Slashdot Mirror
Single-Celled Species' Genome As Complex As Ours?
An anonymous reader writes: "A new paper reports on the sequencing and analysis of the genome of a single-celled species known as Tetrahymena thermophila. This ciliate (like the Paramecium people look at in school) has some 27,000 genes, or nearly as many as humans. And despite existing as a single cell, this spcies encodes fantastic complexity and unusual features. For example, it has a primitive immune system that prevents the invasion of foreign DNA. Also, it is able to cordon off its germ cell lineage much as humans do with sperm and eggs. But Tetrahymena does this by having two nuclei within each cell, with one of the nuclei being held in reserve for sex. Basically, this species uses its genome complexity to function like a single celled chameleon, changing its shape and its properties in response to the changing environment. For example, when a new nutrient shows up in its neighborhood this species can build a kit to suck the nutrient in, degrade it, and turn it into cellular biomass quickly. Thus whereas humans use their genomic complexity in part to create a stable environment for the body, this species simply uses a genomic swiss army kit to make do with whatever environment it encounters."
I predict that companies will start looking at these gene sequences for application in drug development and to investigate the application of these "novel genes" in DNA repair therapies, metabolism and other applications.
I am actually pretty interested in this species from a metabolomic perspective. Organisms that can tune their physiology have a lot to teach us about the ability of metabolic networks to respond to environmental challenge or optimize their function in response to stress/disease.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The funny thing about Origin of Species is that everyone immediately was pissed that Darwin had the nerve to say that we are descendents of monkeys.
Then a few years later, people were amazed that a simple worm has 20,000 genes. <sarcasm> How could it be that such a simple lowly creature has so many genes? Isn't more better? How could humans be beat? Blasphemy! </sarcasm>
And now it's 'news' that a single cell's genome has as many genes as a human's! When will we learn that the number of genes doesn't mean 'more advanced' or 'better off'? If this single celled organism's environment caused it to evolve more genes but physically change (seemingly) very little, why are we surprised?
My work here is dung.
Hot.
> when a new nutrient shows up in its neighborhood this species can build a kit to suck the nutrient in, degrade it,
I like where this is goin'.
> and turn it into cellular biomass quickly.
Giggity giggity goo!
It sounds like kind of the X-Men of single celled organisms.
I for one welcome our new single-celled overlords!
No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
Tetrahymena are non-pathogenic free-living ciliate protozoa. They are common in fresh-water. Tetrahymena species used as model organisms in biomedical researches are T. thermophila and T. pyriformis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahymena
Wincopy
Genes are the creation of Satan, yeeeeaaassss - praise Jesus!
The secular scientists are being misleaded by Saaatan, yeeeaaahhhsaaa! Praise Jesus!
The only science book needed is the book of Genesis in God's word the holy bible, yeeeaaaahssa! Praise Jesus
-pentapenguin
A most of you are aware, there is a lot of "junk" DNA mixed with genes. We're begining to learn that a lot of the "junk" is another form of coded instruction. Or to force fit an analogy for the Slashdot crowd, genes code for hardware, "junk" DNA codes for software. So equating the number of genes with the complextity of an organism is only part of the picture. Not as bad as equating the number of chromosomes with complexity (corn has more than humans, I believe). But still overly simplified.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
From all we know about nervous systems, the interaction occurs at synapses. Without multiple cells, we can almost certainly say that sentience is not present (current theories center around oscillations among the thalamus and pre-frontal cortex). So apparently it's not the gene count that makes sentience.
I, for one, welcome our new Single-Celled overlords!
I always wonder why it was so hard to kill a Garden Gnome. Their single-minded genome is too complex to smash to itty bitty pieces. Maybe I need a bigger hammer...
Was that a deliberate attempt to hijack my thread? :-)
We're all for teaching science in the classroom.
Yep. Now we have to agree on what "science" IS...
The more examples of what evolution produces, the faster we can reverse engineer our own genome and engineer/re-engineer our own cells using nanotech in the next decade to reverse aging in our own cells...after all, all the baby boomer's, who are now starting to get a sampling of what it's like to get old and infirm.
The advantage we have over previous generations, is that we now have the tools to investigate and control our own metabolic processes. After all, it would have been impossible 25 years ago to approach these questions because the cheap computing power was not available and the technology of automatic gene sequencing had yet to be developed...not to mention a great deal of the population is used to dealing with complex systems (look how many people know about programming complex computer architectures and software, which back in 1975 would have been only found at universities and industry/military environments). The best way for science to advance is to compare one system to another, so more examples of how nature evolved cellular systems speeds our understanding and control possibilities even faster!
I always find it odd that people think our DNA would be the most complex. It's really a rather stunning conceit. Single cell organisms have had millions of years to eveolve too, why shouldn't their DNA be as rich?
Very true.
Yet again I'm reminded that evolution doesn't stop and that these "simple" organisms have had just as much selection applied to their genome as the more "complex" organisms. People think of evolution as simple bacteria turning into more complicated multicellular organisms, which then turned into more complex animals and eventually the pinnacle of evolution, people.
The reality is that evolution doesn't have a goal and that single celled life is just as rich and complex as any of the more supposedly advanced life forms.
You make a good point, but like I said, you don't want to try to split us apart into 2 parties right away again. So, we need to look for the next logical step, go down as far as we can with the parts we agree upon instead of immediately pointing out the parts we disagree on.
Rough Example:
See, at least with a progression of "agreedable" statements above, we at least formed a nice platform of what we can agree on, and so we have something to work with. If we just jump to the last question, then we get such a bitter divide, and it gets quite frustrating.
I would say that you are off on a number of your topics. There are people in America who believe that ANY form of immigration, not just illegal immigration, is ruining our country. I'm for stopping illegal immigration, if you count making all immigration legal. Sure, I don't like terrorism, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily willing to do anything about it (if it means compromising my own liberties). I know many people, conservatives and liberals, who don't care at all about the environment. They believe that we should be allowed to do anything that makes our lives better, even if it means making the world as a whole worse, or they just don't think that the environment needs protecting. Also, illegal drug usage includes marijuana usage, and clearly there are a lot of people who support marijuana usage. Personally I believe that all drugs should be legalized and controlled. If you want to ruin your life then that's your problem.
