"Lixing Sun... a biologist at Central Washington University, begins his story with a protozoan called Tetrahymena thermophila. T. thermophila are tiny—just a twentieth of a millimetre long—yet can reproduce two different ways: by splitting themselves in half or, when they’re starving, by engaging in a kind of proto-sex called conjugation, in which two cells briefly fuse and swap genetic material. The protozoa come in seven distinct 'mating types,' which means that there are twenty-one possible pairings... The common white-button mushroom... comes in eighteen mating types, the fairy inkcap mushroom a hundred and forty-three, and the split-gill mushroom an astonishing twenty-three thousand three hundred and twenty-eight. In organisms that reproduce via the union of types—this group also includes yeasts and slime molds—partners are functionally equivalent and the exchange of genetic material is symmetrical, an arrangement called isogamy. The way Sun tells it, the shift from isogamy to sex as we know it began with a cheat. Some 'crafty' creature figured out a way to game the system by skimping on its reproductive contribution. A two-sided scramble ensued. On the one hand, an edge could be gained by pumping out ever smaller, nimbler gametes; on the other, there was an advantage to be had in manufacturing fewer, larger gametes for the small fry to vie for. Eventually, Sun writes, 'a minor size gap' turned into an 'uncrossable divide.' The 'go-smallers' evolved into sperm-makers; the 'go-largers' into egg-bearers...."
From "What’s the Point of Sex, Anyway? The world’s life-forms reproduce sexually in a bewildering variety of ways, even though scientists still aren’t sure why they bother" (The New Yorker).

39 comments:
I assume it’s only a matter of time before we hear there are 23,328 genders.
The New York Times has assigned a reporter to find the kinkiest, weirdest way an organism reproduces and make the case for humans to take up the practice.
I think they say the point- to exchange genetic material but more specifically to exchange genetic material and accelerate mutation and adaptation of positive traits. The cell splitters are the survivors who found back eddies, sanctuaries that lacked anything to kill them off quickly enough. Sex happens in places where it’s happening- competition for resources…
Do they all drink from the waters of lethe come on now
Sex is necessary for the propogation of the species
I wonder who came first, male or female?
Like those randy mollusks
All predicated on the paradigm of the evolution of species, a paradigm that, given the lack of time for it to have occurred as observed, has become impossible to maintain except upon fear of career ending professional ostracism. (Which is the way non-functional - untrue - paradigms are always maintained in science.)
The subtext of evolution: If it is functionally possible per physics and chemistry and the long-term stability of the water or land, biological systems will make it happen. There's no 'why bother' for all the fungus, plants, flowers, animals, and other species that have ever existed. Using the word 'bother' in the title is how pop writers anthropomorphize adaptation and natural selection.
Competent magazine editors wouldn't let an urban, ignorant non-scientist generalize about science (New Yorker).
"The New York Times has assigned a reporter..."
It's not the NYT.
I like how the article seems to want to insinuate that the male gametes getting small is like modern man not doing his share of the housework.
@Ann Althouse: " modern man not doing his share of the housework."
They've got to look at deep sea angler fish. The females are huge, ornate, and have lighted lures to draw other fish into their mouths.
The male angler fish are tiny 'parasites' that latch on, inseminate, and spend the rest of their lives as a permanent passenger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceratioidei
Never put ideological writers on science topics...but that's the state of education...
Kama Sutra, hold my beer!
And in conclusion, all animals are pervs, so you should be one too.
The world’s life-forms reproduce sexually .... even though scientists still aren’t sure why they bother"
Yes, I would say this is a perennial problem with scientists, not getting out enough.
Not only is sex stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
Yes, I would say this is a perennial problem with scientists, not getting out enough.
…the lonely lives of scientists…(I sometimes do the jobs Taranto won’t do)….
Sexual reproduction is preferred by organisms because it allows for much more genetic diversity via "crossovers" during meiosis. Despite having theoretically twice as many offspring, asexual reproducers are out competed by more genetically divers sexual reproducers.
"What's the point of sex?"
It would be better if I just show you.
It does seem like an attempt to give the 'gender is fluid' crowd a scientific bar to lean on.
Other than that, sex is good. Use it or lose it.
Cells with benefits?
As Temujin notes, it's the usual confounding of sex with gender.
The 'go-smallers' evolved into sperm-makers; the 'go-largers' into egg-bearers...."
They make it sound like random choices independent of each other. One group went one way, the other group went the other. If that were true, the two groups wouldn't be roughly equal in number and they wouldn't need each other. Two go-largers would get together to create more go-largers and two go-smallers would get together to create more go-smallers. I'm pretty sure that's not how sexual reproduction works for the more advanced species.
But what do I know? I'm not a biologist.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...Not only is sex stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
When done right...
