Comments on: Pot pourri http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:17:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-34855 saurabh Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:15:17 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-34855 Long overdue, I was off by a factor of ten on Ciona - variation is only 1%, which is still a lot. Still, there might be other creatures which show 10%. I'm not sure if there's a theoretical limit on such a thing (imposed by "outbreeding depression"). Long overdue, I was off by a factor of ten on Ciona - variation is only 1%, which is still a lot. Still, there might be other creatures which show 10%. I’m not sure if there’s a theoretical limit on such a thing (imposed by “outbreeding depression”).

]]> By: Hedgehog http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1412 Hedgehog Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:32:50 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1412 Brad, of the blog Sadly No, has an <a HREF="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12172" REL="nofollow">article about Galactica</a>  in The American Prospect that is really good. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">hedgehog</a> Brad, of the blog Sadly No, has an article about Galactica  in The American Prospect that is really good. 

Posted by hedgehog

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1411 Anonymous Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:24:55 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1411 exhibit a: <a HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdpm28szmw" REL="nofollow">chameleon</a> exhibit a: chameleon

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1410 Anonymous Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:22:04 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1410 (in spirit, i mean -h.) (in spirit, i mean -h.)

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1409 Anonymous Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:19:15 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1409 or fauna with very long tongues/lips, which is prolly a closer relative <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://sabdariffa.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="alohaflower at mindspring dot com">hibiscus</a> or fauna with very long tongues/lips, which is prolly a closer relative 

Posted by hibiscus

]]> By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1408 saurabh Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:40:49 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1408 For tentacled monsters - why don't monkeys or snakes qualify? They both have pretty adept, pliable appendages/bodies. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> For tentacled monsters - why don’t monkeys or snakes qualify? They both have pretty adept, pliable appendages/bodies. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1407 Anonymous Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:00:25 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1407 This will make it hard for, say, oceanic large fish populations to truly jump back even if we leave magically start leaving them alone, won't it?<br/><br/>Backstage of my cephalopod-obsessed joint, we were speculating on the lack of tentacled land creatures. The best we could think of was the Elephant. The immediate reaction was, "oh, that probably doesn't mean it won't work for --- reason". . .but the mere fact that phenome isn't around doesn't mean there is something innately wrong with it, right? It could just be that it never had a chance to flower bc of some random extinction event.<br/>  <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://www.sahelidatta.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> This will make it hard for, say, oceanic large fish populations to truly jump back even if we leave magically start leaving them alone, won’t it?

Backstage of my cephalopod-obsessed joint, we were speculating on the lack of tentacled land creatures. The best we could think of was the Elephant. The immediate reaction was, “oh, that probably doesn’t mean it won’t work for — reason”. . .but the mere fact that phenome isn’t around doesn’t mean there is something innately wrong with it, right? It could just be that it never had a chance to flower bc of some random extinction event.
 

Posted by Saheli

]]> By: saurabh http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1406 saurabh Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:06:22 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1406 The distribution is actually surprisingly narrow, since there are few species that maintain large, continuously breeding populations. In fact much of this debate started because of the initial observation that the amount of genetic variation in real populations was more or less the same for all observed species (I'm not sure which were surveyed) regardless of their actual population size - reflecting the fact that most populations go through weird contusions of population structure. That said, there are obviously some exceptions and some variation in levels of genetic variation. The sea squirt, <i>ciona intestinalis</i> , is one such famous one. Sea squirts have a gigantic population and a short generation time, which allows them to produce tremendous amounts of genetic variation - I think the figure is 10%. That is, two random sea squirts will differ, in average, on one in every ten genome positions. Holy shit! By comparison, we're on the short end - 0.04%. Even chimps, which have a real population of 200,000 individiuals, have an effective population size more than twice ours - 25,000 or 35,000, which puts their level of variation at 0.1%-0.14%.  <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> The distribution is actually surprisingly narrow, since there are few species that maintain large, continuously breeding populations. In fact much of this debate started because of the initial observation that the amount of genetic variation in real populations was more or less the same for all observed species (I’m not sure which were surveyed) regardless of their actual population size - reflecting the fact that most populations go through weird contusions of population structure. That said, there are obviously some exceptions and some variation in levels of genetic variation. The sea squirt, ciona intestinalis , is one such famous one. Sea squirts have a gigantic population and a short generation time, which allows them to produce tremendous amounts of genetic variation - I think the figure is 10%. That is, two random sea squirts will differ, in average, on one in every ten genome positions. Holy shit! By comparison, we’re on the short end - 0.04%. Even chimps, which have a real population of 200,000 individiuals, have an effective population size more than twice ours - 25,000 or 35,000, which puts their level of variation at 0.1%-0.14%.  

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1405 Anonymous Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:39:13 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1405 your household sounds like it could rent seats at the table for the evening.<br/><br/><i>human beings are remarkably genetically uniform</i> <br/><br/>among endogamous species? anyway what i meant to ask was, what's the distribution for genetic variety, and where are some other species scattered. who's widely varied? <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://sabdariffa.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="alohaflower at mindspring dot com">hibiscus</a> your household sounds like it could rent seats at the table for the evening.

human beings are remarkably genetically uniform 

among endogamous species? anyway what i meant to ask was, what’s the distribution for genetic variety, and where are some other species scattered. who’s widely varied? 

Posted by hibiscus

]]> By: mist1 http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/10/pot-pourri/#comment-1404 mist1 Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:14:12 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=702#comment-1404 If you're looking to assemble a team of people to dispose of the undesirables, I'm available most days after my mid-morning nap. Also, I am pretty good at carrying torches and stuff. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://mustgethobby.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="themist1 at gmail dot com">Mist 1</a> If you’re looking to assemble a team of people to dispose of the undesirables, I’m available most days after my mid-morning nap. Also, I am pretty good at carrying torches and stuff. 

Posted by Mist 1

]]>