I feel it's worth pointing out that no where in the Origin of Species does Darwin discuss human/great ape/primate evolution. I'm not even certain he used the word "evolution", but don't quote me on that. Also, no true evolutionary biologist has ever said that humans descended from monkeys. It's that whole common ancestor thing. Lot's of branches, not straight line.
But Tetrahymena does this by having two nuclei within each cell, with one of the nuclei being held in reserve for sex.
Do you think there are any movies of this on the net somewhere?
We're all for reducing the deficit.
Then why has the Bush administration cut taxes to the wealthiest people and raised spending, sending the deficit higher than it's ever been before? Under Clinton we were paying it off.
We're all for freedom of religion.
I'm skeptical of this one. The republican party seems intent on keeping everyone a functional christian through the legal system. Gay people can't get married, sodomy is illegal in some places. Even fornication (an unmarried couple having sex) is technically illegal in some localities, even if only used against prostitutes and their customers.
As for the rest of the things on your list, all you've managed to prove is that on some issues, definitions are ambiguous enough that both people can believe the "same thing". The education one is an example of this. Another example would be "We all agree that we should work toward a better society". Unfortunately, my definition of a better society isn't one where everyone goes to a lutheran church.
Lastly, the rest of those issues are things where the journey is the issue, not the destination. Protecting the environment and hindering terrorism are two prime examples of this. Please don't try and simplify politics with things like this. I feel like the only thing that we can agree on is: We're all human. We all have fingers, toes, mothers, and fathers. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean we agree that we shouldn't kill each other or that we should respect each other.
Help I'm a rock.
Darwin himself had never heard of Mendel's theory of genetics. He proposed that offspring are a "mixture of fluids" from the mother and father.
A single post chronicling the first sexually successful slashdotter and the creation of the world's smallest slashdotter :')
EPIC! MAN! EPIC!
Not everything in in the genetic code. Those interested can consult the Wikipedia articles about epigenetics and Lewontin's fallacy. They may also read the original article by Edwards. Edwards is a bigger scientist than Lewontin (although less popular). Edwards is a typical British population geneticist with a solid mathematical background. Lewontin is an American Geneticist, well known because he writes popular science,deals with vague issues which are of interest for the general population, etc; his mathematics is not that good.
I know you should Never Burn Money, but I think I'll get a bucket full of these and put it in my living room (I know a place where I can get Two for the Price of One. It's in A Converted Church in Venice, Italy). Then I can go Couch Fishing, although I will probably fail at first - but who cares, I can always Try Again; it's not like I Ain't Got Time Pfhor This. I will probably also take them to Waterloo Waterpark and show them Carrol Street Station and then we'll storm The Big House. Nobody will be able to escape our single-celled assault because We're Everywhere. Then I'll take them back home, turn on the stereo and make them Feel The Noise.
That's what I'm going to do with My Own Private Thermophilae.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
He may be on to something there. I mean, when I read this, I thought it sounded like the next John Carpenter movie.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Please don't try and simplify politics with things like this
It's divisive people like you that keep splitting this country further and further apart. As for your other statements above, I'm quite positive everybody, even Bush is for the broad statement of reducing the national deficit. I am not talking about what's going on now and what the government is doing. I'm just saying we all would agree that reducing the defecit is a good thing. And I'm quite positive in a similar argument that everybody is for religion. Don't look at what Bush and his drones are doing, look at what we all want. We want to be able to practice our religion, whether it's Christina, Muslim, Athiest, whatever. I'm looking to simplify and looking to find things we agree on, because otherwise we'll never agree on anything, and this country will split apart into 2 bitter enemies (like it's already doing). You certainly have to agree that the 2 sides are never going to get anything accomplished if we continue down the road we're on.
"this species simply uses a genomic swiss army kit to make do with whatever environment it encounters."
Give it a couple million years of natural selection and you'll get a Phoenix Foundation employee of the month.How much got screwed up by the Bible Genesis 1:27 "God created man in his own image."
Thanks to that phrase, people think humans are superior to all other forms of life. Everything else was put there for us to exploit. We don't have to live in any sort of harmony, it's all just for the consumption of us superior beings.
Don't get me wrong, I eat cows, pigs, and all that with the best of them. But I do that because I'm an omnivore, not because I'm superior to a fish.
I sense the extinction of mankind if this thing suddenly gets a taste for seaman.
because they are simpler creatures?
And for most of them it's true. Others appear to have a ton of junk in their DNA that doesn't code for anything. Heck, that's the most interesting part of this - the really interesting question is "do they activate reserve DNA in a directed fashion" - i.e., are the heat-tolerant genes activated by heat, the drought-tolerant genes activated by drought or are they activated by the normal process of random variation of individuals?
Clear, Dark Skies
In actuallity, survival of the fittest implies fittness for a certain environment only. To borrow someone else's analogy, you can have the best gills in the pond and you'll still die off with the rest if the pond dries up.
It's always seemed to me that there *is* an objective criterion for superiority in a species. Since we're judging superiority as fitness or the ability for a certain pattern (the genome) to continue propagating, then the superior species would be that one most able to overcome a greater variety of possible roadblocks to it's survival. To use your analogy, an amphibious fish, with watertight skin that can also breath air, would be objectively better by these criteria because it doesn't need the pond. It can live on land if need be.
In short, adaptability is what makes a species "superior". This is what has made homo sapiens the dominant large animal species on the planet - our intelligence has allowed us to adapt to damn near every (land) niche on the planet. Rats are a highly fit species for this same reason, as are cockroaches, and many fungi and microorganisms. All of these species are well-rounded and adaptable. (And by this criteria, this new species featured in TFA is likewise highly advanced). The one thing that I can see possibly giving mankind an edge up out of that group is our ability to radically change and even create environments around us, most notably including the ability to leave this planet of our own volition. (While some spores can survive in space, they couldn't just pack up and leave when the sun goes Red Giant on us all. We might be able to).
