinges on the belief in God. You should certainly support your position with evidence, but please keep it civil.

Ryan, Washington state, USA

If you google about, you can find articles that explain it better. The surprise is not that asexual organisms exist. Lots of them have been discovered. The surprise is that this one appears to have lasted for so many millions of years. Asexual species occasionally evolve from sexual species, but they tend to go extinct pretty soon (on an evolutionary time scale). So there's a puzzle to be solved. Maybe it's not really asexual. (One article I found gave an example of a critter that appeared to be asexual, but it turned out that the male was a tiny thing that attached to the female's leg.) Maybe the species is not as old as it appears to be. But if is is asexual and that old, then it might help to answer the questions about why sex is so ubiquitous. What is it that makes this species an exception? Very interesting stuff, but there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Jive Dadson, san jose, california

I have not had sex in 21 years, and I am completely happy! I bought a wonderful piano! I folk dance. I sing! I walk in the Sierras! It is sheer joy! All I need now is some bells to ring, but can't find any in my city! Cheers!

Twinkletoes, Sacramento, California

Of course it's possible for diversification without sex -- it's just easier with sex. Mutation happens. For the most part, these organisms are all clones of each other. Once in a long while, an advantageous mutation happens. Those with the mutation survive better than those without, and reproduce more. Same with sexual reproduction, only a LOT slower.

Aaron Traas, Maplewood, NJ, USA

Thank you, Steve of Montreal, CA, you made my day.

ChomFa, Jumbuk, Vic, Australia

And here I thought I held the record for the longest time without sex, but these creatures beat me out by at least a million years or so. sigh

Duane Rysh, Lafayette, Colorado

No conversation involving evolution can take place without creationist morons injecting their illiterate ignorance into it.

James Jonell, Cambridge,

“refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species”

These are diversifications WITHIN a species. How does this prove anything with regard to diversification OF species. There is not NEW species being created here. It is a large leap in logic to assume that variation within the species has anything to do with evolution into a new species. The former is observable and common. The later has never been observed and is elusive.

To make that leap one much BELIEVE or have FAITH that it occurs despite the evidence to the contrary. "Evolution into new species occurs because we have many species, some of which have some similar characteristics and there is no other explanation, even though we've never observed said evolution" Seems like that takes as much FAITH to believe as "creationism."

AW, San Antonio, Texas

Well clearly evolution is a lie and this proves that god created man.. He just needed practice first.. a couple of million years worth apparently..

Dusty, Krooklyn, NY

Creationist theories and Darwin's failures aside, doesn't this whole business give off an aura of Lamarckism??
Isnt it a clear case of somatic cell variations being transmitted to the offspring??

SRM, Kolkata, India

To assume that they are hundreds of millions of years old simply because they were found in amber is a farse. These scientists need to go back to grade school and study up on their scientific method. Can anybody offer real proof that one kind of animal has "evolved" from another? Like a frog evolving into a horse? How about a fish evolving into a monkey? Is any of this observable? If it is, you can call yourselves scientists, otherwise you can stick with Quack!

Joe, Somewheres, mi,

If asexual reproduction is "common in invertebrates, such as aphids, but it is also found in a number of fish and frogs," how does it "call into question scientific understanding"? I don't see anything new here at all.

Do I smell a creationist nearby?

Uther Eisenheim, Springfield, MO

Just goes to show that when a women is in complete control of her life, no one wants to sleep with her.

Steve, Montreal, CA

I know exactly how that creature feels. I haven't has sex in over 11 months and I've still survived.
Evolution is for idiots.

Richard Pilgrim, Mansfield, Notts

Sexual reproduction is certainly not necessary for evolution via genetic mutations, see the comments above and the article. Asexual reproduction just gives a smaller range of potential differences for the genetic inheritance for the offspring. This should come as no surprise. The surprising thing for me is the quote from Tim Barraclough, of Imperial College, which seems rather out-of-context, because it apparently displays a remarkable lack of scientific basis. Why should their existence "call[s] into question scientific understanding"? There is really nothing new: asexual reprodiction exists, and evolution can occur from it. Nothing new. A species that has survived for a long time? Interesting, but nothing to shake the foundations of "science".

