Seems very Star Trek Enterprise when they polarize the hull plating.
"To prevent this from happening, once a sperm cell has made contact with it, the egg quickly employs two mechanisms. First, its plasma membrane rapidly depolarises – meaning it creates an electrical barrier that further sperm cannot cross."
Whatever relates to DNA in an organism is under strict control and huge protective mechanisms. For example DNA replication has an error rate of 1/10^9. Obviously, selecting 1 out of 10-150 million "persons" is some fierce form of survival of the fittest, that happens early and is very cheap. The next layer of selection is embryonic development, next the labor and in the end early life diseases. At every level the selection becomes weaker but the price larger.
We need to get the male’s genetic material into the female’s body. How many redundant copies should we send. 100? 1000? A voice in back of the room: 50 million.
Survival of the fittest. You don’t guarantee there’s nothing majorly wrong with the sperm that gets through, but by rejecting 99.99% as failing to be the fastest or survive the longest in a harsh environment we can drastically cut down on the issues with the next generation before investing significant resources into trying to form an embryo.
It’s not the sperms fault it ends the night on a body instead of someplace useful. Random luck is therefore a filer dropping from millions to thousands without telling you anything about the sperm.
It’s useless for all that multicellular goodness that separates humans from fish. But making viable single cells is a prerequisite for everything that comes after. DNA that can’t make cell walls etc can’t make a person as such there’s a host of genetic anomalies that don’t result in a fetus let alone a live birth.
Wait, but random luck is precisely the thing that breaks this whole "fittest" model since there isn't a selection for fitness! (that was my other major issue I didn't mention with this whole approach)
Add luck doesn't explain millions either, it would sound the same if thousands dropped to hundreds
Random bad luck is always part of any survival of the fittest situation. A meteor killing few thousand trees isn’t something a given tree at the center of the impact crater can do much about.
Also, it’s “fittest” as category not most fit as a ranking. Perhaps a better conceptual model is people who finish a marathon are a fitter group than those who start a marathon even if someone who failed was potentially in better shape than the winner. Many species have thousands of offspring because the odds any one of them reproduces is very low, a valid strategy not some sign of incompetence.
> Add luck doesn't explain millions either, it would sound the same if thousands dropped to hundreds
The actual cause is the full evolutionary history going back to the first life form and the environment each generation lived in, but we can still examine individual elements of what’s going on.
“Luck” is a multiplier on the number of sperm needed. The ability of an individual sperm to optimize its odds of success is a sign of cellular function. There’s zero contradiction between those statements. ~1:10,000 * ~1:100
It is just a filter for certain cellular traits. It doesn't filter for many other important traits. A good flagellum doesn't indicate good kidneys. A sperm's existence indicates the father made faithful copies of cells, however the new sperm DNA could be terrible at making faithful copies (ability not proven until after fertilisation).
It also depends on how much of the sperm cell comes from the fathers genes, and how much is generated from the new DNA. I didn't find a clear answer to this but the following indicates that the new sperm cell is at least somewhat generated by the sperm DNA:
Because nucleotide recombinations can occur during meiosis I, the genetic code of chromosomes of gametes can differ from that of somatic parent cells (ie., progeny cells might express cell-surface antigens that are recognized by the host [the father] as foreign and thus be eliminated by humoral or cellular immune mechanisms). Occluding junctions that interconnect adjacent Sertoli cells shield secondary spermatocytes, spermatids, and spermatozoa from autoimmune recognition.
I wonder if there are any organisms where the sperm envelope is made by the dad, and the DNA letter is contained inside?
And I'm completely ignoring the mitochondria (Dad's copy are not passed on so should be mostly irrelevant to sperm selection pressures). I'm pretty ignorant of this whole topic - high school biology only.
but each chromosome could be "grandfathers" or "grandmothers", and usually those chromosomes have one or two crossover events, so, the chromosome goes FFFFFFFFMM for example. (where F = grandfather and M = grandmother)
Whats interesting to me is that along with the autosomes (chr1-22) the sperm contributes either an X or Y sex chromosome. The X chromosome is large and carries a lot of important genes. The Y chromosome on the other-hand is much smaller and carries very few functional genes (primarily just SRY).
So If you think about it girls get ~5% more genetic material from their father than boys.
I couldn't be assed to do the math, not just chromosome size but also number of genes etc, get's tricky to quantify.