And since highly adaptable species are more fit to survive over longer periods of time, then evolutionary pressure *will* tend to select for them. And in that sense there is a sort of teleology to evolution: over time, as environments change back and forth and around to a variety of different extremes, the most flexible, adaptable, and generally well-rounded species will tend to outlive the rest. To survive in particular niches against competition from species specialized to those niches, they will have to become more capable in many areas as well; not simply jacks of all trades, but also aces of many.
You're certainly right that the old concepts of some sort of linear progression culminating in mankind are inaccurate. But that doesn't mean you have to deny any sort of progression, or any sort of objective criteria for discerning superiority or fitness between species.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
...couldn't this be a single-celled hibernation state?
...and, of course, maybe how life arrived on earth.)
It's genome is just waiting for the correct chemical cues:
when the environment is correct, then the single celled organism
grows into a gigantic dinosaur reptile type.
(This would be the way to colonize the stars.
"For example, when a new glass of water shows up in just outside its neighborhood this species can build a kit with much longer arms."
But a side-effect of its hyper-adaptibility is that it would simultaneously lose the ability to drink water.
(the book was by DNA)
The human eye has a "design" error, in that the photosensitive layer is not in front, there are other cells above them. This means that the neurons that do the image processing functions in the retina must be transparent, and even so there is some absorption and scattering of light. Also, we have a blind spot in the retina where the optical nerve crosses the photosensitive layer.
In mollusks, OTOH, the outer layer of cells is the photosensitive one. The eye is more sensitive to light, has no blind spot, and allows for more data processing in the retina itself. That may be one of the reasons why octopuses are so good at camouflage, their eyes are very sensitive.
All this is one more argument for evolution and against the "intelligent design" theory.
Even tetraploid corn doesn't have enough. Should have used camels ... 35 pairs.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Why the hell is this in the IT section?
All current life on Earth has been around for the exact same amount of time, i.e., since the first "cell", whatever it was. The lineage has certainly split and evolved divergently over the eons since then, but really, even "primative" organisms, if they are in existence today, have been around for the same amount of time as we humans have. In a sense, therefore, it should not be so surprising to find organisms with as much complexity as humans! It certainly is interesting to see how many commonalities there are amongst species that diverged so long ago -- clearly some convergent evolution also occured along the way -- amazing how nature finds similar solutions to common biological problems.
Then why has the Bush administration cut taxes to the wealthiest people
Because they pay most of the taxes, and so when taxes are cut they're the one who see most of the cuts. I'm far from wealthy, but benefited from Bush's tax cuts.
and raised spending, sending the deficit higher than it's ever been before?
Because Bush's dad never taught him to balance a check book?
Under Clinton we were paying it off.
Under Clinton we had a propped-up economy full of ongoing accounting scandals like Enron. I'm not saying that's Clinton's fault. I doubt he discouraged such behavior since the soaring market looked good for his ratings, but I certainly don't think he was complicit in some attempt of inflating the economy beyond what it could sustain. I do know, though, that in 1998 my father was already predicting a sharp fall at the end of Clinton's presidency. He certainly wasn't the only person to expect it.
The republican party seems intent on keeping everyone a functional christian through the legal system.
Gay people can't get married,
I'm a fan of civil unions myself. Let's stop fighting over the word marriage and just give them the rights and privileges legally extended by marriage. We can sort out just what "marriage" means later.
sodomy is illegal in some places. Even fornication (an unmarried couple having sex) is technically illegal in some localities, even if only used against prostitutes and their customers.
Such laws collapse in court. Quite a few lawmakers are surprised when they are told that such laws still exist in their area; they've been on the books for decades, if not longer.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
>We're all for teaching science in the classroom.
....
No we aren't.
We're all for legal immigration.
No we aren't.
We're all for stopping illegal immigration.
No we aren't.
We're all for reducing our dependance on foreign oil.
No we aren't.
We're all against any form of terrorism.
No we aren't.
We're all for protecting and preserving the environment.
No we aren't.
We're all for reducing the deficit.
No we aren't.
We're all for educating our children.
No we aren't.
We're all for freedom of religion.
No we aren't.
We're all against any form of illegal drug usage.
No we aren't.
We're all against child pornagraphy.
No we aren't.
You don't speak for a lot of people. How about we all agree to not agree with you since we have our own beliefs and opinions? Mmmmkay?
of the BODY! You are NOT OF THE BODY.... SINNER....BlasPHemEr...
Landru!!!... SAVE me Landru....
(david syes posting anonymously from work...)
(Damn! What is WITH the slash word image generator? Word image: "oncology"...)
and, when I get "no discussion or comments could be found..." and and this time click on the link to open the same rather than a NEW page, I get a new word image: "jerking"...
Ohhh...kay....
even Bush is for the broad statement of reducing the national deficit. I am not talking about what's going on now and what the government is doing
but his actions show a different belief altogether. what tells you more about a person's belief structure, what they say in front of a camera or what they do?
The objective criteria you mention must take the organism's habitat into account. You know this, I know this, but the problem is that many other people don't know this. The phrase "survival of the fittest" without the qualifier is what most people understand evolution to be, as if there were some measure of fittness that wasn't relative and subjective. This in turn leads to all sorts of misunderstandings about how evolution works, the most disturbing of which can be seen in 19th century social darwinism.
Plus, it's worth noting that not all evolutionary progress pays off. To get back to your own counterpoint about amphibious fish surviving when the pond dries up, those same fish would be a less successful species right up until the point where the water based life dies. They'd probably be a marginal species that outlives the specialists by a stroke of luck.
This is where genetic diversity matters - you never know what sort of arraingment is going to work best in the future. Often the generalists outlive the specialists, and humans are definately in the specialist category (we're completely dependant on man-made tools to survive).
As for us humans, I would argue that our environment is a technological one, and that we only consider ourselves highly evolved because we're basing our criteria on ourselves. In other words, our survival strategy is toolmaking, so we're biased in favour of that strategy over any other. I don't think it's possible to look at what we've evolved for objectively, anymore than an individual can judge themselves impartially. And it's way to easy to get into circular reasoning.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you haven't convinced me enough to overcome my skepticism. If you really claim there is an objective criteria, come up with the numbers. What quality can we measure and turn into quantity? If you want to claim objectivity, we are talking about measurement and numbers.
