Table of Contents
EvoNews! The Best
Of . . .
(Note: the Editor in Chief's added comments are shown in parentheses. Hey, just like this one! How about that?! Titles are links to the original stories.)
Scientist Claims Bigger Sperm Are Better Sperm
For tiny soil nematodes, big sperm have the edge over smaller sperm in fertilizing a mate's eggs, according to University of Arizona biologists (and voeuyers) Craig LaMunyon and Samuel Ward.
In a paper (written on paper) published in the June 7, 2002 Proceedings of the Royal Society, the pair (not romantically linked, we believe) report that the (conscious) incessant drive in the race toward a hereditary legacy (a la Bill Clinton) leads male worms to (theoretically) evolve larger sperm.
While this may not seem so newsworthy to anybody but a worm (or a pervert), the real scoop is that these researchers witnessed (ogled) this evolution directly, in a Petri dish (with the curtains open).
The Seventh Commandment (nor any of the others) notwithstanding, competition among sperm from different suitors runs rampant in the animal kingdom (which includes human animal subjects).
"It occurs in nearly every species, even birds, the paragons of monogamy," says LaMunyon, now an assistant professor of biology at Florida Atlantic University. (He also told a group of young people to "Go for it!")
LaMunyon started investigating sperm competition in nematodes as a postdoctoral fellow in Ward's lab in the UA department of molecular and cellular biology (because he couldn't afford Cinemax anymore) .
Caenorhabditis elegans, the millimeter-long transparent nematode that Ward has studied for thirty years (so sorry to hear that), is a favorite model organism for studying developmental biology.
It turns out to be ideal for learning about sperm competition also (wink-wink).
Like earthworms, their more familiar distant (kissing) cousins, most C. elegans individuals are hermaphrodites -- they have both male and female reproductive systems (as seen on Jenny Jones).
But C. elegans hermaphrodites can't mate with each other (as not seen on Jenny Jones).
Most of the time, a hermaphrodite fertilizes its eggs with its own sperm (breaking at least one commandment, we're sure).
But there are also a few males lurking among C. elegans populations (yep, we males are always "lurking", aren't we?!).
A (lurking) male's raison d'etre is mating with a hermaphrodite (and watching sports), passing along its genes for posterity (and the point spread).
Ward discovered years ago that when a (lurking) male mates with a hermaphrodite, just about all (but not exactly all) of the (lurking) male's sperm will displace the hermaphrodite's own sperm, fertilizing every egg and leaving the hermaphrodite's sperm out in the cold (brrr).
When LaMunyon joined Ward's lab he set out to find the source behind such competitive prowess (and to paint the walls a new, more exciting color than off-white).
He systematically tested -- and eliminated -- many possibilities (such as looks, wealth, etc).
Then, by simply looking at sperm from (lurking) males and hermaphrodites side by side under a microscope (Go ahead, take a minute to recover from that last statement), he found that the (lurking) males' sperm were larger than the hermaphrodites'.
"It was one of those rare and exhilarating moments when you hit upon something that appears to explain a puzzling phenomenon, (like watching Cinemax for the first time)" LaMunyon recalled of the discovery (with a goofy smile and glossy-eyed distant gaze).
Upon closer examination, he discovered that larger sperm crawl faster than smaller sperm [yes, these sperm crawl rather than swim (because it's just been sooooo long)], and do indeed have the competitive edge in the fertilization race (which has had many false starts).
Armed with this (and a crystal ball) result, LaMunyon predicted that nematode species in which (lurking) males face heated sperm competition should (theoretically) evolve larger sperm (with different dna code?) than species with less intense competition.
He tested this by comparing the size of sperm from the (lurking) males of predominantly hermaphroditic worms, like C. elegans, to species with the more conventional (normal and acceptable) male-female lifestyle.
In male-female species, (unsuspecting) females usually mate with many (lurking) males (which is only natural). Males of those species ought to have beefier sperm (lol).
LaMunyon sampled sperm [don't ask] from nineteen different species, took them back to his microscope (in his bachelor's pad), and found that, indeed, sperm from the male-female species were all significantly larger (beefier) than sperm from the hermaphroditic species (Where's the beef?).
