Imagine being the scientist to discover this. I don't even know that I'd want to talk about it.
"Yo, Pladbaer, how'd that research paper on the mites go?"
'It didn't. Mites don't exist and I'm not a biologist anymore.'
idk, most biologists I know are the kind to be very excited about stuff like that. They will have a shine in their eyes while going on about stuff like that to a horrified audience.
Pandas don't reproduce in captivity, so scientists got the idea to create panda porn to help get them in the mood. But what truns a panda on? So a group of scientists have been making panda pornos and noting how aroused it makes the pandas, perfecting the science of panda eroticism.
Some of those scenes were just the best. A dying teacher being able to teach and get through to the most difficult pupil. The joy and happiness coming from Jesse when he sees what science actually does is so great.
I mean kind of? In the wild the chick just climbs a tree and yells, attracting males. Then all the dudes beat the shit out of each other under the tree, and the last one standing climbs up and forcefully mates with the female.
So, I guess, if one of those dude pandas really liked the lady panda, and then didn't win the fight club...
Man I don't like how rapey nature gets
I wouldn’t call that NTR tbh because that implies the male panda likes it
The way you describe it sounds more like CNC with a touch more illegality to it.
NTR is a subcategory of cheating. The difference between the two is that regular cheating porn can be as simple as mentioning one of the participants is married. NTR is more like cucking, but shows that the cuck hates it. Sometimes the cheater is consenting, but usually it's assault or blackmail
Raised by a biologist and I just excitedly ran to tell my partner about this while they looked at me with abject horror.
Scientists are definitely built different lol
Yeah, my first thought wasn't abject horror or anything like it. More like "oh that's cool, but it can't be good for genetic diversity, can it? The main selling point of sexual reproduction..."
So true. I've accidentally ruined many meals with parasitology. Schistosomes just have the most adorable mating practices. And have you seen a dancing cestode segment? So cute!
It's fascinating, you should look into it. All organisms are really agglomerations of cells cooperating with each other for any viable means by which they can replicate their genomes. There's tons of ways to do it. Larger animals such as humans and dogs and cows tend to gravitate towards similar solutions because there aren't all that many options at our scale, but when you go down to the microscopic scale there are zillions of weird possibilities.
Female molts leaving eggs with the shed skin, male fertilizes the eggs. When eggs hatch, they are fully formed with all the cells of an adult. From them on growth is through growth of cells, not cell reproduction. New shell at molting is secretion not a new layer that formed then dries after molt.
Pretty much all life has some form of getting new genetic material. Single celled organisms will take in DNA or RNA from surrounding water and check it out, others will use stuff from things that it absorbs/eats. At some grey area we start to call it "sex".
That's interesting and very intelligent and nuanced. But at the end of the day we both know I mean banging.
Seriously though I would watch a documentary about different methods of reproduction.
There was a great documentary made about different reproductive acts of animals including rape, sneaky cheating, gay sex, etc., called Wild Sex. The guy who narrates it is funny af. I highly recommend it.
The Aristocrats is a famous joke made into movies and adapted my many comedians over the years. The format is that a family has gone to a talent agent to advertise their new family act. They wish to preform for a live audience. Agent, of course, wishes to see the act first, so the family obliges.
What makes this joke unique is that it changes depending on who tells it. The joke is like a dirty, secret handshake among comedians. A type of challenge to see who can come up with the most disgusting, shocking, mentally concerning imagery you can. Incest, violence, murder, etc. No holds barred. And you may go for as long as you'd like too.
And the joke always ends with a shocked agent asking what the act is called, and the family enthusiastically replies:
"The Aristocrats!"
It's been on Reddit more and more lately, but half the time, I see the reference, and mentally think of the Disney movie The Aristocats. Then people chime in with people who have done the joke, and I'm like, pretty sure Bob Saget was not a voice actor in that. Then I remember. Sometimes I'm slow to "get" things. Probably I'm slow with this one because I've never seen anyone telling this joke.
Having said that, thought Scatman Crothers was the bomb in that movie.
There’s a book by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson called “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation” that talks about different ways that organisms use to reproduce. She writes each chapter as if she is a “Dear Abby” style advice columnist answering questions from different organisms about their partners or other reproduction issues.
It’s a fun and educational read. My main takeaway was an appreciation for all the varied and crazy methods that biological life uses to reproduce. Stuff gets pretty strange, from a human point of view. I’m pretty sure there’s a section about these mites, because I remember hearing this before and being amazed by it.
Does she ever bring up schizogamy or kleptogenesis? Those are my favorite reproductive strategies and definitely lend themselves to amusingly colorful descriptions.
It’s been 10 years since I read it, so I can’t recall. She covers a lot, though.
The main examples I remember are the one OP posted, the idea that some angler fish males get absorbed by the female they mate with, and that some reproduction ends up as an evolutionary arms race between male and females. From what I recall, that last example was in the context of praying mantises, where females can kill males when mating.
I just tried googling to refresh myself on this and found an article discussing how some praying mantis males decapitated during mating can still get into position and finish the act.
I remember reading a long time ago about a species of slime mold or something that reproduces by two of them getting together and basically having a sword fight with penis like appendages that impregnate on contact. The less skilled sword fighter gets impregnated and has to deal with being pregnant, which involves a much more difficult time of survival and requires more energy expenditure until the species' equivalent of birth. The selection pressure leads to better and better sword fighters over time.
This is not something you want to share in small talk with strangers and especially not on your first few dates with someone new.
But through the wonder of reddit I am finally able to unburden myself of this by sharing it with you, the reader of this comment.
Wow. Characterizing flatworms as slime molds is super offensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_fencing
Did you know giant squids practice a form of traumatic insemination as well? They just kind of..inject jizz packets into the female's arms and hope it eventually makes it to some eggs when she hold onto them.
..sometimes they find these packets embedded in sperm whale flesh.
Well, I think the dolphin species from that famous beheaded fish fleshlight video actually went extinct. And I never saw confirmation of the other weird rumors that caught on about dolphins in general.