As far as 'fitness' or 'superiorty', you're delving into teleology there. I'm very keen on hearing your argument as to why reproducing is 'better', in any objective, scientific sense, than going extinct. My first inclination is to think that it is a recapitulation of the Biblical commandment to "go forth and multiply", a value that has so permeated our culture.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I mean, that's what matters, isn't it?
Although I guess it can be interesting as a curiosity if it has many inactive genes...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
And your beliefs are in that 5%. Thanks for playing. We have a nice parting gift. A crowbar to use to remove your head from your ass. 95% of people don't agree with your overarching statements. You just wish to believe that almost everyone believes what you do. That is delusional. Instead of us agreeing with you so that we have "one party" why don't you simply agree with me? It would be nonconfrontational. It would be easy. Most important is it would be the right thing to do so we could be "one party" and you don't want to be a divider now do you?
You're certainly right that the old concepts of some sort of linear progression culminating in mankind are inaccurate. But that doesn't mean you have to deny any sort of progression, or any sort of objective criteria for discerning superiority or fitness between species.
*shrug* Progression is still the wrong word. The "fittest" species are often the ones that are at the bottom of the food chain; in a nice, stable position.
It's hard to imagine something killing off grass, compared to, say, wolves. Predators need to eat herbivores; but if they eat too many, they die of starvation. So, successful predators need to keep herbivores alive. Herbivores need to eat plants and grasses; but if they kill off too many, they die of starvation. So, successful herbivores need to keep plants alive.
Plants just grow until they choke each other out; but they can survive without carnivores or herbivores quite happily. Humans, being omnivores, keep both sorts of plants alive: we plant grass to feed to prey animals (called "hay"), and we plant other crops to eat ourselves (called "vegtables").
Plants will outlive humans; because humans can't live without plants. Plants, on the other hand, don't need us at all...
It should say "Single-Celled Species' Genome As Simple As Ours?"
That is so vastly over-simplified, over-analogized, and over-metaphorized as to be practically devoid of meaning.
...isn't necessarily a representation of the number of actual protein products that a genome produces. Part of what makes humans so complex is the number of genes that produce multiple proteins. It isn't unique to humans, but is especially prevalent.
Beadle and Tatum's original hypothesis that "One gene encodes one enzyme" no longer holds true. Mechanisms such as alternative splicing and epigenomic effects (gene activation and silencing) can cause one gene to produce many isoforms, each which may be active differently between tissue types, and each which may have entirely different functions. Our 27,000 genes are quite possibly far more complex than another species 27,000.
And on the final day, lo did the Creator endow life in the image of his Great Noodly Appendage.
Disclaimer: I am not a DNA programmer.
.. and theirs? 4 bits?
.. so we just code for more brain and nervous system matter .. I can't speak for the rest of you on slashdot, but thinking about it, mines may be more than 64 bits.
.. you just need to specify a larger value for the diameter. Same thing applies to the quantity of circles drawn (just a for i=K value in a loop). Increasing this variable value does not cause a significant or even noticeable change in the actual size of the programming. Yet it allows for a "huge" difference in the perceived result.
.. is our brain inherently more complex than an animal's... or are we more intelligent simply of the sheer number of neurons our DNA codes for?
However, me reckons that the code that says "amount brain mass/neurons and amount of fine motor control" is probably just a variable controlling how many neurons get created in the brain. Ours is a what 64 bit value
Hmm
Think about it this way the code to create a large circle is quite small compared to the programming code required to create a complex flower pattern. To make a larger circle, you dont need more code
The question is this
You don't sound like you've heard of Tardigrades or waterbears. To quote Wikipedia:
Pretty darn impressive!It's like a microscopic MacGuyver . . .
All I have to say is: Single Cell Swiss Army Knife + Spore = Pwnage
I don't want to give the minority the majority rule. I don't want to give anyone the "rule" as you put it. You make generalities and then try and extrapolate specifics. There is no simple single "majority of people". If there was every candidate in every election would win by a landslide. Hell, there would only be one candidate in every race since everyone except some lunatic fringe would agree with that person and the fringe wouldn't be able to get the signatures to get on the ballot. There is no black and white beliefs. There are as many shades of gray as there are people. You are expressing your opinion when you say all of those things about what people believe, and I bet you know the old saying about opinions.
I mean, we've been on the planet as long as all other creatures have been. Monkeys evolve just as much as we do and everything is as complex as we are to survive in their own environments.
I think evolution is fundamentally misunderstood by people. If you think about it a modern disease, ape, plant, bird, etc. isn't any less advanced than a modern human. Everything adapts to its environment, so we all gain complexity as we move toward survival and reproduction. It's a tree structure, not a simple line, we aren't the top of the totem pole or anything, we are simply leaves of one branch of animals. People tend to think themselves superior to other animals, but evolutionary theory isn't all about superiority based on mental capacity or based on ability to produce huge structures. Genetic diversity and complexity are just basic properties of things evolving to adapt to their environment so nature really doesn't share our bias.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
...this spcies encodes fantastic complexity and unusual features.
Such as less reliance on the letter "e".Congratulations; you have with a single click managed to encompass both Slashdot's greatest strength (user-moderated forum) and Slashdot's greatest weakness (some users are idiots)
NOT posting A.C. to illustrate that the identities of the moderators of a post should be visible as well (which should explain why I've used a grand total of ONE moderator point. Ever.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Bacteria win by biomass, adaptability, number, diversity of environments occupied, etc. It is the multicellular organisms that are highly specialized to niches and fragile in comparison.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Funny, I'm listening to Dr. Waston's 50th anniversary book of the double helix (2003) CDBook this month.
The human genome betting pool paid off at 23,299 genes in 2004, though some people suspect a few more. Most sequenced mammals appear to have about 3 billion base pairs and 25K genes. The highest animal number I heard was the puffer fish at 39K genes. The record appears the amoeba dubia at 670 billion base pairs.
