Darwinism News

300 mya vampire squid has quite different reproduction from other squid

Spread the love

From ScienceDaily:

While other squid reproduce all at once late in their lives, vampire squid appear to alternate between reproductive and resting phases. It’s a pattern of multiple spawning more common among fish.

The researchers have now characterized the reproductive status of more than 40 vampire squid females. They report that one female in the sample, despite being in a reproductive resting phase, had released at least 3,800 eggs yet still retained 6,500 viable oocytes for future spawning. Assuming an average batch size of 100 eggs, the researchers suggest that this one female had already spawned about 38 times, with eggs in reserve for another 65 or so spawning episodes.

Dawinism did not predict this, but as readers will see if they read the rest of the release, Darwinism can “explain” it.

Apparently, developing new reproductive systems by natural selection acting on random mutation (Darwinism) is no big deal.

95% of the ocean is still unexplored, and here’s a prediction: Lots of things will be discovered that know not Darwin, nor his followers.

Here’s the abstract:

Coleoid cephalopods are thought to go through only one reproductive cycle in their life. We here report that vampire squid (Vampyroteuthis infernalis) show evidence of multiple reproductive cycles. Female vampire squid spawn their eggs, then return to a resting reproductive state, which is followed by the development of a new batch of eggs. This reproductive cycle is likely to be repeated more than twenty times. This combination of reproductive traits is different from that of any other extant coleoid cephalopod. (paywall) – Henk-Jan T. Hoving, Vladimir V. Laptikhovsky, Bruce H. Robison. Vampire squid reproductive strategy is unique among coleoid cephalopods. Current Biology, 2015; 25 (8): R322 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.018

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “300 mya vampire squid has quite different reproduction from other squid

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    This finding reminds me that, morphologically and physiologically, the ways in which Chimpanzees and Humans reproduce are very different:

    The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009
    Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....d-ape.html

    One major difference that really stands out is that Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas the chimpanzee’s reproductive system is a ‘mechanical’ system that relies on an actual bone in order to achieve reproduction:

    Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1VWQEnnwM

    Moreover, the drastic differences in sexual reproduction between chimps and man extends down to the molecular level.
    This evolution friendly article found the differences between the Y chromosome of chimps and Humans to ‘differ radically’:

    Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....shows.html

    This following articles state the differences on the Y chromosome are ‘horrendously different from each other’ and ‘overturned expectations’

    A False Trichotomy
    Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....richotomy/

    Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected – Jan. 2010
    Excerpt: “The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
    http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html

    The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary ‘just so’ stories of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain.
    The following paper asserts, contrary to the preceding papers claim of ‘dramatically sped up evolution’ to ‘explain away’ the horrendously different Y chromosome, that the human Y chromosome has lost just one gene in 25 million years and, furthermore, that the Y chromosome has been stable for the last 6 million years.

    Theory of the ‘Rotting’ Y Chromosome Dealt a Fatal Blow – February 2012
    Excerpt: “the sequence of the rhesus Y, shows the chromosome hasn’t lost a single ancestral gene in the past 25 million years. By comparison, the human Y has lost just one ancestral gene in that period, and that loss occurred in a segment that comprises just 3% of the entire chromosome”, “,,,earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. “Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it’s clear the Y isn’t going anywhere.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....154359.htm

    CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS
    Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.
    http://www.reasons.org/interpr.....lutionists

    Of related interest:

    Genes on the Y chromosome prove essential for male survival – April 23, 2014
    Excerpt: Moreover, the vast majority of these tenacious genes appear to have little if any role in sex determination or sperm production.,,,
    “There are approximately a dozen genes conserved on the Y that are expressed in cells and tissue types throughout the body,” he continues. “These are genes involved in decoding and interpreting the entirety of the genome. How pervasive their effects are is a question we throw open to the field, and it’s one we can no longer ignore.”
    Page believes this research will at last allow his lab to transition from proving the so-called rotting Y theorists wrong to a new era in Y chromosome biology.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132421.htm

    Sex Chromosome Shocker: The ‘Female’ X a Key Contributor to Sperm Production – July 21, 2013
    Excerpt: Painstaking new analysis of the genetic sequence of the X chromosome — long perceived as the “female” counterpart to the male-associated Y chromosome — reveals that large portions of the X have “evolved” to play a specialized role in sperm production.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161358.htm

    Of course the researchers never actually proved the evolution of such a complex relationship between the X and Y chromosomes. They have merely found a complex relationship between the two chromosomes and assumed it must have evolved because, of course, in the materialistic mindset everything must have evolved since they would much rather have their own foot in their mouth than a divine foot in the door.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Of supplemental note:

    One of the most enigmatic ‘novelties’ of the Cambrian explosion was the appearance of a wide variety of methods of sexual reproduction for a such wide variety of different species/phyla in such a short time:

    Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
    Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62031.html

    i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and rapid, reproduction be realistically ‘selected’ for? Any other function besides rapid reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, or even ‘slow’ sexual reproduction itself, would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing rapidly, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would, sooner or later, slow down successful rapid reproduction.

    How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a “male and female” to reproduce? If evolution were true – doesn’t it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn’t they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? “Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems.”
    Dr. Graham Bell – In his book, ‘The Masterpiece of Nature’

    Moreover, its been known for quite a while, as Walter Remine relates in this following interview, that sexual reproduction severely limits genetic variability rather than enhances it as Darwinists had originally thought.

    Walter ReMine on the Origin of Sexual Reproduction – interview
    http://kgov.s3.amazonaws.com/b.....BEL150.mp3

    This following studies concur with Dr. Remine that sexual reproduction limits genetic diversity instead of promoting it:

    Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue – (July 7, 2011)
    Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU’s Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that’s not the case.,,,
    ,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it’s about keeping the genome context — an organism’s complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology — as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species’ identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,,
    For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. “In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite,” said Heng.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161037.htm

    The counterintuitive role of sexual selection in species maintenance and speciation – Maria R. Servedio – April 2014
    Excerpt: Speculation on the role of sexual selection in driving speciation and species maintenance traces back to the beginning of the explosion in sexual selection research seen in the past few decades (e.g., refs. 3, 4, 22, and 28). The more that this putative relationship is explored, however, the more tenuous it appears to be (e.g., refs. 10 and 11). Here we show that when sexual selection is isolated in a pure Fisherian form, it inhibits species maintenance in one of the situations in which its role seemed clearest, when the trait under sexual selection is also locally adapted. Furthermore, sexual selection is lost in this Fisherian system if preference strengths themselves are allowed to evolve.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea.....4111.short

    Another whack at the “sex paradox” – July 1, 2014
    Excerpt: The article is most informative about tests done on the various theses but in the end (they state).
    And so the paradox of sex lives on. “We still really don’t know the answer to this very most basic question,” says Mark Welch. “We don’t know why sex exists.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....x-paradox/

    Verse and Music:

    Mark 10:6-7
    Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,”

    Michael Bolton & Percy Sledge – When a Man Loves a Woman – Live
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgTkpTWFAw

Leave a Reply