Later the cell separated, or began living apart, for reasons which are not clear even today, although there is considerable talk. Almost immediately the two halves of the original cell began experiencing a desire to unite again - usually with half of some other cell. This urge has survived down to our time. Its commonest manifestations are marriage, divorce, neuroses, and, a little less frequently, gun-fire.
James Thurber, Is Sex Necessary
"The way Sun tells it, the shift from isogamy to sex as we know it began with a cheat. Some 'crafty' creature figured out a way to game the system by skimping on its reproductive contribution. A two-sided scramble ensued. On the one hand, an edge could be gained by pumping out ever smaller, nimbler gametes; on the other, there was an advantage to be had in manufacturing fewer, larger gametes for the small fry to vie for. Eventually, Sun writes, 'a minor size gap' turned into an 'uncrossable divide.' The 'go-smallers' evolved into sperm-makers; the 'go-largers' into egg-bearers...."
Why is there any sort of "moral" component to this? No "crafty creature" (other than--perhaps and to a limited extent-- very recent humans) has any "idea" what genetic material it has.
(I miss italics. It's the only HTML I've ever figured out. I am guessing that you don't want me to even THINK about trying bold...)
The first instance of complexity arises with cellular division. Then there were two sexes: male and female, equal and complementary. We have lived in interesting, some would say fulfilling, times ever since.
". . . scientists aren't sure why they bother."
Maybe the pleasure principle was there from the start?
Baby Lives Matter
When did the sexes start to have sex and entertain abortive ideation, which is an oxymoron of evolutionary fitness without divine prognostiction?
The 'go-smallers' evolved into sperm-makers; the 'go-largers' into egg-bearers...."
At least “egg-bearer” and “sperm-maker” seem classier than “penis-owner” and “bio-fronthole”
GO SMALLER OR GO LARGER!
Only 23328? Try taking a walk through Seattle's Capitol Hill this month...
Once again, a just-so story featuring neo-darwinian presto-chango, missing only any details as to the mechanism of the change. You know, the "how" of it. Like every other instance of "evolution" it's just The Underpants Gnome episode from South Park dressed up in sciency language. But since it was published in The New Yorker, it must be true.
Is writing out numbers like "twenty-three thousand three hundred and twenty-eight" dogma at the New Yorker? It seems like 23,328 would be easier to grasp and comprehend. Talk of mating types seems like a way of talking about sex without talking about sex or of not talking about sex while talking about sex. From the snippet, it seems possible that scientists defined these varieties as "mating types" but could define them as something else if they wanted to.
Flowers contain both sexes. Do they reproduce asexually or "bisexually." The role of bees complicates things. Are they analogous to artificial insemination? And how did the birds get dragged into it? "The birds and the bees."
“ The way Sun tells it, the shift from isogamy to sex as we know it began with a cheat. Some 'crafty' creature figured out a way to game the system by skimping on its reproductive contribution.”
No “craftiness” or “skimping” involved. Isogamy is simply an unstable equilibrium. Instead of waiting for two gametes to bump into each other, it’s more efficient if one of them stays put and conserves resources while the other is small and mobile. As soon as some diversity in size appears it will be amplified by natural selection, because a middle size won’t be able to compete. And the ball rolls down the hill to one side or the other.
Go smallers? Groucho Marx would have said, "I resemble that remark." And leered at the society dame in the evening gown and tiara while saying it.
Iman said...
Cells with benefits?
Apparently not incells.
Smilin'Jack : "Isogamy is simply an unstable equilibrium."
Clearly not, as many species are still isogamous, and they and their ancestral species have been isogamous for over a billion years. Moreover since all isogamous species are small and short lived, that's a lot of generations .
Though since anisogamy seems to have evolved separately in several different lines, isogamy is obviously somewhat prone to invasion by anisogamy.
tim mcguire : "If that were true, the two groups wouldn't be roughly equal in number and they wouldn't need each other. Two go-largers would get together to create more go-largers and two go-smallers would get together to create more go-smallers."
Even excluding the fact that go-smallers evolved an impressive outboard motor that zips their gametes around much faster than the gently drifting gametes of go-largers, you can make lotsa small gametes for the same energy input as it takes to make one big gamete. So the probability of a big gamete meeting another big gamete before it has already had the chance to meet a thousand, or a million, small gametes is tiny.
So in order for the go-largers to be able to exclude the go-smallers, they would have to evolve a mechanism to stop their big gametes being mated by small gametes from the go-smallers. But how ? If they're all being mated by the small gametes, the genes for making small gametes are being inherited as fast as the genes for the big gametes.
If you want a go-larger sisterhood, to exclude go-smallers, your offspring are all traitors anyway. The sisterhood only lasts as long as the the go-largers are virgins. For as soon as they start mating, the go-smallers will be In Like Flynn.
As I recall, Joan Roughgarden was saying similar things several decades ago ("Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"). Roughgarden was a biology professor at Stanford, a trans woman, and one of Steve Sailer's autogynephiliacs.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.