First guess- their probably all the same genus, and it's likely a genus that is particularly suited to such asexually reproducing hybrids ?
Good thought, but no - different families, even.
That in itself could be a survival trait on the level of the genus as a whole. If one or both of the parent species died out the clones may still survive as it has the best genetic benefits of both.
Except that the clones typically don't have the best genetic benefits of both parents, at least based on what we've seen. A genus with 10 sexual species probably has better odds of surviving than one with 5 sexual and 5 asexual species.
There are actually a number of groups of asexual lizards like these. In the U.S. and Mexico, we have the genus Aspidoscelis (originally Cnemidophorus), known as whiptail lizards. There are about a dozen asexual species, each representing the hybridization of of a parrticular combination of sexual species. Some of the asexual species are even triploid, having chromosomes from three different species. (Most animals are diploid, with one set of chromosomes from each parent.) In Europe, they have the lacertid lizards. Interestingly, the U.S., European, and now these Vietnamese species all look quite similar - don't know what that means.
In answer to some of the ideas you bring up, for the U.S. species most the asexual lines are probably thousands rather than millions of years old. Some species appear to consist of just one lineage (that is, all living individuals arose from a single original hybridization), while others appear to have had multiple hybridization events producing a variety of clones. It appears likely that, on average, members of asexual species are not quite as fit as members of sexual species - but asexual species have an advantage in reproductive rates. When everyone's a female, that means everyone lays eggs. In a sexual species, half the population just knocks up the other half but doesn't actually make any young. So, all else equal, all female populations reproduce twice as fast as sexual ones.
Yes - sea cucumbers puke their guts out, literally. However, I think the term "flee" is a little strong for a creature that tops out at 2 meters per minute.
The Tesla and EV1 both use ~12kWh/100km, or about 200 Watt-hours per mile.
I don't know what you drive, but a typical compact is about 4.5 by 1.5 meters, or about 6.75 square meters of horizontal surface area. If no more than a third is glass, that gives 4.5 square meters for cells.
Solar insolation is certainly no more than 1000 Watts/sq.m even at noon, but you're also gathering sunlight the other 3 to 5 hours you're at work. The final total will obviously vary hugely depending on your location and time of year, but on a good summer's day you might get 6500 Wh over the whole work day. But 15% efficiency sounds about right.
Sooo...
4.5 sq.m * 15% * 6500 Wh/sq.m =~ 4400 Wh produced
15 miles * 200 Wh/mile = 3000 Wh consumed
So even with a less-than ideal day, you might still be fine. Of course, a cloudy winter day in Minneapolis or a 30 miles commute would kill you, but at least you wouldn't have to charge up some days.
I'm afraid this notion of "fewer humans on earth" is fundamentally nonsense. Biology demands that we expand and multiply, or die trying.
You forget that human intelligence and culture have allowed us to override a number of biological imperatives. Among those is the drive to reproduce like bunnies. Although many national and religious cultures still promote having many children, in other populations reproduction rates are quite low and sometimes well below the rate of replacement. Many European countries, for example, have total fertility rates of less than 1.5 per female (2.0 is necessary to sustain a population, since men don't birth no babies). The general tendency is for more technologically advanced societies to have fewer children, so once (or if) we're all technologically advanced, we as a species may achieve a completely sustainable (on Earth) population size.
If a researcher looks at the existing theories and tries to find something wrong with them, or find some way to argue against them, but does not create a specific, testable hypothesis and then experiment, then they have not done any science. ...
Looking at existing, known data (to the researcher) and trying to draw conclusions from it is not science and does not provide the same time tested method of correctly determining facts. I can find facts to support any belief. When I come up with a test for that belief, perform that test, and analyze the results openly with input from peers, I'm a scientist.
I have to disagree with you. It's true that science as a whole advances through the proposal of hypotheses, followed by the testing of these hypotheses to assess their validity. However, the same person does not have to carry out both steps. One scientist might propose a hypothesis that could then be tested by someone else - and that someone else would still be considered a scientist, since they are participating in the scientific process. Remember also that hypotheses can never, strictly speaking, be completely proved. Instead, the outcome of hypothesis testing involves either a) disproving a hypothesis, or b) showing support for a hypothesis. Do "b" under sufficiently broad conditions and people will start to treat your hypothesis as a theory - as good as things get in science. But note that "a" is also a useful outcome because it allows you to reject a hypothesis that is not valid. And it can be done with pre-existing data. Your argument that someone who only tries to "find something wrong" with a hypothesis is not doing science is incorrect. They're only participating in some parts of the scientific process, but it's still a valid part.
(Note: My arguments do not mean I support funding based on reaching a particular set of conclusions!)
Actually, ATP-synthase is found in every living thing (AFAIK). It's what allows the mitochondria found in the cells of all animals, plants, fungi and protists to make ATP. Bacteria (as you mention) also have it. Non-photosynthetic organisms use the energy provided by breaking down more complex molecules (e.g. sugar) instead of the sun to create the pH gradient that drives the ATP-synthase.