Fascinating to think about the variability introduced by having only a single copy of the X chromosome. Lot's of interesting genes in there, MAOA/MAOB (primary neurotransmitter breakdown pathways), AR (androgen receptor), OPN1LW/OPN1MW (red green color blindness), G6PD, etc.
Yes. Sperm cells are haploid. If the sperm that fertilizes the egg has an X chromosome, the baby will be female. If it has a Y chromosome, the baby will be male.
There are rare exceptions for genetic disorders relating to sex development, but generally speaking the above is true.
The best sperm will likely result in the next generation of sperm also being good.
We look at the human as the organism, the sperm as the gamete - but perhaps our logic is anthropocentric - perhaps the sperm is the organism, and we are just the ridiculously elaborate reproductive mechanism.
I don't think the fittest sperm become the fittest people no. But I do think that seriously fucked up genetic errors will make the sperm cell non-viable. So it's more about creating a floor than getting the creme de la cremepie.
IVF has a higher rate of spontaneous abortion which is a more expensive filter for cellular issues. In people losing out on months of reproductive heath is a meaningful downside. In say frogs having a lower percentage of viable eggs is a significant disadvantage.
IVF is also associated with congenital malformations etc. Though it’s hard to separate issues preventing normal conception from issues associated with IVF, it’s likely less viable sperm result in a less healthy fetus.
“can and have” sure not everything that makes sperm look feeble in a microscope actually represents an issue.
Extremely poor is a qualifier that isn’t backed up by your previous statements or actual scientific studies. Further births are very late in the process, rates of success is a critical metric here.
There’s significant research in trying to artificially create similar selection criteria because it increases the odds of a successful pregnancy and live birth. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7365522/
So if you still disagree, how about presenting some actual evidence.
A lot of what's behind that "selection" there is still unknown; in principle all sperm are, more or less, the same.
There's also so many external effects in play that no single sperm cell may actually have a significant advantage over others; e.g. the behavior of the seminal fluid (ph, viscosity), the physical location of the egg, etc.
The cartoonish image of sperm swimming towards the egg is pretty much that ... a cartoon. In reality, they're pretty much drifting and their movement is much more like brownian motion than anything else [1].
Reminds me of this sperm race thing that took the spotlight a month ago, after watching the videos [2] ... come on, man.
Only someone who is extremely ignorant and/or is lacking severely on their mental abilities (bordering on idiocy), would believe that thing was true.
1: When the sperm is really close to the egg, however, there seems to be a hormone gradient that guides the sperm, preferentially, towards it.
There’s a big difference between mostly the same and actually the same. A sperm that doesn’t move is extremely unlikely to fertilize an egg. Thus, 1 is a test for fitness among a tiny percentage of total sperm but still a large number.
Length of survival is dependent on factors largely put side of sperms control, but sperm lifespan does test for massive genetic abnormality.
So yes 99% never get a chance to compete, but meaningful competition still occurs.
Not really, the reason so many sperm are needed is because a woman's reproductive tract requires an aggressive immunological response to foreign bodies (which sperm are). The vagina provides a direct route for pathogens through the cervix and uterus to the fallopian tubes (which can be scarred by inflammation resulting in infertility) and they themselves open up directly into the peritoneal cavity (potentially exposing a woman to septic shock or death if an infection reaches it). To protect against that, the vaginal environment is highly acidic, has layers of mucus that shields the cervix, and a high concentration of immune cells proliferate throughout. Men need to produce so many sperm because they need to be able to temporarily overwhelm these defenses.
What you say is right, but it does not contradict the parent poster.
Both reasons for the high count of sperm cells are true.
There must be many sperm cells to survive the adverse conditions, but there is also intense competition with the sibling sperm cells.
The DNA of the sperm cells is generated by a random generator, which is the meiosis mechanism, which randomly shuffles then randomly discards half of the father DNA.
The sperm competition then discards the random choices that happened to be bad, implementing an optimum search algorithm.
The sperm competition is only a first filter for rejecting bad random choices. Many embryos will die very soon, without ever developing, rejecting other bad random choices.
>The sperm competition then discards the random choices that happened to be bad, implementing an optimum search algorithm.
Only a very small percentage of sperm (less than 5%) are chromosomally abnormal. Meanwhile, the vast majority of sperm are morphologically abnormal in some way. So there's not really a tight relationship between genetic problems and sperm fitness. Men with infertility due to low motility, for example, are capable of having perfectly healthy children with those low motility sperm through IVF.