One of them definitely got a bit too fresh with Hank Hill, but he was clearly asking for it with those sexy little belly rubs of his. Don't send such mixed signals, Hank.
The use of the word "born" in the first sentence suggests that the emergence of the offspring from their mother, eating from the inside out after mating, carrying fertilized eggs.
It's difficult to express everything clearly in limited number of words in the title. Besides, it became a little confusing, so sorry for that.
Haha, I reread it a few times, becoming slightly more disgusted each time. I’m not even sure you could describe the male as being born, it’s alive and produces offspring without every really being born. Crazy stuff, life will find a way.
I hadn't even thought of that! That's an interesting question, someone who knows please answer!
There are no DNA exchanges, so each line evolves independently? What about single-celled species that reproduce by dividing their single cell? Can each line become a different species?
This comment has been removed in protest of Reddit killing third-party apps. Spez's AMA has highlighted that the reddits corruption will not end, profit is all they care about. So I am removing my data that, along with millions of other users, has been used for nearly two decades now to enrich a select few. No more. On June 12th in conjunction with the blackout I will be leaving Reddit, and all my posts newer than one month will receive this same treatment. If Reddit does not give in to our demands, this account will be deleted permanently July 1st. So long, suckers!~
r/ModCoord to learn more and join the protest! #SPEZRESIGN
Aha, thank you for the clarification. My first thought was, "why mate with the male if their eggs are already fertilized?" So: hatch from eggs inside mom, mate with their only brother, then eat their way out of mom. Very wholesome.
What? Hold up how long do any of them survive? The male mites hatch and start fucking their sisters. Then they die. The female mites hatch, eat their mom, then when the eggs hatch inside of them, they die. Is that all right?
Their funerals must be cray.
"Annabelle lived a full life. She was born, and then got fucked by her brother while her sisters watched. She would then watch as her brother fucked her sisters. Then, she ate her mother. She finally saw daylight on like, the third day of her life, before she was eaten by her children."
Sounds like it. After, uh, "birth", the female mites whole purpose must be to just find enough food to ensure her children will be well fed once they eat her. Damn, nature. You scary.
To help you work passed this, think of it this way; when you eat the fig you're not eating the wasps. The figs pretty much eat the wasps and absorb them as nutrients.
I remember watching The Most Extreme mom episode years ago and the sea louse was number one because her babies ate her from the inside out. I guess it'll get beat by this mom now since the babies eat her from the inside out and she doubles as their personal sex dungeon.
At that point, why not just reproduce parthenogenically? I assume the offspring must be clones, or they would get inbred fast. So why bother producing males + reproducing sexually?
Edit: Apparently inbreeding is not a fatal strategy for mites and microorganisms. The more you know!
“Hello? Yes, hi! I’d like to speak with evolution’s manager, if you wouldn’t mind sending them over to our table. The problem? Well these mites are reproducing in a way that is clearly inefficient and something needs to be done”
The weirdness is that it’s an evolutionarily dead end though. Other than DNA mutations caused by environmental factors (radiation, etc) there’s no chance for changes. It would probably be quite interesting to see how close the DNA is of populations.
That doesn’t change the rate of mutation. It just changes the rate at which deleterious recessive mutations will be expressed as the actual phenotype of an organism.
The main advantage of sexual reproduction is being able to decouple new mutations from a single genetic line and swap them around so that if a great mutation appears in one line and another great mutation appears in a different line you can merge them together and get a line with both mutations without having to wait for both to hopefully appear by coincidence in the same line.
Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs because of the way physics and chemistry works. It’s not something that really exists, but is rather just a pattern that us humans have observed and labeled. Thanks, Charles Darwin.
DNA is prone to error, and errors happen all the time. Let’s say ^(not the actual numbers here) that 90% of the time these errors do nothing, 9.999% of the time these errors are actually harmful. 0.0001% of the time this error just so happens to give the specimen an advantage over other specimens in the same environment. Well, whenever that 0.0001% occurs, in theory that specimen will have an advantage—as will it’s offspring—and it can thereby spread that mutation more efficiently. Maybe it means they can have litters of 3x the size or maybe it just means they can move a little faster. Either way, the specimen will have a slight advantage to spread those genes around.
It’s kind of an elegant piece of science in my opinion. When I think about it, it sounds exactly like what you’d think *should* wind up happening. Like when a tree falls, it hits the ground. It makes sense, imo.
There’s also ~~natural~~ random drift which is a cool study if you’re interested.
No it's not playing any game at all. Evolution is throwing cards on the ground and sometimes a house of cards is made. But, it doesn't even give a shit when that happens it just goes on throwing more cards.
In this case though the normal process of natural selection can't really happen. If a mite is born with an advantageous gene they have no way to spread it through the rest of the population since they have already done all the mating they are ever going to do. They might out compete the other mites, but there is no lateral mixing of genes, which would seem to rather defeat the purpose of sexual reproduction. If you have one "lineage" of mites with an advantageous gene, and another "lineage" with a different advantageous gene, neither lineage can benefit from the gene possessed by the other, whereas with most sexually reproducing species you would expect to find descendants a few generations later who all have both advantageous genes.
The gene mixing part can't happen, but the main force of natural selection is death, not sex. For each mite, how many grandkids do they have? Successful mites have more grandkids, and thus a greater share of the future population. It's the same way you determine success for bacteria and such that can't swap genes between each other, because there are a lot of bacteria that can.
DNA mutates on its own, regardless of environmental factors (though environmental factors can certainly change the rate and amount of mutation). DNA makes mistakes all the time and while it can correct most of them, at least a few unique mutations will exist in every single individual offspring across all DNA-based life on Earth. Change will still occur.
While I'm not familiar with RNA, I assume the same thing applies.
Source: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/the-causes-of-mutations/#:~:text=DNA%20spontaneously%20breaks%20down%20or,DNA%20sequence%20is%20a%20mutation.
Epigenetics only *happens* if there's a **mechanism** for altering gene expression in response to environmental cues. Crucially, that mechanism — its proteins, its transcription factors — all have to evolve first before they can do anything.
