3 ms·
So, I guess you don't have a biology background but: species diversity is usually judged by 16s rna diversity, which generally doesn't get swapped around. And
by throwawaymaths 2y ago
So, I guess you don't have a biology background but: species diversity is usually judged by 16s rna diversity, which generally doesn't get swapped around.
And until recently, the dogma was that there were more insect species than bacteria species (it could make sense, as insects reproduce sexually so there's more opportunity for genetic drift), but hoo boy were we wrong (we now know from DNA panning experiments, our estimates on bacteria were low because it was mostly only culturable bacteria we were counting).
- vanderZwan 2y agoNo, and while I worked for molecular neurobiologists for two years at one point in my life, that just taught me that I don't have the slightest clue how DNA works. You're missing my point though: you replied to someone who talked about biodiversity with a remark about genetic diversity (probably without realizing it, which would be a classic case of attribute substitution[0]). Even I know that biodiversity is not limited to genetic diversity, as a quick trip to Wikipedia will confirm[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
- throwawaymaths 2y agoWhat metric do you want. In any metric up to and including ecosystem roles, microorganisms will be more diverse than macro. Oh did you want size? Yep. Microorganisms make colonial hyphae which are bigger than any living organism except maybe some colonial trees.
- vanderZwan 2y agoAre you willfully ignoring my earlier point that pointed that out and concluded that therefore sneakily comparing megafauna to microbes is disingenous?