Daily science stuff

[Alelou]

Unorthodox (Ciliates' Weird Sex Lives)Imagine a sentient species with sex like this...it blows your mind....

Ciliate sex is peculiar in several ways. For one thing, reproduction and sex do not happen together. When a ciliate reproduces, it does so asexually, typically by splitting in half and growing a complete new individual from each piece. So: where there was one individual, there are now two.

In and of itself, asexual reproduction is not especially strange — many organisms, from aphids to sea anemones, do it at least from time to time. The weird stuff happens when ciliates get sexual.

In ciliate sex, two individuals arrive, and two individuals leave: no eggs are fertilized, no offspring are produced. But by the time the two individuals go their separate ways, a massive change will have come over both of them: they will both have acquired a new genetic identity.

Here’s what happens. Each ciliate has something called a micronucleus; this contains two complete versions of its genome. During sex, the micronucleus divides in such a way that each individual keeps one version of its genome for itself; it then gives an exact copy of this version to its partner. Afterwards, each individual fuses the two genomes (the one it kept and the one it got) to make a new micronucleus.

This has three odd consequences. The first is that, by the end of sex, the two individuals have become genetically identical. It’s as if you and your mate began coitus as yourselves and finished as identical twins. The second odd consequence is that, partway through its life, a ciliate can radically alter its genetic make-up; genetically speaking, the transformation is so extreme that it’s as if you changed into one of your children. Talk about being reborn.

[Distracted]

It's biological super-cool weirdness! I love it!

[Elessar]

wow.

[Linda]

Fascinating! I wonder if after the sexual exchange, the two entities that now have an identical mix of genes would avoid mating again with each other, because it would do no good exchange-wise? And hey, this is fodder for a Sci Fi story with a race of sentient beings who reproduce this way! Just imagine the socio-cultural ramifications. It would make Vulcan and Andorian culture seem normal as heck, to Humans by comparison.

[Asso]

Damn! The nature's complications!

[Linda]

Actually, this idea might have parallels with the Tril. Hmm.

[justTripn]

Wow! We ought to officially make this a story challenge: Sentient beings and celatic sex. Yes, actually the Trill come close. Still this is better. You know how they say that couples start to look like each other and think alike? Well this goes a step further: couples become twins. Whoa.

[Distracted]

Kinda makes monogamy impossible, though, if all it takes is one sex act to make an identical twin you shouldn't have sex with again. And sex doesn't make kids, really. Unless you consider the DNA change the death of both parents and the subsequent birth of twins.

Whoa. What would a society be like if the partners lost all memory and effectively DIED when they had sex? Would they wait until the very end of their lives to do it? Would it be expected of them to "suicide" at a certain age to allow the birth of new individuals? Would a depressed and suicidal individual end up passing the gene for depression to multiple "generations" in a short time span because at each "rebirth" the new individual is also depressed and he/she immediately has sex as a way to off him/herself? Would sex become a biological imperative at a certain age, like Ponfar? Seems like it would have to be, because a sentient non-suicidal being wouldn't be too eager to end his/her life.

This discussion is WAY strange.

[Alelou]

Any thoughts of "safe sex" certainly would be different. You'd really want to know just how good that genome is that you're about to merge with. How do you attract one of the other 203 sexes (or whatever it is)?

I think we'd probably have to redo this to even handle it as a concept. Like, maybe instead of merging genetically half and half into a brand-new being, you'd be at risk (or at opportunity) of picking up a few traits...

[Alelou]

Okay, so this is in an opinion column, but it's about a fascinating scientific study about people's hard wiring and its correlation to their political tendencies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opini ... istof.html

The point it makes about women who see someone eating worms is similar to what I've seen come up in other studies too. In general, women appear to either be full of shit about what they are really feeling, or to not even consciously realize what they are really feeling. (I hope it's more the latter than the former.)

[Distracted]

Hmm. I'm not sure I accept the premise from a personal standpoint. There aren't a whole lot of things that genuinely disgust me, I don't startle easily, I tolerate ambiguity fairly well, and I'm very conservative. Of course, that could be conditioning related to my profession and not generally relevant. I did spank my first kid until I figured out it doesn't work, though. At least it didn't work for him. Worked fine when my dad did it to me.