>The DNA of the sperm cells is generated by a random generator, which is the meiosis mechanism, which randomly shuffles then randomly discards half of the father DNA.
Meiosis also occurs in women (technically in the female fetus), but women generally produce only a single egg each ovulation.
>Many embryos will die very soon, without ever developing, rejecting other bad random choices.
A very large number of zygotes/blastocysts survive until implantation, upwards of 50%. And of those that do, maybe 20-40% are miscarried before 12 weeks. All things considered, about 1 in every 4 fertilized eggs results in a successful pregnancy.
So yes, it's absolutely true that the body filters out chromosomally abnormal germ cells and zygotes. But an egg is orders of magnitude more likely to survive than a sperm (even if you take into account the eggs that die in the uterus without being released). And the overwhelming reason is that the egg is simply in a much less hostile immune environment.
as to the large number of sperm required, it is note worthy that excess male germ cell's is the norm for many?, most?, all?, species, and that in
a lot of cases there is a number of complications involved in transfering them to a female, and altogether improbable solutions, also the basic mechanisms for germ cells are conserved by plants and animals, "pollen" bieng tailess sperm.....except in the case of ginko trees, that have motile sperm
so the real questions are around why did evolution produce, and stick to this mechanism, and not so much about our species rather mundane take on it.
I'm broadly speculating here, but I tend to view most mechanisms like this as evolution's "desire" for a well tuned, but imperfect, CRC check.
Ignoring whether or not it would even be possible, a perfect CRC is antithetical to evolution itself, wiggle room for mutation must always be possible, but too much mutation gives you cancer and systemic malfunction. So you end up with these bizarre processes that allow just the right amount of imperfection.
With sperm specifically it ends up closer to a signature check than just a CRC, if the sperm doesn't exhibit behavior that falls under a certain umbrella of expected behaviors, it's rejected by the surrounding environment. The difficulty to comprehend it could even be a feature of the process in many respects, especially when you consider everything in this realm risks getting "hacked" if precautions are not put into place.
So when I see huge numbers like this, I see it as an indirect measure of the precision of the overall process. To put it another way, it's like brute forcing a password you don't know, but happen to have a lot of hints to (since obviously, we are all still the same species at the end of the day).
I’ve actually had this question myself, “is there evolutionary pressure for imperfect genetic copying and repair mechanisms, since perfect ones would halt evolution and leave a species unable to adapt?”
I’ve asked this question to multiple evolutionary biologists, and all of them answered “no” very strongly, strongly enough that I’m inclined to believe it. Apparently the frequency of deleterious mutations is many orders of magnitude greater than the frequency of beneficial ones, meaning there’s little chance perfect copying could be maladaptive. And in any event, evolution always selects for the fitness of the individual, not the species— group selection is a controversial topic in evobio, but the general consensus is that it does not happen, and that the rare things which kinda look like group selection (e.g. eusociality in bees) actually aren’t and can be explained without it.
I suspect there could be a misalignment in semantics here, and not necessarily a disagreement. When a biologist says "evolutionary pressure" perhaps they have a different way of modeling what that means to them?
To me evolutionary pressure isn't an on/off thing, it's like a signal in the noise. It's a vector with a direction and magnitude, facing varying levels of environmental resistance.
To be more specific, if there was enough "magnitude", evolution could potentially arrive at a perfect CRC. But the "resistance" requires a "magnitude" higher than evolution is willing to pay to reach that perfection. Likely in part due to the implicit complexity slope. Considering the systemic malfunction mutation can cause, one might assume this magnitude would be higher than it currently is. However, this is entirely speculation, and not falsifiable.
So when I think of evolutionary pressure I'm considering it as a component of the final vector, where a biologist might more pragmatically consider the total sum of vectors instead. This way of thinking is likely more productive for what they are doing.
As for evolution always selecting for the individual over the group, I'm surprised this is controversial when it's so obviously happening? If that was true how could multicellular organisms even exist? I'm very much not an expert on any of this, but this sounds like perhaps an over focus on DNA itself and not evolution as a whole, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
> This way of thinking is likely more productive for what they are doing.
Which is… attempting a rigorous understanding of evolutionary biology, rather than idly ruminating.
I hate to use a dork-ism like “update your priors”, but this is actually maybe a situation where it applies? If you’re serious about a subject it’s more interesting to really incorporate the likelihood that you’re wrong than it is to wave it away as semantics or point of view.