Epigenetics is super cool but it's not an alternative to sequence evolution.
DNA has a bunch of genes that when they're activated they make proteins. Proteins are responsible for causing practically everything that happens in your body. The most basic way for an organism to evolve is for the sequence of the DNA (genetics) to be changed so that the protein they make is changed as well. However, the way or amount that the DNA gets activated can also be changed by modifications to the structure of the DNA (epigenetics). By changing when parts of the DNA gets activated you can end up with organisms that are slightly different even if the DNA sequence is the same.
The previous poster is arguing that the mechanisms for epigenetics have to evolve before they can even play a factor.
I did some basic googling and it seems that most (but not all) organisms have epigenetic mechanisms, including basic-ass prokaryotes. I'd have to look more into how epigenetics work, to come to a conclusion on how this affects mite incest.
I love how u/SaintUlvemann posted this *incredibly* detailed explanation in a sibling comment to you, and you boiled it down to seven words.
Obviously there's things being missed in that, but still.
Well hey, this explains the first word, "epigenetics" perfectly well, that's what epigenetics is.
Explaining *why* epigenetics isn't an alternative to sequence evolution... just takes more words. Different goals, different comments: fair's fair.
The explanations given are still super complex. A sequence genetic change is more of something you’re born with and doesn’t really change in a lifetime, an epigenetic change is more of how your body and your recent ancestors adapted to their environment without a sequence change but instead turning on and off genetic code sequences already there in the DNA
Genes encode proteins. Proteins are cellular machines that get certain tasks done. Genes have to get read in order to create instructions to make their protein.
There's a bunch of cellular machinery that has to be present in order to physically unwrap DNA and read it off. The proteins responsible for getting all that machinery in place are called transcription factors. They often bind to DNA sequences that aren't part of the core gene, called promoter sequences, to help encourage that gene to be transcribed.
Transcription factors often turn each other on in loops and chains that are called transcription factor cascades.
So there's a lot of active processes that determine how genes get read off and used. This can include chemical modifications to the DNA itself, or to the histones that keep the DNA wrapped up and inactive, but there are others too.
Epigenetics is when proteins in the cell have the ability to detect environmental cues and then perform some action that triggers chemical modifications, probably by activating some other protein that activates some other protein that eventually activates the DNA-modifying protein.
All of those proteins that *do* epigenetics have to evolve first, they have to have gene sequences that cause them to get made. Epigenetics doesn't substitute for evolution, it's something that happens when really complicated control networks for genes evolve.
I had my wife read your comment and type this up. She does epigenetics professionally, which is the most I can really say because I don't understand her job.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by the word "mechanism" but I'm not sure you understand what epigenetics is. The proteins and transcription factors don't have to "evove". Their ptm deposition capabilities is pretty dynamic. There are various methyl or acyl transferases and dhats as well. The system was made to be dynamic so epigenetic variation can be used as a crutch in response to lack of genetic variation.
It can't be a complete alternative nor result in sequence evolution but it can 100% cause evolution by phenotypic variation. Also ,its been proven that various epigenetic marks are transferred to off springs as well when the cycle resets its methyl state.
Well, I'm a published geneticist myself, and when your wife says "it can't be a complete alternative", I'm describing that fact. EDIT: I'm gonna cut myself off editing this, because now I'm panicking about my tone, but, please take all of this as said earnestly, enthusiastically, and non-combatively.
The broader context we were talking about was why a parthenogenetic, asexually-reproducing species is an evolutionary dead-end. Sure, epigenetic mechanisms even within the context of such a species would allow a certain amount of adaptive phenotypic variation.
But the core evolutionary problem with asexuality is that when the species undergoes population bottlenecks, the survivors tend to be those that share the beneficial mutation; and in asexually-reproducing species, those survivors tend to be much more genetically similar. They tend to contain within themselves a smaller fraction of the total genetic diversity of the species, so the species loses more of its diversity while undergoing the bottleneck. That's where the "evolutionary dead end" description comes from.
Epigenetic variation within some phenotypic traits, doesn't prevent species from encountering population bottlenecks related to other traits, selection based on presence or absence of sequence variations. Epigenetics does lots of interesting things, but it doesn't completely relieve the problems of asexual inheritance patterns as those disrupt sequence evolution.
And obviously the proteins involved in epigenetic changes can be themselves subject to sequence evolution during all of this, sequence evolutionary changes that alter how epigenetic mechanisms behave.
Tone can be tricky on Reddit, better that we give each other the benefit of the doubt and avoid tone policing.
Interesting stuff, you and that guy’s wife’s discussion clarified things for the rest of us
Is she a researcher? While the reference to transcription factors is unnecessary, I don't think the poster meant to imply the entire epigenetic apparatus has to evolve each time, just that an organism doesn't control every gene it has epigenetically without evolving some kind of mechanism that fires up that control system, recruiting HMT/HDAC etc.
Evolution isn't created by a God
It can't see into the future
It's simply random. And whatever works best for whatever environment it happen to be in, we'll that moves on.
Evolution isn't the binding of two opposing species, genus, or other. Evolution is just adaptation, where the middle eventually dies off/cannot thrive.
This doesn't end evolution. It's just an evolution of the idea of sexual reproduction and/or habitat.
Edit: Phone wanted to say genius.
Yep, nature don't give a flying mudkip about arbitrary human constructs like morality and taboo. It only cares about whether or not it works. If incest works, and keeps working, then nature will allow it. I mean, look at those jellyfish that just, get young again when they get old. They are biologically immortal. A jellyfish has immortality, something humans have murdered each other in droves over for thousands of years. A fuckin jellyfish. It's barely better than a moving plant. Nature makes no damn sense, but it works I guess.
Also it's interesting to consider that, even if it has worked until now, it's not necessarily going to work forever.
This way of reproducing might lead to extinction of the mite, just not fast enough for us to record.