[Alelou]

Yes, but as conservative as you are, I do see you as engaging with ideas a little more flexibly than some other people I would call conservative. You DID write "Charlie," after all.

This could all be ca-ca, though. It's just one study.

[Distracted]

Yes, but as conservative as you are, I do see you as engaging with ideas a little more flexibly than some other people I would call conservative. You DID write "Charlie," after all.

Aw. How kind of you to say so. I think.

[justTripn]

LOL:

Liberals released only slightly more moisture in reaction to disgusting images than to photos of fruit. But conservatives’ glands went into overdrive.

Anyway, . . . my thoughts on this. This physiological/phychological thing has to go both ways. The hardwiring of the brain affects one's political attitudes and the political attitudes probalby affect the hardwiring of the brain. Believe me, as a former conservative turned liberal I've thought about these things. I think if you work hard at tolerant attitudes, you might train your brain not to immediately react to someone odd, like eating worms

On the other hand, it is true that much of one's emotional makeup is genetic. I was brought up Calvinist and have often joked that I'm "warped for life." On a recent online quiz I was scored "85%" Calvinist for my severe, guilt-ridden outlook on life. But, one of my children seems to have the same anxieties, about money, work etc, though I DIDN'T raise him Calvinist. So much of it probably genetic. He has inherited my emotional makeup. Therefore I should stop putting so much blame on Calvinism for who I am.

[Linda]

Probably no one on this site can make the following presentation at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, but it sure would be great if any of my friends from Triaxian Silk COULD make it. My husband is on the board of Mitchell Gallery of Flight, the first air museum in an airport. For each quarterly membership meeting of the friends group for Mitchell Gallery of Flight, Jim finds a speaker. Here is Jim's article in the newsletter of the Mitchell Gallery of Flight about the next speaker. I thought it belongs on the science thread because it is about the problem of aircraft and bird strikes. The meeting will be Wednesday, 3 March at 7:00PM in the conference room accessed through the Mitchell Gallery of Flight Museum. Park in the "Short Term" or "Hourly" section of the parking structure and you'll get a pass to park for free.


BIRD STRIKES

The Wright Brothers were the first to fly a powered aircraft, in 1903. They were also the first to strike a bird while in flight. Orville Wright accomplished this precursor of things to come in 1905. Forty-five years later, in March 1950, our good friend and Mitchell Gallery speaker Captain Freddie Stripe flew his way to a narrow escape after a flock of Canada geese tangled with Freddie, one goose imbedding itself in the pilot’s-side windshield of Freddie’s Capital Airlines DC-3 on a non-stop flight from New York to Milwaukee. The strike occurred northeast of Saginaw, Michigan and, despite having glass imbedded in his left eye, Freddie made a successful emergency landing at Flint, Michigan with only his side window to look out of. The co-pilot could not help, as his windshield was totally opaque, covered with goose blood. To Freddie, and to countless other pilots, bird strikes are an ever-present danger, sometimes with catastrophic results. A near catastrophe, the remarkable January 2009 Hudson River ditching of US Airways flight 1549, an Airbus A320-214 with 155 passengers and crew on board, focused massive public attention on both the cockpit crew and the problem.

If you follow the Federal Aviation Administration’s daily Accident and Incident Data site you know that bird strikes are an ongoing problem involving all classes of aircraft. On December 20, 2009, four bird strikes occurred at the Sacramento, California airport on the same day. Fortunately, only the birds suffered injuries. And birds are not the only problem. Recent incidents reported to the FAA included a deer strike and an elk strike during landing and takeoff operations as well. It is Nature vs. Aviation!

What can be done to mitigate these problems for both airplane occupants and the wildlife on and around our airports? Our March speaker can provide some answers to this question. He is Henri Woods, a Wildlife Biologist with the US Department of Agriculture – Wildlife Services. He has been the wildlife biologist for General Mitchell Airport since January 2005. Henri has Baccalaureate and Masters Degrees in Biochemistry, Zoology, and Wildlife Ecology. His presentation will discuss the history, trends, and management techniques of wildlife strikes at U.S. airports.

Be sure to join us for a very interesting and most topical program.