I find evolution interesting because I like algorithms, so I view it through that lens. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this perspective. Clarifying my mental model is by no means simple hand waving.
Tell me this, which is more productive in an open discussion? My idle rumination? Or the lazy dismissal that lacks any substantive contribution to the ongoing discussion? I can't help but agree with your distaste for "dorkisms".
Imperfect copying is only one reason for having to reject many sperm cells, and a less important one.
Meiosis, which produces both the sperm cells and the egg cells, is not a copying mechanism, unlike mitosis, which generates the other cells of a body.
Meiosis is a random generator, it randomly shuffles the DNA of the grandparents, which is stored in the father's cells, then it randomly selects half of it, producing a unique combination of genes in each sperm cell or egg cell.
The random genome generator together with the following filtering steps that will reject the bad variants, implement an optimum search algorithm for the fittest descendants.
Meiosis has greatly accelerated the evolution of the nucleated living beings (eukaryotes). Because favorable mutations are extremely rare, the probability of a living being accumulating multiple favorable mutations would have been negligible. With meiosis, if in a population 5 individuals have 1 favorable mutation each, there are good chances that soon some individuals will appear who have all 5 favorable mutations, then their descendants may become dominant and replace all others.
> And in any event, evolution always selects for the fitness of the individual, not the species— group selection is a very controversial topic in evobio, but the general consensus is that it does not happen
To me that seems more to me like a group of academics who just can’t see “how” it’d work. We’ve seen that in field after field where practitioners rarely look outside their own field.
There’s no “magic” in evolution to make it work only on individuals. Evolution is going to follow game theory. In some scenarios the evolution of the group will over time be far more adaptive than that of an individual. It’s a math question, not a biology question.
This is one of those issues where I think that the experts in the field saying that are just plain wrong. I know how that is a bad assumption to start out with; but I also know that obviously there is an amount of mutations that is beneficial, and organisms with a rate lower than that will be outcompeted. It could be no other way.
So is it just misunderstanding? Maybe they don't understand the question, or we don't understand the answer? Or they're hidebound, or incentivized somehow to be blind to the truth? Epistemological questions abound.
A better way to think about it is just how much surface area of uterus the ovum could actually be in.
It's not that you need millions of sperm or that millions of sperm are competing, its that those sorts of numbers are necessary just to make it probably at least 1 sperm even finds the egg while it's still got energy.
Sperm are actually quite good at finding the egg if they make it to the fallopian tube, they have their own chemoreceptors that can detect very small changes in chemical gradients, but only a few hundred make it through the preceding gauntlet.
There's this fascinating phenomenon called "micro chimerism"where somehow they've found that some of the cells in women's bodies are actually descendents of cells from past sexual partners, and they can be found in places far removed from the reproductive tract. the relation to your comment is that the tonsils and throat are known to be susceptible to this.
Fun rabbit hole, in since cases they think it's the result of cells from offspring winding up in the wrong side of the umbilical but there are also cases where there was never a pregnancy in which case it has to be wayward sperm but that's absolutely bizarre and far too orthogonal to the sperms primary objective.
And AFAIK they don't have any idea of why this is beneficial to the woman or even to the man who created the invasive cells.
...Huh. So does this increased biodiversity mean that I have, perhaps, stronger immune defenses or quicker healing in certain oral tissues due to hybrid vigor[1] in the back of my throat?
Seems very Star Trek Enterprise when they polarize the hull plating.
"To prevent this from happening, once a sperm cell has made contact with it, the egg quickly employs two mechanisms. First, its plasma membrane rapidly depolarises – meaning it creates an electrical barrier that further sperm cannot cross."
Whatever relates to DNA in an organism is under strict control and huge protective mechanisms. For example DNA replication has an error rate of 1/10^9. Obviously, selecting 1 out of 10-150 million "persons" is some fierce form of survival of the fittest, that happens early and is very cheap. The next layer of selection is embryonic development, next the labor and in the end early life diseases. At every level the selection becomes weaker but the price larger.
We are some pretty special and die-hard persons.
We need to get the male’s genetic material into the female’s body. How many redundant copies should we send. 100? 1000? A voice in back of the room: 50 million.
Survival of the fittest. You don’t guarantee there’s nothing majorly wrong with the sperm that gets through, but by rejecting 99.99% as failing to be the fastest or survive the longest in a harsh environment we can drastically cut down on the issues with the next generation before investing significant resources into trying to form an embryo.
