4 ms·

'Vampire Squid from Hell' Reveals the Ancient Origins of Octopuses

gostsamo 10mo ago
listening to the title with a screen reader, it is so easy to move the "s" as the ending of the first word.
killerstorm 10mo ago
I hate this kind of writing which is rather common in science reporting. Is it bad on purpose? Seems like the purpose is to keep reader confused about some point to maximize time spent on page. And I'm quite certain LLM can do a lot better
- Ameo 10mo ago
  It seemed pretty clear and to the point to me.
ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago
> Interestingly, a massive 62 percent of the genome consists of repetitive elements, stretches of DNA that repeat over and over, inflating its size without adding new coding sequences. Sounds like a lot of codebases I've looked at.
- greenbit 10mo ago
  Ahh but the productivity metrics were so healthy!
- timschmidt 10mo ago
  Obligatory note that non-coding DNA sequences are often involved in expression regulation, DNA folding, and other interactions which aren't yet well understood. Just because a section of DNA does not encode a protein does not mean it's inactive in other life processes.
  - DoctorOetker 10mo ago
    The conflicting beliefs seem to allow for falsifiability and thus experiment. Case 1: long stretches of "non-coding" DNA indeed are "useless", but then also a material and energetic drain. Case 2: long stretches of "non-coding" DNA actually have a use, and are thus a proliferative gain. Case 3: for some stretches case 1 holds and for others case 2 holds. Suppose a specific stretch is questioned for utility: prepare a corpus of organisms with the stretch intact and with the stretch removed (so there is identical genetic diversity in both corpuses). Then let a minority of "intact" organisms compete against a majority of "genome light" organisms, repeat a few times. Also let a minority of "genome light" organisms compete against a majority of "intact" organisms. If case 1 holds for a specific stretch: the modified "genome light" organism will have a selective advantage due to energy and materials savings when duplicating genomes. If case 2 holds for the same stretch: the unmodified "intact" organisms will have a selective advantage.
    - timschmidt 10mo ago
      No. It is clear that non-coding DNA serves many vital functions, many of which are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA#Noncoding_genes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA#Noncoding_genes We will likely continue to discover ways in which non-coding DNA is used by life, however there is no question that non-coding DNA is far from "useless" and hasn't been for some time. Within non-coding DNA there do exist some sections with no known biological function which some people call "Junk DNA" however, there is much disagreement about this, and we have only relatively recently begun to directly image structures on the scale of DNA and proteins in situ via cryo-electron-microscopy, allowing us to study the mechanisms and motions of biological machinery frozen in action. DNA and cellular machinery is still far too complex to simulate fully, so CEM is one of the best available tools for studying it. For those reasons, and the fact that the percentage of what folks refer to as "junk dna" has steadily dwindled over the years due to discovery of these functions, it's reasonable to expect we'll discover more.
      - tdpvb 10mo ago
        Agreed. There's something about the gestational phase, aka nanotechnological self-assembly, that surely requires at least a few lines of code(!) and which otherwise is never used again -- until passed on to the next generation. Probably a good bet that the "repetitive elements" are accumulated lines of code for all successive phases of fetal development, from single-celled organism to two, to four, etc until all echoes of evolution are replayed and the present species emerges. "Junk," indeed.
hermitcrab 10mo ago
'Vampyroteuthis infernalis' must be the coolest Latin species name.
- andrewflnr 10mo ago
  Maybe, but cryodrakon boreas gives it a run for its money IMO.
pixelpoet 10mo ago
> up to several times larger Hmm, I'm pretty sure that's not how upper bounds work.

listening to the title with a screen reader, it is so easy to move the "s" as the ending of the first word.

I hate this kind of writing which is rather common in science reporting. Is it bad on purpose? Seems like the purpose is to keep reader confused about some point to maximize time spent on page. And I'm quite certain LLM can do a lot better

Ameo 10mo ago
It seemed pretty clear and to the point to me.

ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago

> Interestingly, a massive 62 percent of the genome consists of repetitive elements, stretches of DNA that repeat over and over, inflating its size without adding new coding sequences. Sounds like a lot of codebases I've looked at.

greenbit 10mo ago
Ahh but the productivity metrics were so healthy!
timschmidt 10mo ago
Obligatory note that non-coding DNA sequences are often involved in expression regulation, DNA folding, and other interactions which aren't yet well understood. Just because a section of DNA does not encode a protein does not mean it's inactive in other life processes.
- DoctorOetker 10mo ago
  The conflicting beliefs seem to allow for falsifiability and thus experiment. Case 1: long stretches of "non-coding" DNA indeed are "useless", but then also a material and energetic drain. Case 2: long stretches of "non-coding" DNA actually have a use, and are thus a proliferative gain. Case 3: for some stretches case 1 holds and for others case 2 holds. Suppose a specific stretch is questioned for utility: prepare a corpus of organisms with the stretch intact and with the stretch removed (so there is identical genetic diversity in both corpuses). Then let a minority of "intact" organisms compete against a majority of "genome light" organisms, repeat a few times. Also let a minority of "genome light" organisms compete against a majority of "intact" organisms. If case 1 holds for a specific stretch: the modified "genome light" organism will have a selective advantage due to energy and materials savings when duplicating genomes. If case 2 holds for the same stretch: the unmodified "intact" organisms will have a selective advantage.
  - timschmidt 10mo ago
    No. It is clear that non-coding DNA serves many vital functions, many of which are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA#Noncoding_genes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-coding_DNA#Noncoding_genes We will likely continue to discover ways in which non-coding DNA is used by life, however there is no question that non-coding DNA is far from "useless" and hasn't been for some time. Within non-coding DNA there do exist some sections with no known biological function which some people call "Junk DNA" however, there is much disagreement about this, and we have only relatively recently begun to directly image structures on the scale of DNA and proteins in situ via cryo-electron-microscopy, allowing us to study the mechanisms and motions of biological machinery frozen in action. DNA and cellular machinery is still far too complex to simulate fully, so CEM is one of the best available tools for studying it. For those reasons, and the fact that the percentage of what folks refer to as "junk dna" has steadily dwindled over the years due to discovery of these functions, it's reasonable to expect we'll discover more.
    - tdpvb 10mo ago
      Agreed. There's something about the gestational phase, aka nanotechnological self-assembly, that surely requires at least a few lines of code(!) and which otherwise is never used again -- until passed on to the next generation. Probably a good bet that the "repetitive elements" are accumulated lines of code for all successive phases of fetal development, from single-celled organism to two, to four, etc until all echoes of evolution are replayed and the present species emerges. "Junk," indeed.

hermitcrab 10mo ago

'Vampyroteuthis infernalis' must be the coolest Latin species name.

andrewflnr 10mo ago
Maybe, but cryodrakon boreas gives it a run for its money IMO.

pixelpoet 10mo ago

> up to several times larger Hmm, I'm pretty sure that's not how upper bounds work.