Scientists, however, (what, these sperm watching guys aren't scientists?!) are quick to admonish -- tempting as it may be to take the leap -- that correlation does not necessarily mean cause. (<<<Spewing milk>>> Hello?! Evolution?! Hello?!)
To conclude that sperm competition causes sperm to (theoretically) evolve larger would take some carefully controlled experimentation, an almost impossible task when dealing with a process that plods along at -- literally -- (theoretical) evolutionary pace.
LaMunyon gave it a try anyway (because he still can't afford Cinemax).
He designed (evolved) the type of experiment that (theoretical) evolutionary biologists usually don't have the luxury to even dream of doing: changing the one variable in question, while keeping everything else the same (This is what scientists dream of???).
Here again, C. elegans proved to be a perfect experimental system. With a generation-to-generation span of only three days, (theoretical) evolution can work quickly in these worms (Are you asking what I'm asking? Hmmm?).
(Do they ever turn into something else instead of getting bigger? Hello? Helloooooo???)
Using some genetics tools and (stupid human) tricks developed in the Ward lab, he created (evolved) two varieties of worms that were identical in every way except one. One strain reproduced by way of self-fertilizing hermaphrodites, with only rare (lurking) males; there was practically no competition between sperm from different (lurking) males.
The other strain, however, could only reproduce through mating between (lurking) males and (unsuspecting) females, and the high proportion of (lurking) males in the population (like "ladies night" at the bar) insured that sperm competition was fierce.
LaMunyon cultivated the two worm colonies side by side, but segregated in their own Petri dishes (And he'll hear from the ACLU for that!!!).
He grew (evolved) them for six months -- sixty generations -- measuring sperm from (lurking) males every fifteen generations.
The sperm from the hermaphroditic colony, where there was no sperm competition (nor fast-food restaurants), remained the same size throughout the experiment.
But, just as predicted, the sperm from the worms (worm sperm) reproducing by male-female matings steadily became (evolved) larger.
By generation sixty they had grown (evolved) twenty percent larger than their ancestors' sperm at the start of the experiment (and they were also smarter with less hair).
So, if bigger is better, will this (theoretical) evolutionary contest inevitably lead to giant sperm (like in that Godzilla movie)?
Unlikely, according to LaMunyon. "While bigger sperm are better (I can't believe he actually said that!!!), it takes more time and energy to make them," he says. (And the same goes for asexual reproducing organisms versus sexually producing ones, doesn't it?! Hmmm?!)
But he adds that this intense (theoretical) evolutionary pressure on sperm to stand out among the crowd (by wearing a white leisure suit with bell-bottomed legs) has produced an amazing diversity of sperm shapes and sizes (How?). - By Paul Muhlrad (and the ever-evolving Editor In Chief)
Wed Aug 14
By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer (and Ed N. Chief, Blind Fools Writer)
LONDON - Some (not all) of Britain's most eminent (and not-so-eminent ) writers and thinkers (and cry babies) are demanding (squeeling for) equal time for atheism on a daily religious radio spot (Yep, that makes sense!) that is a cherished ritual for believers of all faiths (except for those who don't believe in faith).
"Thought for the Day," the British Broadcasting Corp.'s venerable "God slot," responded Wednesday by giving listeners a (lethal) dose of godlessness in a barbed debate on the place of religion (and non-religion) on the national broadcaster.
Richard (I can't name an evolutionary process which increases genetic information) Dawkins, Oxford University's professor for the public understanding (propoganda) of (evolutionary) science, summoned (cried out to) the nation to abandon religion - "leave the crybaby phase and finally come of age." (showing that he's a culturally sensitive human being)
Dawkins was granted an experimental "(Godless) Thought for the Day" slot (which did NOT include an evolutionary process which increases genetic information) an hour after Anne (I want to invent a diet) Atkins, a newspaper columnist (who writes stuff) and wife of a Church of England vicar (who does religious stuff), had presented the daily fixture (resembling a faucet).
The (bloody) issue touched a (bloody) British nerve.
"Thought for Today" may be just two minutes, 45 seconds long, but since 1970 it has been a fixture in one of the nation's most influential news programs - the "Today" program (not to be confused with the Godless, American "Today" show on NBC) on Radio 4, which draws 6.45 million listeners.