This doesn't help much:
- You can reject 99.99% in thousands, not millions
- How is swimming fastest relevant to the genetic information quality inside?
I guess the same as someone running faster is a good proxy for health: slow swimmers might have defects that make them slow.
It’s not the sperms fault it ends the night on a body instead of someplace useful. Random luck is therefore a filer dropping from millions to thousands without telling you anything about the sperm.
It’s useless for all that multicellular goodness that separates humans from fish. But making viable single cells is a prerequisite for everything that comes after. DNA that can’t make cell walls etc can’t make a person as such there’s a host of genetic anomalies that don’t result in a fetus let alone a live birth.
Wait, but random luck is precisely the thing that breaks this whole "fittest" model since there isn't a selection for fitness! (that was my other major issue I didn't mention with this whole approach)
Add luck doesn't explain millions either, it would sound the same if thousands dropped to hundreds
Random bad luck is always part of any survival of the fittest situation. A meteor killing few thousand trees isn’t something a given tree at the center of the impact crater can do much about.
Also, it’s “fittest” as category not most fit as a ranking. Perhaps a better conceptual model is people who finish a marathon are a fitter group than those who start a marathon even if someone who failed was potentially in better shape than the winner. Many species have thousands of offspring because the odds any one of them reproduces is very low, a valid strategy not some sign of incompetence.
> Add luck doesn't explain millions either, it would sound the same if thousands dropped to hundreds
The actual cause is the full evolutionary history going back to the first life form and the environment each generation lived in, but we can still examine individual elements of what’s going on.
“Luck” is a multiplier on the number of sperm needed. The ability of an individual sperm to optimize its odds of success is a sign of cellular function. There’s zero contradiction between those statements. ~1:10,000 * ~1:100
Is this really the case? Do the fittest sperm become the best people? Feels like a streach
It is just a filter for certain cellular traits. It doesn't filter for many other important traits. A good flagellum doesn't indicate good kidneys. A sperm's existence indicates the father made faithful copies of cells, however the new sperm DNA could be terrible at making faithful copies (ability not proven until after fertilisation).
It also depends on how much of the sperm cell comes from the fathers genes, and how much is generated from the new DNA. I didn't find a clear answer to this but the following indicates that the new sperm cell is at least somewhat generated by the sperm DNA:
I wonder if there are any organisms where the sperm envelope is made by the dad, and the DNA letter is contained inside?And I'm completely ignoring the mitochondria (Dad's copy are not passed on so should be mostly irrelevant to sperm selection pressures). I'm pretty ignorant of this whole topic - high school biology only.
100% of sperm dna comes from father.
but each chromosome could be "grandfathers" or "grandmothers", and usually those chromosomes have one or two crossover events, so, the chromosome goes FFFFFFFFMM for example. (where F = grandfather and M = grandmother)
Does that mean gendering a baby is more determined by factors on the father's side?
Whats interesting to me is that along with the autosomes (chr1-22) the sperm contributes either an X or Y sex chromosome. The X chromosome is large and carries a lot of important genes. The Y chromosome on the other-hand is much smaller and carries very few functional genes (primarily just SRY).
So If you think about it girls get ~5% more genetic material from their father than boys.
2.5% (but not really, also remember the chromosomes have different sizes).
this is probably why distribution of traits in men has fatter tails than in women.
I couldn't be assed to do the math, not just chromosome size but also number of genes etc, get's tricky to quantify.
Fascinating to think about the variability introduced by having only a single copy of the X chromosome. Lot's of interesting genes in there, MAOA/MAOB (primary neurotransmitter breakdown pathways), AR (androgen receptor), OPN1LW/OPN1MW (red green color blindness), G6PD, etc.
I never explored this scientifically but I have this hunch that a man with more sisters than brothers will tend to have more daughters than sons
It's a common idea a with some decently strong evidence it's false, https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/health/boys-girls-run-in-fami...
ha :) thank you!
Yes. Sperm cells are haploid. If the sperm that fertilizes the egg has an X chromosome, the baby will be female. If it has a Y chromosome, the baby will be male.
There are rare exceptions for genetic disorders relating to sex development, but generally speaking the above is true.
I suppose it’s a question of perspective.
The best sperm will likely result in the next generation of sperm also being good.
We look at the human as the organism, the sperm as the gamete - but perhaps our logic is anthropocentric - perhaps the sperm is the organism, and we are just the ridiculously elaborate reproductive mechanism.