Mammalian gene storage and expression is more complicated than bacteria. Dr. Watson said the typical gene is divided into eight segments (exons) with some approaching 30. Plus these may code for multiple proteins. Some biochemical stores sell DNA genes with the introns removed (cDNA). These are made from RNA templates found cells and turned back into continginuous DNA. There are about twice as many cDNAs for a mouse than there are genomes.
This one party idea is bad. Very bad.
It's true that the vast majority of people in America have the same goals: Be safe, protect our rights, educate our children, and ensure they have the same or better opportunities than we do. What you don't seem to get is that we all have different ideas on how to go about doing that.
Just look at education: A lot of people are just fine with the status quo. Plenty more would rather see our public school system converted into religious schools. I've also seen movements to bring back single-room schooling or privatize all schooling. There are plenty of parents who practice conventional homeschooling as well as such varieties as "unschooling" that abandon the typical structure of an education environment. Nearly everyone will agree that providing an education to children is necessary for the advancement of our nation and our children, but the ideas on how to do this are so radically different that education alone could break up your utopian "one party" idea.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Yes, but most biological systems come at a price. To continue with the gills analogy, a fish with even better gills than the versatile fish could cause extiniction of the more adaptable fish. Adaptability is important, but in the short run may make no difference to other organisms that use their biological resources more directly to the current environment, its a balance of both.
To talk a bit more about humanity's being special, its in large part in the brain. I would wager that almost every other bioligical system we have is bested by others in the animal kingdom. The brain turned adaptability from hardware to software. With a brain that can reason, the long process of evoultionary selection is not so necessary for short term environmental changes. Some of the environmental changes can be compensated for be behavioral (software) changes. This gives our species orders of magnitude greater adaptability.
this species simply uses a genomic swiss army kit
Why did you put the word "simply" in there, when it makes no sense in that context? Feeling extra verbose today?
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
It's always seemed to me that there *is* an objective criterion for superiority in a species. Since we're judging superiority as fitness or the ability for a certain pattern (the genome) to continue propagating, then the superior species would be that one most able to overcome a greater variety of possible roadblocks to it's survival.
Not necessarily. You can be the best at adapting to a new environment, and then being eaten by a highly specialiced predator (that can only live at that environment, but it doesn't matter after you're dead).
And since highly adaptable species are more fit to survive over longer periods of time
That's a red herring. A species that evolves into a different one is equally fit even if it doesn't "survive over long periods". Also a highly adaptable species will soon diverge into several specialiced ones tailored to particular environments (so which one is better, the adaptable original or the tailored one?).
Being good at adapting (also called oportunistic) is just a survival strategy among others, but it's only superior when it makes you survive better than a specialist - i.e. when the environment goes through steep changing.
This is what has made homo sapiens the dominant large animal species on the planet
What makes you think that we are dominant? Certainly there are other species with more presence in the planet than us, either in number of individuals or in total living mass. Plankton comes to mind, and several insects. By your criteria of ability to propagate, these species are much more successful!
I think we are indeed superior (though I might be a bit biased), but I don't think it's because our numbers, but because of our reasoning capabilities. This would be true even if our presence in the planet was smaller and limited to just certain environments.
All this, of course, IMHO.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
I don't want one party. But when we become as divided as we are today, and we seem to be splitting further and further apart, there comes a time when we have to re-unite on at least some issues. Otherwise we're going to loose site of what it means to be an American, and what it means to belong to our beloved country, because we'll be too busy fighting amongst ourselves.
Good point. However, this is more or less what I was getting at with the phrase "survival of the fittest for a certain environment" bit.
That's specifically the point I was further qualifying though. That a species which is fit for MANY environments is overall more fit than a species which is fit only for one small niche environment.
Plus, it's worth noting that not all evolutionary progress pays off. To get back to your own counterpoint about amphibious fish surviving when the pond dries up, those same fish would be a less successful species right up until the point where the water based life dies. They'd probably be a marginal species that outlives the specialists by a stroke of luck.
That makes the assumption that, in addition to the advantages of amphibiousness, said fish species also has other disadvantages in the aquatic environment. I'll certainly agree that it seems *unlikely* for one species to have all the advantages (or competitively equivalent advantages) of an aquatic specialist species in addition to further adaptations that allow it to live on land, and as such, marginal species are usually out-competed by specialists on either side of the margin. But it's not impossible that you could have a species which is very successful in the water and also at least capable on the land. It's highly improbable that such a species would evolve, but then advantageous mutations are always improbable. Nevertheless, should such a creature by chance evolve, it seems that it would be a more fit species than a purely aquatic species, all other things being equal.
In other words, a species which is as fit to survive in many environments as other species are to survive in just one environment, is more fit overall. But the odds of such a species evolving in the first place are low. Which is just to say that phenomenal success is rare. I don't think any of that is in question.
Often the generalists outlive the specialists, and humans are definately in the specialist category (we're completely dependant on man-made tools to survive).
How does being dependent on oneself make one a specialist? I'd consider it just the opposite. The species discussed in TFA is completely dependant on it's "genetic swiss army knife" for it's survival, but that "swiss army knife" is very adaptable and carried with it everywhere it goes, which makes that species very adaptable and thus highly fit to survive. Likewise, humans are completely dependent on the products of our intellect for our survival in most environments, but we carry that intellect with us everywhere we go, it's a part of us, so the flexibility that that intellectual power grants us, makes us a flexible and adaptable and thus highly fit species.
However, I completely agree with you that generalists tend to outlive specialists. In fact that's my entire point. Generalists are more adaptable, more fit to survive in many environments, and thus more fit overall - more likely to outlive more specialized species.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
What we need is to divide more, at least politically. The current two-party system in the U.S. is stifling political expression at any level above local. When people stop running the party line and actually speak their minds, compromise is much more easily reached and things actually get accomplished.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
As a rule of thumb, more adaptable creatures in an environment require more energy than less adaptable creatures, so in order to compete, one would have to optimize energy efficiency against the instability of the environment.
