The tardigrade genome has been sequenced, and it has the most foreign DNA of any animal
Scientists have sequenced the entire genome of the tardigrade, AKA the water bear, for the first time. And it turns out that this weird little creature has the most foreign genes of any animal studied so far – or to put it another way, roughly one-sixth of the tardigrade’s genome was stolen from other species. We have to admit, we’re kinda not surprised.
A little background here for those who aren’t familiar with the strangeness that is the tardigrade – the microscopic water creature grows to just over 1 mm on average, and is the only animal that can survive in the harsh environment of space. It can also withstand temperatures from just above absolute zero to well above the boiling point of water, can cope with ridiculous amounts of pressure and radiation, and can live for more than 10 years without food or water. Basically, it’s nearly impossible to kill, and now scientists have shown that its DNA is just as bizarre as it is.
So what’s foreign DNA and why does it matter that tardigrades have so much of it? The term refers to genes that have come from another organism via a process known as horizontal gene transfer, as opposed to being passed down through traditional reproduction.
Horizontal gene transfer occurs in humans and other animals occasionally, usually as a result of gene swapping with viruses, but to put it into perspective, most animals have less than 1 percent of their genome made up of foreign DNA. Before this, the rotifer – another microscopic water creature – was believed to have the most foreign genes of any animal, with 8 or 9 percent.
But the new research has shown that approximately 6,000 of the tardigrade’s genes come from foreign species, which equates to around 17.5 percent.
“We had no idea that an animal genome could be composed of so much foreign DNA,” said study co-author Bob Goldstein, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We knew many animals acquire foreign genes, but we had no idea that it happens to this degree.”
Author: Goldpanner
The Forgotten Women of Punk: The Selecter’s Pauline Black on Anti-Racism, Ska, and the Power of Subculture
Pauline Black is basically the personification of awesome.
I am actively annoyed by “the poor millennials vs. entitled boomers” posts now. Everyone of them is “your generation had everything while mine is suffering in squalor” as if the majority of boomers live comfortably and every millennial is broke. People making lazy generational arguments is always obnoxious in any direction, but it’s moved from “parents just don’t understand” responses to this actual serious thing where folks want to act like every baby boomer had equal access to the benefits and advantages they insist “defined” a generation even though they were really only defining for a specific but vocal subset of a generation.
Because my black working class parents and grandparents didn’t get to participate in a lot of the shit that built and sustained a stable and functioning middle class for their generation, so a lot of that wealth consolidation was shut off to them. As a result, financial stability has always been a precarious thing for them and I imagine that’s true for a lot of people with similar circumstances who aren’t the ones in mind for these posts but are very much a big part of the generation being described as having more opportunity. They were being screwed over then and they’re being screwed over now.
It’s clear that your grievance is with late capitalism, institutional white supremacy and the general fiscal irresponsibility of the rich. However it’s easier to blame old people, because then you get to ignore how rich white millennials are also complicit in continuing to promote the inequality you’re bringing attention to. As if Silicon Valley, DC and Wall Street aren’t littered with ambitious young folks with tons of money and connections just itching to climb to the top via the same tactics.
Works All Day
knock knock
who’s there
the guy who works all day
the guy who works all day who
i wake up i shower i go to work i work all day i go home i sleepI’m the guy
before reblogging a meme about Donald trump consider:
-he is a violent domestic abuser
-accused rapist
-he said he’d fuck his own daughter if she weren’t his daughter
-making memes of him isn’t actually like hurting him – i get the feeling that a lot of people think it’s mocking him and therefore hurting his image somehow. it’s not, and it isn’t subversive. it’s just spreading his face and making him more famous and part of the cultural landscape
-just really a disgusting human being
-not someone whose face i should ever have to look at
Let’s examine that a bit. “Men don’t see dirt the way women do.” That’s a pretty common assertion. And it’s bullshit. Vision problems aside, we’re all seeing the same dirty house; we’re just interpreting it differently. You and your boyfriend both walk in, see the pile of crap on the kitchen counter, and have different reactions to it. You likely think, “Man, that pile of crap is really bugging me. I should really clean it up a little.” He likely sees it and thinks, “Huh. Pile of crap. It’ll get taken care of.”
Why does he think that? Well, because we’re dealing with endless generations of social gender constructs that tell us that taking care of the home is “women’s work.” Whether you or your boyfriend or your parents or your peer group believe these constructs is largely irrelevant, though, because it’s so deeply ingrained in our society that it permeates every level of culture: You see it in TV shows, movies, commercials, in the workplace, in literature, and in almost every facet of life. There’s no escaping it.
So when someone says, “Men don’t see dirt the way women do,” what they’re actually saying is, “Men have been conditioned over generations to process the dirt that they see in a way that requires no further action on their part.” It’s not genetic. It’s learned. And it can be unlearned.
No, Spooning Isn’t Sexist. The Internet Is Just Broken.
I know ‘clickbait is bad’ is hardly a shattering new insight, and I acknowledge the multiple nested ironies in an article which decries clickbait having to market itself as clickbait while wreathed in a veritable garland of other clickbait (’10 Celebs Who Lost Their Hot Bodies’ – back of the sofa?), but I still think this is a point worth repeating every so often.
#i am very conflicted about clickbait#there’s an indulgent part of me all ‘oh give the public what it wants’#and then my inner 19th-c. intellectual idealist flips the table and yells ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO WANT BETTER#while my horrid inner gollum lurks in the corner muttering ‘maybe those 22 celebrity homes really WOULD blow your mind’#’how will you know’#’unless’#pTq
idk if I’ve told this story before but when I was like 9 years old at summer camp I had a counselor who would tell us these amazing original stories before bedtime, with elves and dragons and wizards and everything. Then like 5 years later we all realized that she had just been telling us the lord of the rings from memory
i did this to some kids at school at lunchtime once. they asked me to tell ‘foreign scary stories’ and my mind went blank so i told them a dramatic version of the setup for the slenderman game and the first half of paranormal activity
I read recently that one of the most important things about gaslighting (the emotional abuse technique of denying the victim’s perception of reality) is that it’s not always deliberate; that your abuser may simply believe things about you, and so twists reality to convince themselves and you that you are lazy, or selfish, or that you lack empathy. And I’m not sure that he isolated me intentionally either. I wanted to be with him. I wanted to please him. My family never really said a word against him, and I didn’t listen when they did try. We’re not very good at hard emotional conversations. But the outcome was that he was able to create a bubble in which his version of me was the only one that was shown to me, and I wasn’t confident enough in myself to reject it. He would enumerate the ways in which I had failed to be a good partner, and I would cry and apologise while he held me comfortingly. “Why do you love me then, if I’m so awful?” I would sob, trying desperately to understand this version of myself that no one else had ever told me about. “Because you’re pretty!” he would say jokingly, wiping away my tears kindly. He never gave me a serious answer.
I don’t, even now, think that he is an evil person or that he set out consciously to break me down in this way. He just has an innate belief in his own correctness at all times, and therefore, reality must be moulded to fit that “fact”. If something is wrong in his life, since he cannot possibly be at fault, it must be someone else, and I let him make me that someone else.