> we are just the ridiculously elaborate reproductive mechanism
That is the point behind Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.
The book well argues that genes are what reproduce, and that everything else is just complications to reproduce genes.
Humbling book - not light reading but I love it and I read it again and again because of the unobvious insights into systems.
We are (for genes, though, not sperm)
That was the common theory for awhile, but I’ve been seeing a few articles that talk about the egg doing things to “select” amongst the sperm
I don't think the fittest sperm become the fittest people no. But I do think that seriously fucked up genetic errors will make the sperm cell non-viable. So it's more about creating a floor than getting the creme de la cremepie.
Not at all: we've been doing IVF for a while now, and completely immobile sperm produce healthy normal babies.
It's the peacock's tail effect: what relevance does a brightly colored tail have to a male peacock's actual fitness?
IVF has a higher rate of spontaneous abortion which is a more expensive filter for cellular issues. In people losing out on months of reproductive heath is a meaningful downside. In say frogs having a lower percentage of viable eggs is a significant disadvantage.
IVF is also associated with congenital malformations etc. Though it’s hard to separate issues preventing normal conception from issues associated with IVF, it’s likely less viable sperm result in a less healthy fetus.
Almost completely immobile sperm can and have been used to produce healthy viable babies.
Otherwise clinically infertile men have children who are both healthy, capable and also not infertile.
Which is solid evidence that "sperm quality" is an extremely poor proxy for useful phenotypes in the resulting human being.
“can and have” sure not everything that makes sperm look feeble in a microscope actually represents an issue.
Extremely poor is a qualifier that isn’t backed up by your previous statements or actual scientific studies. Further births are very late in the process, rates of success is a critical metric here.
There’s significant research in trying to artificially create similar selection criteria because it increases the odds of a successful pregnancy and live birth. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7365522/
So if you still disagree, how about presenting some actual evidence.
The tail’s appearance is a meaningful proxy for the state of health of its holder.
It's not, the guy is just making stuff up.
A lot of what's behind that "selection" there is still unknown; in principle all sperm are, more or less, the same.
There's also so many external effects in play that no single sperm cell may actually have a significant advantage over others; e.g. the behavior of the seminal fluid (ph, viscosity), the physical location of the egg, etc.
The cartoonish image of sperm swimming towards the egg is pretty much that ... a cartoon. In reality, they're pretty much drifting and their movement is much more like brownian motion than anything else [1].
Reminds me of this sperm race thing that took the spotlight a month ago, after watching the videos [2] ... come on, man.
Only someone who is extremely ignorant and/or is lacking severely on their mental abilities (bordering on idiocy), would believe that thing was true.
1: When the sperm is really close to the egg, however, there seems to be a hormone gradient that guides the sperm, preferentially, towards it.
2: https://x.com/beyoncegarden/status/1916278740214047182
There’s a big difference between mostly the same and actually the same. A sperm that doesn’t move is extremely unlikely to fertilize an egg. Thus, 1 is a test for fitness among a tiny percentage of total sperm but still a large number.
Length of survival is dependent on factors largely put side of sperms control, but sperm lifespan does test for massive genetic abnormality.
So yes 99% never get a chance to compete, but meaningful competition still occurs.
Not really, the reason so many sperm are needed is because a woman's reproductive tract requires an aggressive immunological response to foreign bodies (which sperm are). The vagina provides a direct route for pathogens through the cervix and uterus to the fallopian tubes (which can be scarred by inflammation resulting in infertility) and they themselves open up directly into the peritoneal cavity (potentially exposing a woman to septic shock or death if an infection reaches it). To protect against that, the vaginal environment is highly acidic, has layers of mucus that shields the cervix, and a high concentration of immune cells proliferate throughout. Men need to produce so many sperm because they need to be able to temporarily overwhelm these defenses.
What you say is right, but it does not contradict the parent poster.
Both reasons for the high count of sperm cells are true.
There must be many sperm cells to survive the adverse conditions, but there is also intense competition with the sibling sperm cells.
The DNA of the sperm cells is generated by a random generator, which is the meiosis mechanism, which randomly shuffles then randomly discards half of the father DNA.
The sperm competition then discards the random choices that happened to be bad, implementing an optimum search algorithm.
The sperm competition is only a first filter for rejecting bad random choices. Many embryos will die very soon, without ever developing, rejecting other bad random choices.
>The sperm competition then discards the random choices that happened to be bad, implementing an optimum search algorithm.