I don't know that I'd classify ATP-synthase as a molecular motor. It has moving parts, to be sure, but it doesn't generate any pulling/pushing force the way the examples mentioned in the article do. One of these, myosin, is the stuff that makes your muscles work. Each myosin molecule generates only a few piconewtons of force and each movement of the molecule moves it only a few nanometers. But a big array of these cycling rapidly can move a lot of mass very quickly (e.g. William "Refrigerator" Perry).
What there is is a strong effect of temperature on most biochemical processes, including those reponsible for metabolism. We humans aren't intimately familiar with this effect because we maintain a relatively constant body temperature under normal conditions. But if you've ever seen a lizard or snake on a cold day (when they have a low body temperature) they're much slower than on a hot day. What you're seeing is the effects of temperature on the molecular motors that run the muscles. And if you measured the metabolic rate of a reptile, you'd see the same termperature effect - slower metabolism (less ATP consumed per minute) at low temperatures than high ones. For most physiological processes, including metabolism, rates drop by 2- to 3-fold for every 10 degree C drop in temperature. For a 30 degree C drop, that gives up to a 3×3×3 = 27-fold decrease - enough to make 2 hours at 7 degrees the equivalent of about 4-1/2 minutes at 37 degrees C.
Now, there may be other, regulatory (i.e. active) factors at work as well during this sort of dramatic (for mammals) temperature change that decrease metabolism even further. But a lot of it can be explained by this generic temperature effect.
One thing I can't quite figure out is how this thing achieves black in the projected images. If the image is projected onto a "sheet of translucent", why doesn't it continue to look translucent in the regions where no light (i.e. black) projects onto it?
--
I feel like a nematode trapped in fungal hyphae.
Folks- repeat after me. Not Speeding != Safely driving.
True, but in general Less Speed = Less Danger.
You're absolutely correct that learning all the skills you mention are what make someone a better, safer driver. But until they learn those skills, the worst thing they can do is drive at excessive speeds. I have no objection to any driver (teen or otherwise) staying with the flow of traffic, but that's not what tends to lead to trouble. Usually when I read about a carload of idiots^H^H^H^H^H unfortunate teenagers killing themselves its because they were doing 50 mph in a residential zone or 80 on some two-lane highway.
Teens have a lot of problems with situational awareness- ie where other cars are around them. This is aggrivated by distractions in the car with them; teenage passengers, unlike adults, aren't as good as recognizing when they shouldn't talk to the driver.
All true - but the more slowly they're driving when these things happen, the less likely they are to end up crashed/injured/dead.
Speed comes from a lack of the understanding of the implications (stopping distance skyrockets with speed, for example) and consequences (survivability in a collision plummets, for example). Policing them, just as policing adults, does not solve the root cause.
True again, but speed is much easier to police directly than the knowledge of driving physics and the wisdom to apply that knowledge. (Especially if they're smart enough to weat tinfoil hats to keep their thoughts from being read.)
Slashdot Mirror
First guess- their probably all the same genus, and it's likely a genus that is particularly suited to such asexually reproducing hybrids ?
Good thought, but no - different families, even.
That in itself could be a survival trait on the level of the genus as a whole. If one or both of the parent species died out the clones may still survive as it has the best genetic benefits of both.
Except that the clones typically don't have the best genetic benefits of both parents, at least based on what we've seen. A genus with 10 sexual species probably has better odds of surviving than one with 5 sexual and 5 asexual species.
There are actually a number of groups of asexual lizards like these. In the U.S. and Mexico, we have the genus Aspidoscelis (originally Cnemidophorus), known as whiptail lizards. There are about a dozen asexual species, each representing the hybridization of of a parrticular combination of sexual species. Some of the asexual species are even triploid, having chromosomes from three different species. (Most animals are diploid, with one set of chromosomes from each parent.) In Europe, they have the lacertid lizards. Interestingly, the U.S., European, and now these Vietnamese species all look quite similar - don't know what that means.
In answer to some of the ideas you bring up, for the U.S. species most the asexual lines are probably thousands rather than millions of years old. Some species appear to consist of just one lineage (that is, all living individuals arose from a single original hybridization), while others appear to have had multiple hybridization events producing a variety of clones. It appears likely that, on average, members of asexual species are not quite as fit as members of sexual species - but asexual species have an advantage in reproductive rates. When everyone's a female, that means everyone lays eggs. In a sexual species, half the population just knocks up the other half but doesn't actually make any young. So, all else equal, all female populations reproduce twice as fast as sexual ones.
Yes - sea cucumbers puke their guts out, literally. However, I think the term "flee" is a little strong for a creature that tops out at 2 meters per minute.
My own figures:
The Tesla and EV1 both use ~12kWh/100km, or about 200 Watt-hours per mile.
I don't know what you drive, but a typical compact is about 4.5 by 1.5 meters, or about 6.75 square meters of horizontal surface area. If no more than a third is glass, that gives 4.5 square meters for cells.
Solar insolation is certainly no more than 1000 Watts/sq.m even at noon, but you're also gathering sunlight the other 3 to 5 hours you're at work. The final total will obviously vary hugely depending on your location and time of year, but on a good summer's day you might get 6500 Wh over the whole work day. But 15% efficiency sounds about right.
