How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#2I know how to make antifreeze! Hide her nightie.
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#3I love this stuff. Coolest science to learn and read about. Thank you for sharing it!
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#4I love this stuff. Coolest science to learn and read about. Thank you for sharing it!
Agreed. I also want to thank good scientific journalism writing when I see it. Translating scientific news into a format geared toward a layperson is very difficult, and I thought this author did a great job. I thought his "thralala" neologism was great and made for a better read that was also easier to understand.
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#5Interesting article about some of the mechanics of DNA and evolution.
But I wanted to call out a confusing use of the increasingly ambiguous word “partner” here: “There, she and her partner, Arthur DeVries, studied the notothens”.
What sort of partner? Research partner, clearly. Oh, but with some googling you can find that they are married, so also romantic/life partner.
I appreciate the sentiment behind the takeoff in the use of this phrasing, but it inevitably leads to confusion in communication. Can we come up with a better word that is not so ambiguous? And if not, can we (or at least the editors at places like The Atlantic) try to clarify what sort of partner when the meaning is ambiguous?
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#6From the headline I'd immediately guess many groups of fish were living in above-zero waters adjacent to sub-zero waters containing food. Eventually some of them experienced a random mutation which made them slightly less freezy and earned them free food!
The account of the actual sequence of mutations required was really interesting, though. It's good to see an article go into that kind of detail!
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#7Interesting article about some of the mechanics of DNA and evolution. But I wanted to call out a confusing use of the increasingly ambiguous word “partner” here: “There, she and her partner, Arthur DeVries, studied the notothens”. What sort of partner? Research partner, clearly. Oh, but with some googling you can find that they are married, so also romantic/life partner. I appreciate the sentiment behind the takeoff…
Why? This is science reporting, not tabloid journalism.
We don’t need to know the marital status, gender preference,
dietary restrictions, previous relationships, etc.
Good writing about science is plenty. And “spouse” is a fine word if needed.
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#8Interesting article about some of the mechanics of DNA and evolution. But I wanted to call out a confusing use of the increasingly ambiguous word “partner” here: “There, she and her partner, Arthur DeVries, studied the notothens”. What sort of partner? Research partner, clearly. Oh, but with some googling you can find that they are married, so also romantic/life partner. I appreciate the sentiment behind the takeoff…
Why? This is science reporting, not tabloid journalism. We don’t need to know the marital status, gender preference, dietary restrictions, previous relationships, etc. Good writing about science is plenty. And “spouse” is a fine word if needed.
> We don’t need to know the marital status, gender preference, dietary restrictions, previous relationships, etc.
I agree, but a lot of science reporting and especially TV/movie documentaries are going down the path of "telling a story" and focusing more on the process and characters involved rather than facts. This is particularly true from outlets like the Atlantic, so if GP went in with the expectation of that kind of article I can understand how they got confused.
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#9From the headline I'd immediately guess many groups of fish were living in above-zero waters adjacent to sub-zero waters containing food. Eventually some of them experienced a random mutation which made them slightly less freezy and earned them free food! The account of the actual sequence of mutations required was really interesting, though. It's good to see an article go into that kind of detail!
Maybe the mutation wasn't really random? I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we find that the "90% unused brain capacity" is actually doing some long-term adaptation computations and then uses various signals to put that information into reproductive cells...
Re: How did two groups of fish separately evolve genes for making antifreeze?
#10From the headline I'd immediately guess many groups of fish were living in above-zero waters adjacent to sub-zero waters containing food. Eventually some of them experienced a random mutation which made them slightly less freezy and earned them free food! The account of the actual sequence of mutations required was really interesting, though. It's good to see an article go into that kind of detail!
Maybe the mutation wasn't really random? I wouldn't be surprised if at some point we find that the "90% unused brain capacity" is actually doing some long-term adaptation computations and then uses various signals to put that information into reproductive cells...
The "90% unused brain capacity" is a myth.
Furthermore, the brain doesn't control evolution though "thinking", it's powered by natural selection outside the body.