Only a very small percentage of sperm (less than 5%) are chromosomally abnormal. Meanwhile, the vast majority of sperm are morphologically abnormal in some way. So there's not really a tight relationship between genetic problems and sperm fitness. Men with infertility due to low motility, for example, are capable of having perfectly healthy children with those low motility sperm through IVF.
>The DNA of the sperm cells is generated by a random generator, which is the meiosis mechanism, which randomly shuffles then randomly discards half of the father DNA.
Meiosis also occurs in women (technically in the female fetus), but women generally produce only a single egg each ovulation.
>Many embryos will die very soon, without ever developing, rejecting other bad random choices.
A very large number of zygotes/blastocysts survive until implantation, upwards of 50%. And of those that do, maybe 20-40% are miscarried before 12 weeks. All things considered, about 1 in every 4 fertilized eggs results in a successful pregnancy.
So yes, it's absolutely true that the body filters out chromosomally abnormal germ cells and zygotes. But an egg is orders of magnitude more likely to survive than a sperm (even if you take into account the eggs that die in the uterus without being released). And the overwhelming reason is that the egg is simply in a much less hostile immune environment.
You are all wrong :)
There is a competition between sperm from different males.
as to the large number of sperm required, it is note worthy that excess male germ cell's is the norm for many?, most?, all?, species, and that in a lot of cases there is a number of complications involved in transfering them to a female, and altogether improbable solutions, also the basic mechanisms for germ cells are conserved by plants and animals, "pollen" bieng tailess sperm.....except in the case of ginko trees, that have motile sperm so the real questions are around why did evolution produce, and stick to this mechanism, and not so much about our species rather mundane take on it.
Mosses and ferns also have motile, flagellated reproductive cells.
I'm broadly speculating here, but I tend to view most mechanisms like this as evolution's "desire" for a well tuned, but imperfect, CRC check.
Ignoring whether or not it would even be possible, a perfect CRC is antithetical to evolution itself, wiggle room for mutation must always be possible, but too much mutation gives you cancer and systemic malfunction. So you end up with these bizarre processes that allow just the right amount of imperfection.
With sperm specifically it ends up closer to a signature check than just a CRC, if the sperm doesn't exhibit behavior that falls under a certain umbrella of expected behaviors, it's rejected by the surrounding environment. The difficulty to comprehend it could even be a feature of the process in many respects, especially when you consider everything in this realm risks getting "hacked" if precautions are not put into place.
So when I see huge numbers like this, I see it as an indirect measure of the precision of the overall process. To put it another way, it's like brute forcing a password you don't know, but happen to have a lot of hints to (since obviously, we are all still the same species at the end of the day).
I’ve actually had this question myself, “is there evolutionary pressure for imperfect genetic copying and repair mechanisms, since perfect ones would halt evolution and leave a species unable to adapt?”
I’ve asked this question to multiple evolutionary biologists, and all of them answered “no” very strongly, strongly enough that I’m inclined to believe it. Apparently the frequency of deleterious mutations is many orders of magnitude greater than the frequency of beneficial ones, meaning there’s little chance perfect copying could be maladaptive. And in any event, evolution always selects for the fitness of the individual, not the species— group selection is a controversial topic in evobio, but the general consensus is that it does not happen, and that the rare things which kinda look like group selection (e.g. eusociality in bees) actually aren’t and can be explained without it.
I suspect there could be a misalignment in semantics here, and not necessarily a disagreement. When a biologist says "evolutionary pressure" perhaps they have a different way of modeling what that means to them?
To me evolutionary pressure isn't an on/off thing, it's like a signal in the noise. It's a vector with a direction and magnitude, facing varying levels of environmental resistance.
To be more specific, if there was enough "magnitude", evolution could potentially arrive at a perfect CRC. But the "resistance" requires a "magnitude" higher than evolution is willing to pay to reach that perfection. Likely in part due to the implicit complexity slope. Considering the systemic malfunction mutation can cause, one might assume this magnitude would be higher than it currently is. However, this is entirely speculation, and not falsifiable.
So when I think of evolutionary pressure I'm considering it as a component of the final vector, where a biologist might more pragmatically consider the total sum of vectors instead. This way of thinking is likely more productive for what they are doing.
As for evolution always selecting for the individual over the group, I'm surprised this is controversial when it's so obviously happening? If that was true how could multicellular organisms even exist? I'm very much not an expert on any of this, but this sounds like perhaps an over focus on DNA itself and not evolution as a whole, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
> This way of thinking is likely more productive for what they are doing.