The unprecedented atheist "Thought" came a day after more than a hundred prominent atheists - including playwrights (people who write stuff that other people play make-believe about) Harold Pinter and Arnold Wesker, authors (people who write stuff that nobody plays make-believe about)) Iain Banks and John Fowles, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Joseph Rotblat (who may have been angered to the point of violence) - published a letter demanding (throwing a hissy about) equal treatment.
"Thought for the Day" (a "religious" thang) has regular contributions from Sikhs, Jews, Catholics as well as the established Church of England (all who are "religious"), but does not welcome contributors who hold no religious belief (because those who hold no religious belief are not religious).
"By resolutely retaining the ban, the BBC is discriminating against the nonreligious, and thus giving the impression of promoting religion as the one source of ethics," said (whined) the letter.
The debate over a program intended to start the day with thoughtful contemplation quickly turned angry (earning a Nobel Peace Prize for no one involved).
"To ask an atheist to contribute to ['Thought for Today'] would be like asking an earthworm to comment on quantum physics," Gerald Aves commented in his e-mail to the "Today" program Web site.
Phil Healey responded: "This is an absolutely perfect example of the bigotry of those people who believe in fairy-tales.
(Oh really? So it's okay for the Godless to say the previous sentence and , "...abandon religion - leave the crybaby phase and finally come of age." and below, "...the notion of a creator as infantile."? Well, if you have no basis for ethics, it must be okay to be hypocritical and two-faced, huh?!)
Church attendance has declined sharply in Britain (because of infesting liberalism), but a BBC poll two years ago found that 62 percent affirmed their belief in God and in Jesus Christ (leaving the Godless at 38%).
On Wednesday's official "Thought for the Day," Atkins tackled the age-old question of "where is God?" in relation to the disappearance of two 10-year-old girls, now feared to have been abducted and perhaps killed.
"Sometimes there aren't any answers, or the answers we get are worthless, or no answers," she said.
She cited the Gospel account of Jesus praying at Gethsemane: "He prayed, and he wept, and he put his life in the hands of God. And in the fear and the agony, God was there."
Dawkins attacked the notion of a creator as "infantile." (which is an absolutely perfect example of the bigotry of those people who reject God and believe in fairy-tales, like evolution.)
"We have been born and we are going to die," he added (which is in the Bible, by the way), "but before we die we have time to understand why we were born (why waste the time?), time to understand the universe into which we were born and with that understanding we finally grow up and realize that there is no help for us outside our own efforts," he said (or don't waste that precious time and just par-tay ... WOO HOO!).
"Humanity can now leave the crybaby phase and finally come of age." (except when crying about equal time on a religious segment - that crybaby phase is totally justified.)
In an editorial, The Daily Telegraph said atheists had no reason to complain. "With very few exceptions, what you get from rabbi, priest and mullah alike is Religion Lite: doctrine so watered down as to be inoffensive to all - or, rather, offensive only in its patronizing banality," the newspaper said (and we agree with that - amen brothers!!!).
In a short debate on BBC radio, jazz singer George Melly (who doesn't sing about God), who represented the atheist point of view, was asked whether there was nothing offensive about "Thought for the Day."
"Well, except its existence, really," Melly drawled. (Yet they want to be a part of it?! Go figure!)
The Word "Under" Is NOT Unconstitutional - And "The Girl" Is NOT An Atheist
(Warning: some may find the next sentence below offensive - read at your own risk.)
(Editors Note: The following story, as well as this sentence, contains the possibly offensive word "God". If this offends you, read no further.)
Mon Aug 5
SAN FRANCISCO [AP (BF)] - The (fanatical fundamentalist religious zealot) mother of the (shifty) schoolgirl named in the Pledge of Allegiance case asked a (kangaroo) court Monday to keep the words "under God" in the pledge.
The 9th U.S. Circuit (Circus) Court of Appeals (Upheaval) ruled (by 2 out of 3 justices) in June that the words "under God" (actually, just "God" - not the word "under" which offends no one nor is unconstitutional as far as we know) make the pledge unconstitutional.
The court was acting on a lawsuit filed by the 8-year-old (Christian) girl's atheist father (supposedly on behalf of his "offended" daughter - hmmmmm?).
