klmr

16 ms·

91.
by klmr 7y ago
Because it’s just stochastic. There’s no mechanism for systematic, guided DNA changes to mutate some genes more than others, which is exactly what I wrote in my initial comment that you took umbrage at. “It can be selected” for only through
92.
by klmr 7y ago
GC content (the local ratio of G and C nucleotides, i.e. (#C + #G) / (#A + #C + #G + #T)) varies in patches across certain mammalian genomes. GC content correlates with stability because stacked C–G base pairs are chemically more stabl
93.
by klmr 7y ago
It was a reason, yes. But more generally I started a new job at the time (~ 2 years ago) that took me out of biological research altogether for the moment.
94.
by klmr 7y ago
You fundamentally misunderstand the article you cite. It describes population-level events, and it’s entirely compatible with what I’ve said: variable mutation rates, in modern evolutionary biology, are entirely explained by variable select
95.
by klmr 7y ago
Yes, I’m well aware of TEI, it being my former field of research. However, as your link (4) shows there are all kinds of caveats, and usual epigenetic inheritance isn’t transgenerational (in fact, it’s a ubiquitous, “mundane” biological m
96.
by klmr 7y ago
> Why are we significantly less likely to have mutations on our mitochondria than in our fingers? I’m afraid this is simply not a biologically meaningful statement to begin with. Mitochondria are subcellular organelles. Fingers are com
97.
by klmr 7y ago
> Isn't there a similar mechanism in humans though? No. That review paper doesn’t discuss an actual mechanism, with good reason: the authors don’t have a mechanism. At the risk of sounding harsh, the underlying research has been t
98.
by klmr 7y ago
Sure, and that happens all the time in unicellular organisms . But it’s fundamentally different in multicellular organisms because they have distinct cells forming the germ line . So any (random) changes to DNA in other cells won’t be tra
99.
by klmr 7y ago
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with epigenetics. It’s good old genetics.
100.
by klmr 7y ago
Rupert Sheldrake is an esoteric quack and pseudoscientist. He has not done any relevant work in this field, and his theoretical claims are fundamentally unsound.
101.
by klmr 7y ago
Nick is a former colleague, and I’ve co-authored one of the relevant papers with Isabelle, and with the greatest respect to the two of them I need to caution anybody against taking away the wrong message from this misleading article: these
102.
by klmr 7y ago
I agree with your comment in principle but the specific example of Roundup is rather weak. Yes, glyphosate is usually studied in isolation rather than as a commercial formulation including surfactants etc., but we have decades’ worth of epi
103.
by klmr 7y ago
Being such a person is totally fine (I’m one myself). What’s damning is the fact that this list is largely composed of just such people (plus some that are less qualified).
104.
by klmr 7y ago
> * Whether it is made in good faith or not is a red herring and does not change anything.* That’s true only if we indeed know nothing about 5G, and that’s demonstrably not the case. In fact, the pretend open-mindedness is tantamount
105.
by klmr 7y ago
Careful, you’re misinterpreting the document. The two studies you’ve picked are listed as “neither evidence of an effect or a null finding”, they are not included in the “more than 500 studies” finding harmful effects. Those studies are p
106.
by klmr 7y ago
> The leading independent organization on cancer causes says that current cell phones are "possible carcinogens" It is crucial to understand what this actually means. the IARC classifications are valid but — particularly to l
107.
by klmr 7y ago
> That's a very reasonable general approach. If made in good faith, yes. I’m not convinced that this is the case here, however, given that the author is fundamentally at odds with the scientific consensus on 2G, 3G and 4G safety,
108.
by klmr 7y ago
Unfortunately a few developers are morons who misuse features, and browser vendors try hard to work around them. Case in point, lots of websites used to put `autocomplete="off"` on password boxes, which breaks some password manage
109.
by klmr 7y ago
While you’re right, it’s unfortunately not that simple because macOS updates really do break a lot of stuff (especially for developers) and, on older hardware, degrade performance to the point of un-usability. I’ve got an MBP from 2012, and
110.
by klmr 7y ago
> I don't think the GDPR solves much or anything, iff you want to play on the internet, almost … all of the time you'll have to click "I agree". That in itself is a GDPR violation. If you care enough, report it. Tha
111.
by klmr 7y ago
> It's a hamburger after all, it's not meant to be healthy. Hamburgers aren’t inherently unhealthy (though I’ll concede that in practice they often are). A well-made hamburger contains part protein, vegetables and carbs. It
112.
by klmr 7y ago
> So basically you concede the original point then. I’m not “conceding” anything because I’m not arguing against it (I didn’t write the grandparent comment). My comment is intended to provide all the relevant information, not argue aga
113.
by klmr 7y ago
> Citation? I’ll refer you to the discussion on Wikipedia [1], which is fairly exhaustive. The long and the short of it is that we don’t know for certain either way, and all estimates have large uncertainties attached. However, the (te
114.
by klmr 7y ago
> This is surprising because individual tRNA abundance varies by cell state and type, so that would have been the obvious (but apparently wrong) explanation. tRNA gene expression varies by cell state, but isoacceptor abundance is in fa
115.
by klmr 7y ago
Some people argue that the moon is made of cheese. I don’t think that merits a mention either.
116.
by klmr 7y ago
I misunderstood both your and the grandparent comment. You’re right. I’ve amended my other comment.
117.
by klmr 7y ago
> but the tree of life isn't a tree That’s correct but I don’t see what this has to do with my comment. It’s still a fact that all modern life, at some point, came through the same individual organism (EDIT: this should be popula
118.
by klmr 7y ago
> but that doesn't mean it's been proven through experimentation, does it? isn't it just an assumption? It’s not an assumption, it’s backed up by excellent evidence — see the paper I linked. > what if there's somet
119.
by klmr 7y ago
“Essential” amino acids are those that humans can’t synthesise. Other life forms can, which is why we ingest them with our food. As for how early life started, presumably with a strongly reduced set of amino acids. Some of these are simpl
120.
by klmr 7y ago
> But it sounds unlikely that a) there really was that single origin cell This is just a fact. All life that we know of has the same origin. Common descent is a core tenet, and one of the best established facts, of modern biology ( h

More ›