There's more to the story. Human adaptability comes at the expense of highly retarded development in comparison with our ancestors. The existence of an environment that makes delayed development a rewarding scenario is not a given. Neither is the existence of cultivable plants (the basis for mass food production and hence modern civilization) a given.
The point is, the benefits of adaptability are determined by our environment. It's not some kind of intrinsically good thing.
Yes, stars decay, planets burn, and only beings that can escape will continue to survive. But if your metric is only "objective" or "intrinsic" on that level, it's not very impressive, especially since the ultimate heat death of the universe is more pertinent on that level.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you haven't convinced me enough to overcome my skepticism. If you really claim there is an objective criteria, come up with the numbers. What quality can we measure and turn into quantity? If you want to claim objectivity, we are talking about measurement and numbers.
I'm not sure how you would quantify it precisely, but the quality to be measured would be the sum of fitness-for-a-certain-environment measurements, for all possible environments. Say for example, you have ten possible environments, and one species has a fitness measure of "10" for one of them and "1" for the other nine. Another species has a fitness measure of "5" for all ten environments. The latter would be more fit - a score of 50 versus 19. It doesn't mean that the second will definitely outlive the first, say if they happen to be competing in the environment where the first is a "10". But the odds overall are in favor of the second.
As far as 'fitness' or 'superiorty', you're delving into teleology there. I'm very keen on hearing your argument as to why reproducing is 'better', in any objective, scientific sense, than going extinct. My first inclination is to think that it is a recapitulation of the Biblical commandment to "go forth and multiply", a value that has so permeated our culture.
In evolutionary terminology, fitness is *defined as* ability to reproduce successfully. I'm just working within that definition. (Though to go off on a wild tangent, I would make an argument that the proper definition of "good" in a general philosophical sense is closely related. But that'd be going way off topic).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
In general I would agree with you, that being in a low, stable position is usually better. Bacteria will far outlast most everything else around, on a geological timescale.
But there is one circumstance that I can foresee where plants may eventually need humans. One that I've already mentioned. On an even grander timescale.
This planet won't last forever. Stars burn out eventually. Humans need plants to survive in general, but in the long run, plants (and all other life on this rock) may need humans for their own survival as well.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
the parent is marked offtopic, but its grandparent and child are not? and topic is the same???
something seems fishy to me
Bacteria win by biomass, adaptability, number, diversity of environments occupied, etc. It is the multicellular organisms that are highly specialized to niches and fragile in comparison.
Agreed, in general. I'm not trying to say that humans are the top of the evolutionary ladder. But there's one advantage I've already mentioned that we may have (time will tell) over any other species here. We may be able to leave the Earth at will. In that regard, we can occupy a far greater range of environments than even bacteria, which are limited to this Earth (except for a few types of spore that can survive in vacuum, but then they rely on chance impacts - or rides on human vessels - to get them into space in the first place).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Why is this moderated as "-1 flamebait"? -1 offtopic would be fair, but flamebait? Just not seeing it.
Yes, but most biological systems come at a price. To continue with the gills analogy, a fish with even better gills than the versatile fish could cause extiniction of the more adaptable fish. Adaptability is important, but in the short run may make no difference to other organisms that use their biological resources more directly to the current environment, its a balance of both.
Agreed. See some of my replies to other replies to my post. Being generally fit and adaptable isn't a guarantee of your survival, but it puts the odds in your favor overall, even if they're against you in some specific environment. And as I said in my original post, generalist species can't just be jacks of all trades, but must become aces of many as well, in order to survive. The odds against that occurring are low but possible, and if it did occur it would be a huge advantage. That's all I'm saying. That an "ace of many trades" is objectively better than an "ace of one trade".
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
To talk a bit more about humanity's being special, its in large part in the brain. I would wager that almost every other bioligical system we have is bested by others in the animal kingdom. The brain turned adaptability from hardware to software. With a brain that can reason, the long process of evoultionary selection is not so necessary for short term environmental changes. Some of the environmental changes can be compensated for be behavioral (software) changes. This gives our species orders of magnitude greater adaptability.
By the way... forgot to say that I agree with you here completely.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Not necessarily. You can be the best at adapting to a new environment, and then being eaten by a highly specialiced predator (that can only live at that environment, but it doesn't matter after you're dead).
[ . . . ]
Being good at adapting (also called oportunistic) is just a survival strategy among others, but it's only superior when it makes you survive better than a specialist - i.e. when the environment goes through steep changing.
The only point I was making was that being opportunistic - adaptable - is in itself an advantage. Thus, all other competitive factors being equal, the adaptable one will tend to win. If two species are equally fit in a certain environment, but one of them is also fit to survive in another environment, the odds are in favor of the more versatile, adaptable, opportunistic one.
What makes you think that we are dominant? Certainly there are other species with more presence in the planet than us, either in number of individuals or in total living mass. Plankton comes to mind, and several insects. By your criteria of ability to propagate, these species are much more successful!
Note my qualifier "dominant large animal". Amongst large animals, humans are a dominant species.
Also, note that the criteria of "ability to propagate" (which isn't my personal criteria, but rather the definition of evolutionary fitness) doesn't mean "the most populous", but rather "the most longevous". A species which breeds very little, but which can adapt to many different environments and deal with all variety of competitors, would be a very successful species by my criteria, even if they never have more than say, a thousand of them alive at once. Having such low numbers is certainly a disadvantage toward longevity, because high numbers helps to make a species more adaptable and able to recover from injury to the population, but if sufficiently counterbalanced by other strong advantages, a low-population species could be extremely successful. If there were only a single individual of some strange species that was nearly immortal and invulnerable but only able to have one child, asexually, every ten thousand years - but its other advantages let it easily survive that long - then that would be a fairly successful species, even if there's only ever two or three of them alive at a time. The low numbers and asexuality are disadvantages, but nigh-immortality and nigh-invulnerability are strong enough advantages to counteract them.
I think we are indeed superior (though I might be a bit biased), but I don't think it's because our numbers, but because of our reasoning capabilities. This would be true even if our presence in the planet was smaller and limited to just certain environments.