On Monday, the girl's mother, Sandra Banning (as in banning "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance - a bit of Providencial humor, we believe), filed a court motion seeking to intervene in the case.
If the court (jesters) will not allow that, she asks that references to her daughter (being offended at the Pledge) be taken off the lawsuit (just like Moses references in Egyptian history being stricken).
In the court motion (a motion which made everyone seasick), Banning said she wants her daughter to be able to recite the pledge, exactly as it stands, as part of her edu(ma)cation.
Banning said neither she nor her daughter believe (faith) there is anything wrong with reciting the words "under God" in the pledge (It's not a matter of what "YOU" or your daughter believe, Miss Banning!!!).
Banning, who has had sole legal custody of the girl since February (and for good reason it appears), said she and her daughter are (fine upstanding) Christians and believe (faith) in God.
Michael (the archangel) Newdow, who (violating is daughter's right to choose, falsely) brought the case to the court of appeals (against his daughter's beliefs), said (claimed) his daughter was injured (by soured lunchroom milk, as well as) by being forced to listen to children reciting the pledge at Elk Grove Unified (Under God) School District.
"The main thrust of this has always been my right to send my child (whom he does not even have partial legal custody of) to school and not have her indoctrinated (hypnotized) with religious (false) beliefs," the father (sperm donor) said Monday.
But Banning said her daughter would be harmed by a "lifetime of public scorn" (by a shouting mob of torch bearers) if she becomes known as the "little atheist girl that attacked the pledge (and smacked it down)," according to the motion.
"I don't want to interfere with Mr. Newdow's (Mr. Newdow's? Not Michael's?! - Has the wonderful loving relationship which brought this beautiful girl into the world soured so much?) civil rights, but I would like anything about my daughter to be removed from the case, for the court to acknowledge the child has not been harmed," Banning said.
Banning and Newdow have never been married (and we can see why not).
One Mislabeled Partially Complete Fossil ID'd As 1st Walking Creature
Wed Jul 3
By ANDREW BRIDGES, AP Science Writer (and EDITOR IN CHIEF, BF Science Righter)
A (one) fossil found in 1971 has been newly identified (by someone after 31 years) as the earliest known animal built (built?) to walk on land, a salamanderlike creature that marked a previously unknown stage in the (theoretical) evolution of fish (with gills) into the ancestors of all vertebrates (with lungs) alive today.
The toothy animal (I like the word "toothy" - sounds so . . . "scientific"), Pederpes finneyae, lived (supposedly) between 348 million (million million) and 344 million (million million) years (years years) ago (ago ago) in what is now Scotland (which was back then called Pederpesfinneyaeland).
It was perhaps (but perhaps not) a yard long, and probably (but still maybe not) split its time between the water and land where it walked on four feet, said (claimed) Jenny (Clackity) Clack (Don't Talk Back), of the Cambridge University Museum of Zoology.
"It trudged through the swamp catching anything that moved (because I actually saw it) - not terribly exciting (like looking at bones all the time), I suppose," Clack said (with a blank stare and somewhat melancholy demeaned).
Clack formally describes Pederpes in this week's (evolutionary propagandistic) journal Nature (as a "salamanderlike creature").
(Go on, say "salamanderlike" ten times really fast.)
The creature's nearly (but not quite) complete fossil skeleton had lain, mislabeled (by scientists) as a fish, in a Scottish museum since its discovery 31 years ago.
Further work on the fossil (by ZZ Top) in the 1990s revealed it had legs (and it knew how to use them).
The identification helps (some evolutionary scientists) close a (humongous) hole in the early fossil record of a group of creatures called tetrapods.
The gap, or Romer's Gap - named for the late Harvard paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer (who stylishly dressed in white cotton shirts and khakis all the time) - had stumped (some evolutionary) scientists seeking to chart the (theoretical) evolution of the first four-limbed creatures with backbones (which does not include scientists who take an honest look at the theory of evolution).
Tetrapods were the first animals known (or rather, theorized by some people) to walk the Earth and are (theoretically) the ancestors of today's mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds (and mad scientists).
