"How you know X did not have sex in 80 million years." Topic

DNA comparisons. When two beings have sex, the genetics combination of their DNA in their offspring, has a distinct pattern. The number of combinations of DNA of just two partners astronomical, but it's a very recognizable pattern. If the DNA has been passed to an offspring, and it's not been by the sex of two partners, the offspring's DNA pattern will also be distinct, but in a totally different way than from a being that if from sex of two partners. If a creature once had sex and then started having offspring from a manner that doesn't include two partners, evidence of the two partner sex will still be in their DNA. Then you use a very boring, very intensive, Math called Statistical analysis, and it will give you an approximate answer , that tells you that if the DNA of this creature has this amount of DNA shows evidence of two partner sex, and this amount of evidence of single parent sex, it stopped XXX years ago.
If it once walked like a duck, and once quacked like a duck, and you can find some evidence of it, then it probably once was a duck. And THAT"S SCIENCE.

DECEIVER!!!! 'Tis not SCIENCE, but WITCHCRAFT!!!

Can you get a major corporation to give you lots and lots and lots of money from something you found through Witchcraft?

No? Too bad, your Witchcraft sucks, ditch it and try science. Yes, you did? Then it was probably science and you mistook it for Witchcraft.

We seem to be able to get funding for a lot of Voodoo Economics!

Hey it IS known as the dismal science!

Also LOTS of Exclamation POINTS and random capitalization has been scientifically shown to make something truthier!!!!

Have you SEEN X, who would actually want to have sex with X in the first instance, even if you were intoxicated and had two bags?

@Eclectic Wave: if it turns a profit, a big corporation doesn't care HOW you got it.

Humbug.

From the article I read, the bdelloid rotifers are VERY SLOPPY with their DNA. Like a certain ex-President and a blue dress, and that exceeds the 10-year "politics" statute of limitations.
I claim an exception here, due to the aforementioned sloppiness.
They should also be EXTREMELY cranky about this lack of sex (I know that *I* am…), and should have taken over the world by now because of it.

Now explain why the taxpayers are funding the search for the organism that has gone the longest without nookie.

Not that anyone bothers to read opening posts, all *I" was asking for was an explanation WHY one would post such bald statements that they have not had sex in 80 million years.

I blame it on the lack of reading comprehension in The Youth™ of today, and the Internet Need™ to tilt at windmills that aren't there.

You shouldn't talk about Cthulhu that way. It might wake him.

All *I" was asking for was an explanation WHY one would post such bald statements that they have not had sex in 80 million years.

Now, John, you know that's not true. Your actual post was, "***How*** do scientists KNOW these things?" not why do they post them.

As for ***why*** they post them, because it's of potential interest to people of a general scientific (or weirdly prurient) bent.

They started playing Battletech…

All *I" was asking for was an explanation WHY one would post such bald statements that they have not had sex in 80 million years.

If the evidence supports it, then it's not a bald statement.

'Can you get a major corporation to give you lots and lots and lots of money from something you found through Witchcraft?'

it seems to have worked for those who depsite a complete lack of proof believe in creationism so why not for witchcraft? ;-p