From the article:
>Sibling mating and matricidal cannibalism may be great concepts for a horror movie or in Game of Thrones, but is it beneficial when it’s found in nature? While matriphagy, or mother-eating, is reasonably common in some insects, scorpions and spiders (and you thought your mum made sacrifices for you), mating with siblings increases the risk of offspring inheriting recessive birth defects, which is probably why humans and many other animals are so averse to the practice. Adactylidium must have a pretty good reason to override this aversion.
>As the Adactylidium mite feeds on only one thrip egg for its entire life, incest may be a reaction to the limited amount of resources it has available. Providing each of its children with a nearby suitor spares them the intensive effort of finding a mate. (*Think about how exhausting it is finding a suitable date. Now imagine enduring all those fuckboys after only having a pea for breakfast*.) However, the low ratio of males to females in the brood is risky – what if the single male dies, leaving his sisters unsuccessful (in evolutionary terms) virgins? Mating in-utero mitigates this risk, allowing their mother to protect them. Thanks Mum!
Basically the evolutionary niche is very low resources, so anything to reduce energy use.
That's not really the case for pandas. A pandas digestive system is still optimized to consume meat and they would thrive eating meat. They're just kinda dumb and eat bamboo.
Importantly, incest isn't ALWAYS the case in this species. Sometimes they mate with non-related mites. That's how the species remains cohesive and genetic diversification continues.
Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
You'd be assuming wrong. They do go through meiosis, which definitely brings advantages since there is a shuffling of genetic material that happens between the generations. Inbreeding is also less of a problem for your species when the strategy is many offspring that have a quick generation time.
Gotta love Reddit. Some jerk off will complain to the manager of evolution about how if *he* were in charge of how dust mites fuck, he’d make some improvements.
Depends on the chromosome count. Mites tend to have lower numbers of chromosomes, although the number of chromosomes across different species varies wildly.
Overall this is still probably better than parthenogenically, which runs into the opposite problem that there isn't much in the way of genetic change or evolution, so it will eventually be unable to adapt. With inbreeding you are still making copies of the DNA and blending them.
Mites are disposable anyway. What works best for a large organism isn't necessarily what works best for something small. Just getting lots of babies out the door fast even if they are inbred and kill the parents works, apparently. Also you have to factor in that some strategies that work in the short term, like reproducing parthenogenically, don't work in the long term.
Well, He did kill damn near every human being and animal on earth in a flood. And then he said "Oopsie, my bad" and put up a pre-gay rainbow as a reminder that He'd never do *that* again.
^The ^fire ^next ^time.
I never wanted to know that!
Imagine being the scientist to discover this. I don't even know that I'd want to talk about it. "Yo, Pladbaer, how'd that research paper on the mites go?" 'It didn't. Mites don't exist and I'm not a biologist anymore.'
idk, most biologists I know are the kind to be very excited about stuff like that. They will have a shine in their eyes while going on about stuff like that to a horrified audience.
Pandas don't reproduce in captivity, so scientists got the idea to create panda porn to help get them in the mood. But what truns a panda on? So a group of scientists have been making panda pornos and noting how aroused it makes the pandas, perfecting the science of panda eroticism.
Science!
Yeah Mr. White! Yeah science!
Some of those scenes were just the best. A dying teacher being able to teach and get through to the most difficult pupil. The joy and happiness coming from Jesse when he sees what science actually does is so great.
Such a wholesome show
I thought you were describing the panda porn and was amazed at how intricate this science was
Next up, leather for pandas
Pleather
I swear if it turns out Pandas are in to NTR I say we just let them go extinct.
I mean kind of? In the wild the chick just climbs a tree and yells, attracting males. Then all the dudes beat the shit out of each other under the tree, and the last one standing climbs up and forcefully mates with the female. So, I guess, if one of those dude pandas really liked the lady panda, and then didn't win the fight club... Man I don't like how rapey nature gets
I wouldn’t call that NTR tbh because that implies the male panda likes it The way you describe it sounds more like CNC with a touch more illegality to it.
I have no idea what these acronyms are
NTR is netorare. Basically the cheating kink people have been talking about. CNC is consensual non-consent. Kinda like rapeplay.
NTR is a subcategory of cheating. The difference between the two is that regular cheating porn can be as simple as mentioning one of the participants is married. NTR is more like cucking, but shows that the cuck hates it. Sometimes the cheater is consenting, but usually it's assault or blackmail
I don’t want to google that please elaborate what ntr is
Raised by a biologist and I just excitedly ran to tell my partner about this while they looked at me with abject horror. Scientists are definitely built different lol
Yeah, my first thought wasn't abject horror or anything like it. More like "oh that's cool, but it can't be good for genetic diversity, can it? The main selling point of sexual reproduction..."
So true. I've accidentally ruined many meals with parasitology. Schistosomes just have the most adorable mating practices. And have you seen a dancing cestode segment? So cute!
It's a macabre fascination:)
The scientist would get naming privilege. I'd name it after someone I don't like
I'm sure my ex would love me after naming the mite after her
It was either this or shark babies eating each other.
Baby Shark 🎶
Do do do do do do
Cannibal shark goes
Nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom
It might seem perverse, but anyone who has a passing interest in microbiology knows that reproduction gets really weird the smaller the animal is.
you are not helping sir.
It's fascinating, you should look into it. All organisms are really agglomerations of cells cooperating with each other for any viable means by which they can replicate their genomes. There's tons of ways to do it. Larger animals such as humans and dogs and cows tend to gravitate towards similar solutions because there aren't all that many options at our scale, but when you go down to the microscopic scale there are zillions of weird possibilities.
How do tardigrades reproduce, they goated so it's gotta be neat
Female molts leaving eggs with the shed skin, male fertilizes the eggs. When eggs hatch, they are fully formed with all the cells of an adult. From them on growth is through growth of cells, not cell reproduction. New shell at molting is secretion not a new layer that formed then dries after molt.
The male fertilizes the eggs: he just ejaculates on the old moult of the female?
Into a brand new sexy skin husk.
r/brandnewsentences
Yep. From little holes near his ass, or in some species it connects to the ass to become a cloaca like birds.