JasoN McGuiness, London,

I assume these creatures do not actually **live** 100 million years, and that they procreate using parthenogenesis.
1. Parthenogenetic procreation has been observed in higher life forms
2. Also in parthenogenetic procreation variants can certainly occur
3. A very underestimated genetic modificator is not mentioned in the article: viral infections. These can modify genetic makeup in various ways, even during the lifetime of an individual.
So I am not very surprised about the results of this research. I am however baffled by the impact suggested, which is not there for me.

Rob Vens, Usquert, Netherlands

Natural Selection does not have to occur through sexual reproduction. When a specimen creates offspring (either sexual or asexual), errors in teh process of copying the genetic information occur: Mutations. favorable mutations survive, while unfavorable die (or migrate to conditions where they can live better [see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect ]). As someone already pointed out here (Ian Kemmish), sexual reproduction only increases the chance for genetic differences (thus, with a larger number off different genetic makeups, more benficial genetic makeups will occur, and those have a higher chance to survive), but it is not necessary.

If Sexual reproduction would be necessary fro evolutionary proccesses to occur, Live on earth would still be on the mono-cellular level, since they created offspring asexually.

Roland Granitzki, Wuppertal, Germany

How do these creatures adapt without sex? Don't animals normally adapt by surviving an event because of a certain characteristic, and then mate with another animal with the same characteristic?

This finding poses more questions than answers. Oy, maybe the Creationists were right after all.

Starling, Lancaster,

I don't know about these critturs, but lack of sex affects my demeanor. The less sex I have, de meanor I get.

Lee Hadden, Sterling, Virginia, USA

I always knew Darwinin logic was flawed! HA, those pesky sociobiologists can all talk now can't they? What I like about this story is it validates my own point about the need for sex (and men?) However, I doubt I'll be diversifying much over the next few years... not to mention 100million. Tongue firmly in cheek or nay.

Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK

I know how it feels.sex? a distant memory.

John Winston Price, Oldham, England

“refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species”.

Any claim that such an idea is widely accepted is erroneous. An organism needs merely to be able to reproduce, not necessarily sexually.

This reporter neglects to explain the alleged source of this claim .

Rami Samara, Croydon, UK

I guess this means that I no longer hold the record...

Tom M, St Louis, Misouri, USA

Did Dr Barraclough really say “These really are amazing creatures, whose very existence calls into question scientific understanding”? I sincerely hope he didn't, and that he can clarify that his comments were printed out-of-context by a careless journalist. These creatures certainly do not call scientific understanding into question - they pose interesting problems and conundrums but the discoveries made enhance and further scientific understanding. Uninformed science-bashers promoting religion, creationism and other such superstitions will positively leap at ill-considered statements like this one which appear to dismiss at a stroke all of our carefully accumulated scientific knowledge.

George Lennan, La Rochelle, France

“refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species”.

Hmmm, surely that idea was refuted some time ago, by experiment? Sex merely increases the rate at which optimisation (or diversification if you want to call it that) happens. And, entertainingly enough, the rate is highest when you have two genders and starts to decline again with three or more (due to the greater difficulty of finding two mates rather than one).

Biologists need to remember that evolution is not a purely biological phenomenon and read, for example, Schwefel's "Numerical optimisation of computer models." It's all there.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

I thought the definition of being members of the same species was the ability to produce fertile offspring i.e. horse + donkey = mule (infertile) so horse and donkey are not same species.

How are asexual species defined? Surely it should be no surprise that over 100 million years mutations would occur and that an original could mutate into different but similar versions depending on location?

Brian Pocock, London, UK

Your husband looks like whiskers?

SW, Manchester,

I expected this creature to be male. Its whiskers even look like my husband.

LW, Leeds,

Hahaha... oh it hurts me b/c it's true

Harry, Chicago, US / Illinois

So....I don't hold the record after all??

Tom M, St Louis, Misouri, USA

I would suggest that these so called scientist read The Great Red Dragon by Professor Hilton Hotema and Man the Unknow by Dr. Alexis Carrel

parthenogenesis, indianapolis, indiana