I agree that our reasoning abilities are our great advantage as a species, but it is because of the adaptability that such mental prowess gives us that it is an advantage. If we were all observational super-geniuses who could each individually discern the laws of physics as we know them today within less than a lifetime's observations, but weren't clever enough to realize how to take practical advantage of such knowledge to our advantage, then our intellect would be of no use to us.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Wikipedia article points out some interesting characteristics of this organism, including that it "has complicated microtubule structures", or as scientists call them, tedstevens canali.
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Many people may not know this but the number of genes and amount of DNA that a particular species has does not necessarily correlate to genome complexity. Salamanders have almost 10x the amount of DNA as humans, but the amount of coding DNA is not even close to the amount of coding DNA for humans. Genetics is not that simple. It is interesting though that this organism can pick and choose which genes to express at certain times.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
Genes are not equal to amount of DNA. Genes are what are translated into proteins. So actually, yes, number of genes is equal to complexity, at least if you regard increasing the number of types of proteins in a cell as increasing complexity (which it makes sense to do, a cell with many types of protein is capable of doing lots of stuff. Another way of saying it is that this organism has genes for doing at least (this varies, as proteins can modify other proteins, so the number may be even higher) 27,000 different chemical things. That IS a lot.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Genes are basicly source code for living things. I could generate a billion-lines program that barely manages to print "Hello World". How is this news?
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
It basically comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. If a cell/organism can benefit from a fat genome, it will. New research about "junk DNA" finds that it is not really junk, but a stored-up mass of potentially usable DNA to turn on and off as needed by essentially modifying a Goto statement(s) to skip or use them over generations. Mutations may affect where the Goto jumps to, but by packratting old genes it does not have to evolve old lessons from scratch again..
If our ancestors did not have to run from or hunt fast mean animals, then perhaps our genome would pile up with "in-case" genes also. Appearently this organism uses flexibility instead of being the leanest to survive. Humans more or less also use this strategy, but by learning with brains, not via DNA. DNA is essentially a kind of long-term brain.
Table-ized A.I.
it's like if you where to judge an OS after the number of lines of code ;)
Purely conjecture, but I've often been suspicious of the notion that Natural Selection is the main reason why evolution happens. What if on some level, our cells construct egg/sperm cells based on macroscopic-level environmental conditions?
The single celled organism (with its own swiss army knife) would be a simple version that reacts to its immediate chemical environment. But could multicelluar organisms be doing the same, but using some as-of-yet-unknown sensory/communications mechanism?
Its internal complexity and DNA richness also leads one to wonder whether complex, multi-cellular life forms are somehow an aim of nature, and not some cumalative thing that may or may not lead to more complex life.
That's not really a "just" for a lot of people. I did this and it was great for me, but only because I had tremendous motivation at the time.
Who the hell wants to be a slave of their DNA? I would much prefer the ability to self-define, thank you very much.
+++ATH0
Hey, if your DNA wanted you could not have sex, or you would die one of thousands of terrible deaths. You could be crippled, or successful. All depends on your DNA overlords.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Since we're judging superiority as fitness or the ability for a certain pattern (the genome) to continue propagating, then the superior species would be that one most able to overcome a greater variety of possible roadblocks to it's survival.
Can you cite one single environment in which you could survive and reproduce while bacteria couldnt't ?
Hint: bacteria can survive and reproduce around super-hot thermal vents, in the crust of the Earth, and on the surface of Venus. We can't even survive in *water* more than three minutes.
And in that sense there is a sort of teleology to evolution: over time, as environments change back and forth and around to a variety of different extremes, the most flexible, adaptable, and generally well-rounded species will tend to outlive the rest.
Again, the only type of creatures I can think of to which such a description applies are bacteria and archaea.
But that doesn't mean you have to deny any sort of progression, or any sort of objective criteria for discerning superiority or fitness between species.
Unfortunately, according to your criterion, the "best" group is precisely the first one which ever appeared ! At the very least, it appeared three *billion* years before the first multicellular animals, to which it is so clearly "superior" (again, according to your own criteria). How's that for a "progression" ?
The concept of fitness is purely local, both in space and time. There may be an increase in organismal complexity over time, but this increase can be easily explained by a randomwalk phenomenon, without invoking "progress". It's time people get over it.
:)
I bet this cell thinks about it's adaptive design as for more inteligent then our cells...
It had milions more of evolution cycles then we the human primates. I'm just wondering giving such cell the right conditions what would happen. It's allready known that some bacteria / viruses/ or small worms influence the behaviour of their host. Those creatures have enough genes to replace our genes. Is this beginning of a new Aliens movie after thrinking just a cup of water?
(a less serious thought)
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Even though my knowledge of cellular biology, or actually biology as a whole, doesnt extend beyond highschool I'm hardly surprised.
The human body consists of clusters of cells working together; from the very microscopic glands to the organs that make up our body, it's the process of cooperation and placing that makes it an organism. Thus, the added extra little bit of information, translating to slightly more genes, could simply be the 'manual' of where in our body and how, the cell should function.
Also, don't forget the billions of bacteria in every human body.
While new antibiotics could possibly get rid of all these bacterias, there is no foreseeable way to get rid of all the viruses that have inserted their genes inside our cells genome. Thus they do have got us as a space plan.
We have the tools to merely tap into this fascinating and complex world. What we find there is not always to our liking. Things are not so simple here in the biological world. Each cell is a highly complex OS, perhaps many times more than the linux kernel and system. We made the latter, but the former made us. We're still merely at the threshold of this world. So it won't happen so soon, and if it does, we should be wary, because half-knowledge in this field can destroy us all.
Check the paper, you'll notice the cell's genome is about 104 Mb in length. Human genome is about 3 Gb. That's 3000 times larger, good people ! Of course the numer of genes alone is not an indicator of complexity ! (And the "junk" DNA being in fact no junk at all is already well accepted.)