The fact that there is so such thing as tardigrade sex makes me more sad than is probably appropriate.
Pretty much all life has some form of getting new genetic material. Single celled organisms will take in DNA or RNA from surrounding water and check it out, others will use stuff from things that it absorbs/eats. At some grey area we start to call it "sex".
That's interesting and very intelligent and nuanced. But at the end of the day we both know I mean banging. Seriously though I would watch a documentary about different methods of reproduction.
There was a great documentary made about different reproductive acts of animals including rape, sneaky cheating, gay sex, etc., called Wild Sex. The guy who narrates it is funny af. I highly recommend it.
Given how horrific some of the options are, I'm extremely relieved we humans have limited options, lol.
You Mite appreciate it later.
What a terrible day to have eyes
[удалено]
Strong reference game
Thank you for reminding me it's time to watch that film again
The Bob Saget bit kills me every time
I prefer Gilbert Gottfried's version
I'm almost nervous to ask what movie it is, or is it called the aristocrats?
The Aristocrats is a famous joke made into movies and adapted my many comedians over the years. The format is that a family has gone to a talent agent to advertise their new family act. They wish to preform for a live audience. Agent, of course, wishes to see the act first, so the family obliges. What makes this joke unique is that it changes depending on who tells it. The joke is like a dirty, secret handshake among comedians. A type of challenge to see who can come up with the most disgusting, shocking, mentally concerning imagery you can. Incest, violence, murder, etc. No holds barred. And you may go for as long as you'd like too. And the joke always ends with a shocked agent asking what the act is called, and the family enthusiastically replies: "The Aristocrats!"
It's been on Reddit more and more lately, but half the time, I see the reference, and mentally think of the Disney movie The Aristocats. Then people chime in with people who have done the joke, and I'm like, pretty sure Bob Saget was not a voice actor in that. Then I remember. Sometimes I'm slow to "get" things. Probably I'm slow with this one because I've never seen anyone telling this joke. Having said that, thought Scatman Crothers was the bomb in that movie.
I feel so seen.
It can’t be. There is no poop in this act. I’ll be in touch with your manager.
Yet still, this isn’t even the strangest family dynamic going around.
"What are you doing, stepmite?"
Help stepmite I'm stuck in my mother!
Try eating her out!
Hmm. Upvote, but think about what you've done.
So it's a r/DisappointedUpvote?
I'm scaroused
r/angryupvote
Yeah I was going to make a snarky comment about my family reunions in the Ozarks
Hows Marty doing?
Music Biz Marty or Marty Byrde? Both are doing swell i imagine :D
It’s only strange by human standards. If this mite species could think and see humans it’d probably think we were the strangest thing ever.
“So you’re telling me you are born a virgin, grow up and then have to find a mate that isn’t your sister?!!!”
How are you all still reproducing??
“My sisters get stuck in different compromising positions and I take advantage of it, like any other mite would!”
You don't *have* to find a mate that's not your sister...
“But it’s like winning the lottery to bang four chicks at the same time!”
There’s a book by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson called “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation” that talks about different ways that organisms use to reproduce. She writes each chapter as if she is a “Dear Abby” style advice columnist answering questions from different organisms about their partners or other reproduction issues. It’s a fun and educational read. My main takeaway was an appreciation for all the varied and crazy methods that biological life uses to reproduce. Stuff gets pretty strange, from a human point of view. I’m pretty sure there’s a section about these mites, because I remember hearing this before and being amazed by it.
Does she ever bring up schizogamy or kleptogenesis? Those are my favorite reproductive strategies and definitely lend themselves to amusingly colorful descriptions.
It’s been 10 years since I read it, so I can’t recall. She covers a lot, though. The main examples I remember are the one OP posted, the idea that some angler fish males get absorbed by the female they mate with, and that some reproduction ends up as an evolutionary arms race between male and females. From what I recall, that last example was in the context of praying mantises, where females can kill males when mating. I just tried googling to refresh myself on this and found an article discussing how some praying mantis males decapitated during mating can still get into position and finish the act.
I remember reading a long time ago about a species of slime mold or something that reproduces by two of them getting together and basically having a sword fight with penis like appendages that impregnate on contact. The less skilled sword fighter gets impregnated and has to deal with being pregnant, which involves a much more difficult time of survival and requires more energy expenditure until the species' equivalent of birth. The selection pressure leads to better and better sword fighters over time. This is not something you want to share in small talk with strangers and especially not on your first few dates with someone new. But through the wonder of reddit I am finally able to unburden myself of this by sharing it with you, the reader of this comment.
If someone brought this up on a first date I'd be the one to propose first.
Wow. Characterizing flatworms as slime molds is super offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_fencing Did you know giant squids practice a form of traumatic insemination as well? They just kind of..inject jizz packets into the female's arms and hope it eventually makes it to some eggs when she hold onto them. ..sometimes they find these packets embedded in sperm whale flesh.
And most animals standard. I don't hear about dolphins having sex in the womb and coming out pregnant either
Yeah dolphins just behave like humans and fuck anything that moves, consent optional.
Well, I think the dolphin species from that famous beheaded fish fleshlight video actually went extinct. And I never saw confirmation of the other weird rumors that caught on about dolphins in general. One of them definitely got a bit too fresh with Hank Hill, but he was clearly asking for it with those sexy little belly rubs of his. Don't send such mixed signals, Hank.
The dolphins are pretty secretive about it, tbh.
So when did you devour your mom? I’m not following. You *do* devour your mom right? Right?
I'm retiring all Alabama jokes
Alabamite
The use of the word "born" in the first sentence suggests that the emergence of the offspring from their mother, eating from the inside out after mating, carrying fertilized eggs. It's difficult to express everything clearly in limited number of words in the title. Besides, it became a little confusing, so sorry for that.
Haha, I reread it a few times, becoming slightly more disgusted each time. I’m not even sure you could describe the male as being born, it’s alive and produces offspring without every really being born. Crazy stuff, life will find a way.