"Discovery of a nearly complete skeleton (even if only one) in the middle of Romer's Gap should (but still maybe won't) help in establishing the pattern of (theoretical) evolutionary change among early tetrapods (to some people)," wrote (claimed) Robert Carroll, of Montreal's Redpath Museum, in an accompanying commentary.
The earliest tetrapods (supposedly) appeared roughly 365 million years ago when (some evolutionary) scientists believed (faith) they used their paddlelike feet to scoot (ha ha! "Scoot") around underwater.
Only later did they (cough out their gills and instantly grow lungs and) emerge to use those rudimentary feet to walk on land.
(These rudimentary paddlelike feet were made for walkin' - and that's just what they'll do...)
Scientists knew of no other fossils (none, zero, zip, zilch, nada), until Pederpes, that represented any sort of intermediate stage between the aquatic and terrestrial tetrapods (Now they have one mislabeled partially complete fossil - hooray for them!).
The fossil record picks up again 20 million to 30 million years later (is that a big or small gap?) with a variety of more modern-looking animals with feet and legs that were clearly (made by God) for walking on land.
Clack (the quack) said (claimed) by the time Pederpes appeared, its feet did not stick out straight from the body (It didn't have legs? Just feet?), as was the case in earlier tetrapods that used their limbs as paddles (and their spinning tails as little propellers).
Instead, they pointed forward, suggesting they were built (by the Creator) for use on land. Later tetrapods elaborate on that form of foot construction, she said (claimed).
"We (evolutionary scientists) are now, finally (((breathing a misguided sigh of relief))), with the discovery of animals such as this (one partially complete fossil), beginning to get some actual data as opposed to speculation," said John Bolt, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Field Museum in Chicago.
(Oh really? I though the evidence was abundant for evolution?! Hmmmmm...)
Hot-Headed Zippo Scorching Disney Over Non-Flaming Dinosaur Labeled A Drag
Thu Jun 20
By The Associated Press (and The Blind Fools)
ERIE, Pa. [AP] (and BF) - Lighter
maker Zippo is burned up over a cartoon dinosaur (who eerily
looks like a disposable butane lighter).
The Bradford, Pa.-based company has sued Walt Disney Co. and
the ABC television network, claiming an animated
dinosaur with the same name as the lighter (and a flame shooting
from the top of its head) is cashing in on the Zippo name, the
Erie Times-News reported recently.
The (eerie) lawsuit, filed June 7 in (an) Erie federal court, wants Disney and ABC to rename the dinosaur (to Barney), featured in the "Dinotopia" miniseries (which is also being sued by Utopians), and give (hand over) the lighter maker any profits (money) made from Zippo dinosaur merchandise.
The lawsuit also names The Beanstalk Group Inc., a licensing agency (who also being sued by Mother Goose), and Hallmark Entertainment Distribution LLC (who is also being sued by a famous greeting card manufacturer).
"We're bringing this lawsuit to make ABC stop using Zippo as the name of the dinosaur and to protect our trademark (and to hopefully make gobs of money with little investment)," said Paul Perlman, a lawyer representing the company (and his firm).
Disney officials (and unofficial) declined to comment and (in an apparent smoke screen) referred all questions to the television network. ABC spokeswoman Julie Hoover (who is also being sued by an un-named vacuum cleaner company) declined to comment, saying (in another apparent smoke screen) network officials hadn't received the lawsuit.
The cartoon Zippo is a main character in the miniseries, based on books by James Gurney (who is also being sued by a prominent stretcher-on-wheels manufacturer), where humans and dinosaurs live together on a lost continent (and go around lighting things ablaze with lighters in a pyromaniacal frenzy thus killing off all the dinosaurs).
According to (lawyers who wrote the) the lawsuit, Beanstalk has arranged deals for video games, cell phones, videotapes and other products (such as charcoal, cigarettes and dynamite) featuring Zippo the (flaming) dinosaur, while ABC plans to release the six-hour miniseries on video and DVD in July.
The Zippo name started with lighters in 1933, but now is used on a variety of items, including pocket knives, golf accessories and clothing (and lawsuits).
(Zippo's co-dependent roommate, Joe Camel, could not be reached for comment.)
Click to join the Blind Fools Yahoo Group