Which is… attempting a rigorous understanding of evolutionary biology, rather than idly ruminating.
I hate to use a dork-ism like “update your priors”, but this is actually maybe a situation where it applies? If you’re serious about a subject it’s more interesting to really incorporate the likelihood that you’re wrong than it is to wave it away as semantics or point of view.
I find evolution interesting because I like algorithms, so I view it through that lens. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this perspective. Clarifying my mental model is by no means simple hand waving.
Tell me this, which is more productive in an open discussion? My idle rumination? Or the lazy dismissal that lacks any substantive contribution to the ongoing discussion? I can't help but agree with your distaste for "dorkisms".
Imperfect copying is only one reason for having to reject many sperm cells, and a less important one.
Meiosis, which produces both the sperm cells and the egg cells, is not a copying mechanism, unlike mitosis, which generates the other cells of a body.
Meiosis is a random generator, it randomly shuffles the DNA of the grandparents, which is stored in the father's cells, then it randomly selects half of it, producing a unique combination of genes in each sperm cell or egg cell.
The random genome generator together with the following filtering steps that will reject the bad variants, implement an optimum search algorithm for the fittest descendants.
Meiosis has greatly accelerated the evolution of the nucleated living beings (eukaryotes). Because favorable mutations are extremely rare, the probability of a living being accumulating multiple favorable mutations would have been negligible. With meiosis, if in a population 5 individuals have 1 favorable mutation each, there are good chances that soon some individuals will appear who have all 5 favorable mutations, then their descendants may become dominant and replace all others.
> And in any event, evolution always selects for the fitness of the individual, not the species— group selection is a very controversial topic in evobio, but the general consensus is that it does not happen
To me that seems more to me like a group of academics who just can’t see “how” it’d work. We’ve seen that in field after field where practitioners rarely look outside their own field.
There’s no “magic” in evolution to make it work only on individuals. Evolution is going to follow game theory. In some scenarios the evolution of the group will over time be far more adaptive than that of an individual. It’s a math question, not a biology question.
This is one of those issues where I think that the experts in the field saying that are just plain wrong. I know how that is a bad assumption to start out with; but I also know that obviously there is an amount of mutations that is beneficial, and organisms with a rate lower than that will be outcompeted. It could be no other way.
So is it just misunderstanding? Maybe they don't understand the question, or we don't understand the answer? Or they're hidebound, or incentivized somehow to be blind to the truth? Epistemological questions abound.
https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/image_7b0b0044.jpeg
And it's not like you need 50 million to fertilize the egg. It just gives a better chance of out-competing the other guy's sperm!
They are like investors looking for startups
Then: how many of these "male" individuals should we produce? 10%? Could probably get away with 5%... Nah, let's do 50%.
Let the games begin.
A better way to think about it is just how much surface area of uterus the ovum could actually be in.
It's not that you need millions of sperm or that millions of sperm are competing, its that those sorts of numbers are necessary just to make it probably at least 1 sperm even finds the egg while it's still got energy.
Sperm are actually quite good at finding the egg if they make it to the fallopian tube, they have their own chemoreceptors that can detect very small changes in chemical gradients, but only a few hundred make it through the preceding gauntlet.
Come on lads! Don't give up, we're only just past the tonsils!
There's this fascinating phenomenon called "micro chimerism"where somehow they've found that some of the cells in women's bodies are actually descendents of cells from past sexual partners, and they can be found in places far removed from the reproductive tract. the relation to your comment is that the tonsils and throat are known to be susceptible to this.
Fun rabbit hole, in since cases they think it's the result of cells from offspring winding up in the wrong side of the umbilical but there are also cases where there was never a pregnancy in which case it has to be wayward sperm but that's absolutely bizarre and far too orthogonal to the sperms primary objective.
And AFAIK they don't have any idea of why this is beneficial to the woman or even to the man who created the invasive cells.
Experimental science has yet to determine whether this is not due to morphic resonance or love.
...Huh. So does this increased biodiversity mean that I have, perhaps, stronger immune defenses or quicker healing in certain oral tissues due to hybrid vigor[1] in the back of my throat?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis
>That is the big, hidden world. I think the female reproductive tract is the greatest unexplored frontier for sexual selection, theory and speciation
I too have encountered severe difficulties in exploring the female reproductive tract.
[dead]