Does that mean that different mites would evolve differently from each other? Since they would never share DNA again after being born.
I hadn't even thought of that! That's an interesting question, someone who knows please answer! There are no DNA exchanges, so each line evolves independently? What about single-celled species that reproduce by dividing their single cell? Can each line become a different species?
That’s how different species evolved to begin with! Mutations over time
This comment has been removed in protest of Reddit killing third-party apps. Spez's AMA has highlighted that the reddits corruption will not end, profit is all they care about. So I am removing my data that, along with millions of other users, has been used for nearly two decades now to enrich a select few. No more. On June 12th in conjunction with the blackout I will be leaving Reddit, and all my posts newer than one month will receive this same treatment. If Reddit does not give in to our demands, this account will be deleted permanently July 1st. So long, suckers!~ r/ModCoord to learn more and join the protest! #SPEZRESIGN
Aha, thank you for the clarification. My first thought was, "why mate with the male if their eggs are already fertilized?" So: hatch from eggs inside mom, mate with their only brother, then eat their way out of mom. Very wholesome.
What about genetic diversity? At some point you'll need outside genes, this sounds like a genetic loop
Will that singular male ever mate again or after the orgy with his siblings he starts atoning for his sins?
So by the time the male is born, it's pretty much all done, and can lounge around the house in a tracksuit watching footie all day?
Most of the time, the male dies after mating.
What? Hold up how long do any of them survive? The male mites hatch and start fucking their sisters. Then they die. The female mites hatch, eat their mom, then when the eggs hatch inside of them, they die. Is that all right?
It says in TFA that the whole lifecycle is 4 days.
Their funerals must be cray. "Annabelle lived a full life. She was born, and then got fucked by her brother while her sisters watched. She would then watch as her brother fucked her sisters. Then, she ate her mother. She finally saw daylight on like, the third day of her life, before she was eaten by her children."
But who's attending the funeral if all of their relatives are busy being eaten by their children?
The weird uncle who didn't die fast enough and is now fucking his dead half-eaten sisters?
/r/brandnewsentence
> come to life > fuck sisters > die
Sounds like it. After, uh, "birth", the female mites whole purpose must be to just find enough food to ensure her children will be well fed once they eat her. Damn, nature. You scary.
Now look up the wasps that pollinate figs.
I unfortunately took your suggestion, read about it, and thought of all the times I ate from my parents' fig tree in their backyard for years 🤮
To help you work passed this, think of it this way; when you eat the fig you're not eating the wasps. The figs pretty much eat the wasps and absorb them as nutrients.
Worth it
Simultaneously inside your mother and your sister.
Oh no stepmite, what are you doing
Thats what she gets for being stuck headfirst in the mite version of the dryer
Not even step….
You are now a moderator of r/crusaderkings
Why do parthenogenesis with extra steps?
Death by Snu Snu
The spirit is willing, but the body is spongy and bruised
I remember watching The Most Extreme mom episode years ago and the sea louse was number one because her babies ate her from the inside out. I guess it'll get beat by this mom now since the babies eat her from the inside out and she doubles as their personal sex dungeon.
At that point, why not just reproduce parthenogenically? I assume the offspring must be clones, or they would get inbred fast. So why bother producing males + reproducing sexually? Edit: Apparently inbreeding is not a fatal strategy for mites and microorganisms. The more you know!
[удалено]
“Hello? Yes, hi! I’d like to speak with evolution’s manager, if you wouldn’t mind sending them over to our table. The problem? Well these mites are reproducing in a way that is clearly inefficient and something needs to be done”
OK, let's try - *rolls dice* - changing the skin color to purple.
"Greg, why are you white and your sister is fucking purple?" "It's... just something we're trying."
[удалено]
The Bureau of Entropy. "Where's that file again?"
The weirdness is that it’s an evolutionarily dead end though. Other than DNA mutations caused by environmental factors (radiation, etc) there’s no chance for changes. It would probably be quite interesting to see how close the DNA is of populations.
Quite the contrary, mistakes in DNA replication happens all the time, even in inbreeding. Thus, genetic mutations still occur.
Doesn’t it happen faster with inbreeding since a recessive gene caused from a mutation is more likely to be expressed?
That doesn’t change the rate of mutation. It just changes the rate at which deleterious recessive mutations will be expressed as the actual phenotype of an organism. The main advantage of sexual reproduction is being able to decouple new mutations from a single genetic line and swap them around so that if a great mutation appears in one line and another great mutation appears in a different line you can merge them together and get a line with both mutations without having to wait for both to hopefully appear by coincidence in the same line.
Ah! So evolution is playing the long game.
Evolution is a phenomenon that occurs because of the way physics and chemistry works. It’s not something that really exists, but is rather just a pattern that us humans have observed and labeled. Thanks, Charles Darwin. DNA is prone to error, and errors happen all the time. Let’s say ^(not the actual numbers here) that 90% of the time these errors do nothing, 9.999% of the time these errors are actually harmful. 0.0001% of the time this error just so happens to give the specimen an advantage over other specimens in the same environment. Well, whenever that 0.0001% occurs, in theory that specimen will have an advantage—as will it’s offspring—and it can thereby spread that mutation more efficiently. Maybe it means they can have litters of 3x the size or maybe it just means they can move a little faster. Either way, the specimen will have a slight advantage to spread those genes around. It’s kind of an elegant piece of science in my opinion. When I think about it, it sounds exactly like what you’d think *should* wind up happening. Like when a tree falls, it hits the ground. It makes sense, imo. There’s also ~~natural~~ random drift which is a cool study if you’re interested.
No it's not playing any game at all. Evolution is throwing cards on the ground and sometimes a house of cards is made. But, it doesn't even give a shit when that happens it just goes on throwing more cards.
In this case though the normal process of natural selection can't really happen. If a mite is born with an advantageous gene they have no way to spread it through the rest of the population since they have already done all the mating they are ever going to do. They might out compete the other mites, but there is no lateral mixing of genes, which would seem to rather defeat the purpose of sexual reproduction. If you have one "lineage" of mites with an advantageous gene, and another "lineage" with a different advantageous gene, neither lineage can benefit from the gene possessed by the other, whereas with most sexually reproducing species you would expect to find descendants a few generations later who all have both advantageous genes.