But let's suppose humans and some unicellular organism had about the same genome size and gene number. Still, that's simply a measure of nucleotide information. Since we are far, far away from understanding the gene roles and interractions to make such a complex organism, we should limit our appreciation of complexity at the phenotype level. After all that's the safest appreciation, since that's why genes exist: to influence the organism at that level. And what do we see at the phenotype level ? A huuuuge difference, that's what we see. So what if humans would be beaten at gene number ? Would that exclude design ? No way ! Each form of life has its particular role in nature. No need to explain more on this...
You can never count on slashdot to provide a proper download link. I was having problems with the most recent version. This one sounds much more stable, a trim 23 thousand lines of code and it all runs in less than 2C! I really like the DNA contamination avoidance feature. Bleeding-edge here I come!
Marques Johansson
This ciliate (like the Paramecium people look at in school)...
I didn't know there were Paramecium people, let alone that they looked at ciliates in school. Did anyone else parse it that way, or is it just me? Score one for dangling prepositions!
Thus, all other competitive factors being equal, the adaptable one will tend to win. If two species are equally fit in a certain environment, but one of them is also fit to survive in another environment, the odds are in favor of the more versatile, adaptable, opportunistic one.
That logic is reversible. All other competitive factors being equal, if two species are equally adaptable, but one of them is also best fit in their current environment, the odds are in favor of the more adapted. So your preference for opportunism is a perception bias, not a logical postulate.
If we were all observational super-geniuses who could each individually discern the laws of physics as we know them today within less than a lifetime's observations, but weren't clever enough to realize how to take practical advantage of such knowledge to our advantage, then our intellect would be of no use to us.
"Take practical advantage of such knowledge to our advantage" as species, or as individuals? Our intelect could be to great advantage to us as single people, even if it didn't allow as to propagate as species. In that case I would still thougt of us as superior, not because of our raw numbers but for our complexity.
But then, I'm just having these reflections for the sake of argument.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Can you cite one single environment in which you could survive and reproduce while bacteria couldnt't ?
People keep thinking that I'm making some assumption that things which are typically considered "higher" organisms are superior or more fit. Look at the list that I gave... rats, cockroaches, fungi and bacteria... in increasing order of fitness (roughly, based on what I know about those species). Yes, I'd say that some of the best (by evolutionary fitness standards) species around are usually microorganisms. This isn't some kind of human-centric "we're better" thing.
Unfortunately, according to your criterion, the "best" group is precisely the first one which ever appeared ! At the very least, it appeared three *billion* years before the first multicellular animals, to which it is so clearly "superior" (again, according to your own criteria). How's that for a "progression" ?
Which would make sense, since the measure of fitness is "ability to survive the longest". Obviously, those species which have been around the longest are likely going to be some of the most fit around. (I say only "likely" because a newer species *could* be more fit and just not have had the time to let history prove that yet). But it's important not to group all bacteria in as one species. Yes, some sort of bacterium could survive in pretty much any niche, but then, there's some sort of multicellular organism to be found in most niches. But is there *one* bacterial species that can survive (even against competition) in all (or most) of them? If so, then *that* would be a very fit species. And it most likely wasn't the first bacteria around, but rather evolved that way through the fierce, rapid-breeding competition that bacteria face.
Multicellular organisms are capable of some useful things that microorganism aren't, such as more versatile forms of locomotion (I'm curious, and honestly don't know - did bacteria colonize the land before multicellular organisms crawled up out of the sea, or did they follow up there with the plants and/or insects?). But complex multicellular organisms take much longer to evolve, since they grow and breed so much slower than microorganisms. It's no surprise then that multicellular life hasn't yet evolved such versatile forms as the bacteria have.
But the big feature that that sets humans apart (again, not claiming that humans are superior in every way - just that we have a nifty new feature) is the moving of much of our programming from hardware (genes) to software - that is, the development of a mind capable of reason. This in a big way offsets the slow evolution of multicellular life, and combined with our ability to manipulate our environment precisely (opposable thumbs and all) has allowed humans to "adapt" to a comparatively huge variety of environments beyond the one that we evolved for, without actually having to evolve our genes much at all to make that adaptation. Instead, we develop behaviors that modify ourselves and our environments, things like clothing and housing, which allow us to live in places that, without such ingenuity, we could never survive. Our digestive tract is also versatile enough that, given our adaptable behavioral abilities, we're able to figure out new food sources for all these different environments as well, and more effective and efficient ways of collecting that food - without having to genetically evolve such changes at all.
The evolution of the brain has allowed us to modify our behaviors and capabilities far faster than evolution could, and as such, maybe multicellular life form (humans at least) are finally starting to catch up with the versatility and adaptability of bacteria - and bringing the advantages of multicellular structures with them.
There may be an increase in organismal complexity over time, but this increase can be easily explained by a randomwalk phenomenon, without invoking "progress". It's time people get over it.
First off - I'm not saying complexity is progress. See above.
Second - please explain "randomwalk", I've not heard this term before.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That logic is reversible. All other competitive factors being equal, if two species are equally adaptable, but one of them is also best fit in their current environment, the odds are in favor of the more adapted. So your preference for opportunism is a perception bias, not a logical postulate.
I'm not saying that a species that is a "jack of all trades, ace of none" is superior. Just that a good way of measuring the fitness of a species would be not to look at it in the isolation of the environment it's currently thriving in - in which case all species are perfectly fit, cause they're surviving - but rather to imagine that species being placed in all possible environments (along with other species already adapted to those environments), or imagine the environment changing to different extremes over a long period of time (pausing between changes to allow other species to adapt to those new environments), and see how well it holds up. Species which need to change the least in order to thrive in all those different environments were more fit to begin with.
And yes, this means that bacteria are presently some of the most fit species on the planet. Multicellular life has some advantages it offers, but the bacteria will outlive us all until some sort of multicellular life comes up with an advantage equal to those that the microorganisms have. I think the human brain is a good start, as it allows for rapid adaptation to new and different environmental conditions (and competitors), but even then, it's yet to be proven to be as advantageous as everything the microbes have.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
One criterion, two criteria!
One bacterium, two bacteria!
Next week we'll move on to phenomena, media, formulae, and other trivia.
(P.S. If I had my way, once words had been in English for a few hundred years, we'd actually accept them as English words, and use proper standard English plurals and stuff...)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.