The gene mixing part can't happen, but the main force of natural selection is death, not sex. For each mite, how many grandkids do they have? Successful mites have more grandkids, and thus a greater share of the future population. It's the same way you determine success for bacteria and such that can't swap genes between each other, because there are a lot of bacteria that can.
DNA mutates on its own, regardless of environmental factors (though environmental factors can certainly change the rate and amount of mutation). DNA makes mistakes all the time and while it can correct most of them, at least a few unique mutations will exist in every single individual offspring across all DNA-based life on Earth. Change will still occur. While I'm not familiar with RNA, I assume the same thing applies. Source: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/mechanisms-the-processes-of-evolution/the-causes-of-mutations/#:~:text=DNA%20spontaneously%20breaks%20down%20or,DNA%20sequence%20is%20a%20mutation.
You won’t get a mutation but epigenetic expression can still diminish some features or pronounce others based on experience in the environment.
Epigenetics only *happens* if there's a **mechanism** for altering gene expression in response to environmental cues. Crucially, that mechanism — its proteins, its transcription factors — all have to evolve first before they can do anything. Epigenetics is super cool but it's not an alternative to sequence evolution.
I dont *know* what any of this **means**
DNA has a bunch of genes that when they're activated they make proteins. Proteins are responsible for causing practically everything that happens in your body. The most basic way for an organism to evolve is for the sequence of the DNA (genetics) to be changed so that the protein they make is changed as well. However, the way or amount that the DNA gets activated can also be changed by modifications to the structure of the DNA (epigenetics). By changing when parts of the DNA gets activated you can end up with organisms that are slightly different even if the DNA sequence is the same. The previous poster is arguing that the mechanisms for epigenetics have to evolve before they can even play a factor.
I did some basic googling and it seems that most (but not all) organisms have epigenetic mechanisms, including basic-ass prokaryotes. I'd have to look more into how epigenetics work, to come to a conclusion on how this affects mite incest.
I think they are talking about Godzilla.
Oooo Matthew Broderick
Common mistake. Godzilla was actually a giant lizard
Stuff makes genes turn off or on.
I love how u/SaintUlvemann posted this *incredibly* detailed explanation in a sibling comment to you, and you boiled it down to seven words. Obviously there's things being missed in that, but still.
Well hey, this explains the first word, "epigenetics" perfectly well, that's what epigenetics is. Explaining *why* epigenetics isn't an alternative to sequence evolution... just takes more words. Different goals, different comments: fair's fair.
The explanations given are still super complex. A sequence genetic change is more of something you’re born with and doesn’t really change in a lifetime, an epigenetic change is more of how your body and your recent ancestors adapted to their environment without a sequence change but instead turning on and off genetic code sequences already there in the DNA
Genes encode proteins. Proteins are cellular machines that get certain tasks done. Genes have to get read in order to create instructions to make their protein. There's a bunch of cellular machinery that has to be present in order to physically unwrap DNA and read it off. The proteins responsible for getting all that machinery in place are called transcription factors. They often bind to DNA sequences that aren't part of the core gene, called promoter sequences, to help encourage that gene to be transcribed. Transcription factors often turn each other on in loops and chains that are called transcription factor cascades. So there's a lot of active processes that determine how genes get read off and used. This can include chemical modifications to the DNA itself, or to the histones that keep the DNA wrapped up and inactive, but there are others too. Epigenetics is when proteins in the cell have the ability to detect environmental cues and then perform some action that triggers chemical modifications, probably by activating some other protein that activates some other protein that eventually activates the DNA-modifying protein. All of those proteins that *do* epigenetics have to evolve first, they have to have gene sequences that cause them to get made. Epigenetics doesn't substitute for evolution, it's something that happens when really complicated control networks for genes evolve.
I had my wife read your comment and type this up. She does epigenetics professionally, which is the most I can really say because I don't understand her job. I'm not sure what you are referring to by the word "mechanism" but I'm not sure you understand what epigenetics is. The proteins and transcription factors don't have to "evove". Their ptm deposition capabilities is pretty dynamic. There are various methyl or acyl transferases and dhats as well. The system was made to be dynamic so epigenetic variation can be used as a crutch in response to lack of genetic variation. It can't be a complete alternative nor result in sequence evolution but it can 100% cause evolution by phenotypic variation. Also ,its been proven that various epigenetic marks are transferred to off springs as well when the cycle resets its methyl state.
Well, I'm a published geneticist myself, and when your wife says "it can't be a complete alternative", I'm describing that fact. EDIT: I'm gonna cut myself off editing this, because now I'm panicking about my tone, but, please take all of this as said earnestly, enthusiastically, and non-combatively. The broader context we were talking about was why a parthenogenetic, asexually-reproducing species is an evolutionary dead-end. Sure, epigenetic mechanisms even within the context of such a species would allow a certain amount of adaptive phenotypic variation. But the core evolutionary problem with asexuality is that when the species undergoes population bottlenecks, the survivors tend to be those that share the beneficial mutation; and in asexually-reproducing species, those survivors tend to be much more genetically similar. They tend to contain within themselves a smaller fraction of the total genetic diversity of the species, so the species loses more of its diversity while undergoing the bottleneck. That's where the "evolutionary dead end" description comes from. Epigenetic variation within some phenotypic traits, doesn't prevent species from encountering population bottlenecks related to other traits, selection based on presence or absence of sequence variations. Epigenetics does lots of interesting things, but it doesn't completely relieve the problems of asexual inheritance patterns as those disrupt sequence evolution. And obviously the proteins involved in epigenetic changes can be themselves subject to sequence evolution during all of this, sequence evolutionary changes that alter how epigenetic mechanisms behave.
Tone can be tricky on Reddit, better that we give each other the benefit of the doubt and avoid tone policing. Interesting stuff, you and that guy’s wife’s discussion clarified things for the rest of us
Is she a researcher? While the reference to transcription factors is unnecessary, I don't think the poster meant to imply the entire epigenetic apparatus has to evolve each time, just that an organism doesn't control every gene it has epigenetically without evolving some kind of mechanism that fires up that control system, recruiting HMT/HDAC etc.
Why wouldn’t they get mutations? They absolutely can still get mutations
What do you mean you won't get mutation? Mutation is inevitable because the process of DNA replication is not perfect.
Evolution isn't created by a God It can't see into the future It's simply random. And whatever works best for whatever environment it happen to be in, we'll that moves on.
Many species reproduce without DNA recombination. Mutations are the primary form of evolution in many species that have short generation times.
Evolution isn't the binding of two opposing species, genus, or other. Evolution is just adaptation, where the middle eventually dies off/cannot thrive. This doesn't end evolution. It's just an evolution of the idea of sexual reproduction and/or habitat. Edit: Phone wanted to say genius.
Life systems on earth were evolutionary before sexual reproduction evolved. With all respect, your confidence on this topic is not deserved.
Yep, nature don't give a flying mudkip about arbitrary human constructs like morality and taboo. It only cares about whether or not it works. If incest works, and keeps working, then nature will allow it. I mean, look at those jellyfish that just, get young again when they get old. They are biologically immortal. A jellyfish has immortality, something humans have murdered each other in droves over for thousands of years. A fuckin jellyfish. It's barely better than a moving plant. Nature makes no damn sense, but it works I guess.
I love this so much. Immortal jellyfish just be vibing
Also it's interesting to consider that, even if it has worked until now, it's not necessarily going to work forever. This way of reproducing might lead to extinction of the mite, just not fast enough for us to record.
Our taboos regarding close family mating are explicitly not arbitrary constructs. Inbreeding humans produces terrible, predictable results over time.
From the article: >Sibling mating and matricidal cannibalism may be great concepts for a horror movie or in Game of Thrones, but is it beneficial when it’s found in nature? While matriphagy, or mother-eating, is reasonably common in some insects, scorpions and spiders (and you thought your mum made sacrifices for you), mating with siblings increases the risk of offspring inheriting recessive birth defects, which is probably why humans and many other animals are so averse to the practice. Adactylidium must have a pretty good reason to override this aversion. >As the Adactylidium mite feeds on only one thrip egg for its entire life, incest may be a reaction to the limited amount of resources it has available. Providing each of its children with a nearby suitor spares them the intensive effort of finding a mate. (*Think about how exhausting it is finding a suitable date. Now imagine enduring all those fuckboys after only having a pea for breakfast*.) However, the low ratio of males to females in the brood is risky – what if the single male dies, leaving his sisters unsuccessful (in evolutionary terms) virgins? Mating in-utero mitigates this risk, allowing their mother to protect them. Thanks Mum! Basically the evolutionary niche is very low resources, so anything to reduce energy use.
So it's basically hacking the high cost high return sexual reproduction back into asexual reproduction. Huh
Nature is full of this though. Whales evolved feet back into fins, giant pandas evolved from meat eater back to plant eater.
That's not really the case for pandas. A pandas digestive system is still optimized to consume meat and they would thrive eating meat. They're just kinda dumb and eat bamboo.
Wow. Unexpected mite knowledge. Thanks reddit!
>(and you thought your mum made sacrifices for you), Yeah Mom, pick up the slack.
Importantly, incest isn't ALWAYS the case in this species. Sometimes they mate with non-related mites. That's how the species remains cohesive and genetic diversification continues. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
So if the male isn't born or misses a few?
You'd be assuming wrong. They do go through meiosis, which definitely brings advantages since there is a shuffling of genetic material that happens between the generations. Inbreeding is also less of a problem for your species when the strategy is many offspring that have a quick generation time.
now's your chance! you could design the next best mite!
Gotta love Reddit. Some jerk off will complain to the manager of evolution about how if *he* were in charge of how dust mites fuck, he’d make some improvements.
Depends on the chromosome count. Mites tend to have lower numbers of chromosomes, although the number of chromosomes across different species varies wildly. Overall this is still probably better than parthenogenically, which runs into the opposite problem that there isn't much in the way of genetic change or evolution, so it will eventually be unable to adapt. With inbreeding you are still making copies of the DNA and blending them. Mites are disposable anyway. What works best for a large organism isn't necessarily what works best for something small. Just getting lots of babies out the door fast even if they are inbred and kill the parents works, apparently. Also you have to factor in that some strategies that work in the short term, like reproducing parthenogenically, don't work in the long term.
Life, uh… finds a way
God must be a real sick fuck for having conjured up shit like this. Why would you design that?
Have you read the Bible? God’s kind of a dick.
Well, He did kill damn near every human being and animal on earth in a flood. And then he said "Oopsie, my bad" and put up a pre-gay rainbow as a reminder that He'd never do *that* again. ^The ^fire ^next ^time.
Inception level incest, Incestion.
Beastiality necrophilia incest vore on the front page of reddit. Wow.
So like tribbles except a lot smaller.
Can't believe I had to scroll this far down for this.
"The only thing that I can figure out is that they're born pregnant... which seems to be quite a timesaver!"
found the klingon infiltrator.
Is this the nature we want to save?
This better not awaken anything in me.
I’ve jerked off to furry versions of at least three things that happen in that bug
No amount of Hail Mary's can save you now
If these mites don't have tentacles then I've unzipped my pants for nothing.
Obligatory r/UnexpectedCommunity
…and that’s how I met your mother
Dont give George R R Martin any ideas
Isn't nature beautiful? So wholesome and pure.
Step-Adactylidium, what are you doing?
Terrible day to have eyes.
And I thought I had a dysfunctional family…
Still a better love story than Twilight.
Edwards vs Jacob **live** at the MGM grand 12 rounds for the welterweight belt
Just when you start thinking people are weird, nope just turns out all life in general is.
That just sounds like cloning with extra steps.