Sooo...
4.5 sq.m * 15% * 6500 Wh/sq.m =~ 4400 Wh produced
15 miles * 200 Wh/mile = 3000 Wh consumed
So even with a less-than ideal day, you might still be fine. Of course, a cloudy winter day in Minneapolis or a 30 miles commute would kill you, but at least you wouldn't have to charge up some days.
I'm afraid this notion of "fewer humans on earth" is fundamentally nonsense. Biology demands that we expand and multiply, or die trying.
You forget that human intelligence and culture have allowed us to override a number of biological imperatives. Among those is the drive to reproduce like bunnies. Although many national and religious cultures still promote having many children, in other populations reproduction rates are quite low and sometimes well below the rate of replacement. Many European countries, for example, have total fertility rates of less than 1.5 per female (2.0 is necessary to sustain a population, since men don't birth no babies). The general tendency is for more technologically advanced societies to have fewer children, so once (or if) we're all technologically advanced, we as a species may achieve a completely sustainable (on Earth) population size.
If a researcher looks at the existing theories and tries to find something wrong with them, or find some way to argue against them, but does not create a specific, testable hypothesis and then experiment, then they have not done any science.
...
Looking at existing, known data (to the researcher) and trying to draw conclusions from it is not science and does not provide the same time tested method of correctly determining facts. I can find facts to support any belief. When I come up with a test for that belief, perform that test, and analyze the results openly with input from peers, I'm a scientist.
I have to disagree with you. It's true that science as a whole advances through the proposal of hypotheses, followed by the testing of these hypotheses to assess their validity. However, the same person does not have to carry out both steps. One scientist might propose a hypothesis that could then be tested by someone else - and that someone else would still be considered a scientist, since they are participating in the scientific process. Remember also that hypotheses can never, strictly speaking, be completely proved. Instead, the outcome of hypothesis testing involves either a) disproving a hypothesis, or b) showing support for a hypothesis. Do "b" under sufficiently broad conditions and people will start to treat your hypothesis as a theory - as good as things get in science. But note that "a" is also a useful outcome because it allows you to reject a hypothesis that is not valid. And it can be done with pre-existing data. Your argument that someone who only tries to "find something wrong" with a hypothesis is not doing science is incorrect. They're only participating in some parts of the scientific process, but it's still a valid part.
(Note: My arguments do not mean I support funding based on reaching a particular set of conclusions!)
---
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur
Actually, ATP-synthase is found in every living thing (AFAIK). It's what allows the mitochondria found in the cells of all animals, plants, fungi and protists to make ATP. Bacteria (as you mention) also have it. Non-photosynthetic organisms use the energy provided by breaking down more complex molecules (e.g. sugar) instead of the sun to create the pH gradient that drives the ATP-synthase.
I don't know that I'd classify ATP-synthase as a molecular motor. It has moving parts, to be sure, but it doesn't generate any pulling/pushing force the way the examples mentioned in the article do. One of these, myosin, is the stuff that makes your muscles work. Each myosin molecule generates only a few piconewtons of force and each movement of the molecule moves it only a few nanometers. But a big array of these cycling rapidly can move a lot of mass very quickly (e.g. William "Refrigerator" Perry).
So is there a temperature limit for metabolizing?
What there is is a strong effect of temperature on most biochemical processes, including those reponsible for metabolism. We humans aren't intimately familiar with this effect because we maintain a relatively constant body temperature under normal conditions. But if you've ever seen a lizard or snake on a cold day (when they have a low body temperature) they're much slower than on a hot day. What you're seeing is the effects of temperature on the molecular motors that run the muscles. And if you measured the metabolic rate of a reptile, you'd see the same termperature effect - slower metabolism (less ATP consumed per minute) at low temperatures than high ones. For most physiological processes, including metabolism, rates drop by 2- to 3-fold for every 10 degree C drop in temperature. For a 30 degree C drop, that gives up to a 3×3×3 = 27-fold decrease - enough to make 2 hours at 7 degrees the equivalent of about 4-1/2 minutes at 37 degrees C.
Now, there may be other, regulatory (i.e. active) factors at work as well during this sort of dramatic (for mammals) temperature change that decrease metabolism even further. But a lot of it can be explained by this generic temperature effect.
You mean like this?
One thing I can't quite figure out is how this thing achieves black in the projected images. If the image is projected onto a "sheet of translucent", why doesn't it continue to look translucent in the regions where no light (i.e. black) projects onto it?
--
I feel like a nematode trapped in fungal hyphae.
Folks- repeat after me. Not Speeding != Safely driving.
True, but in general Less Speed = Less Danger.
You're absolutely correct that learning all the skills you mention are what make someone a better, safer driver. But until they learn those skills, the worst thing they can do is drive at excessive speeds. I have no objection to any driver (teen or otherwise) staying with the flow of traffic, but that's not what tends to lead to trouble. Usually when I read about a carload of idiots^H^H^H^H^H unfortunate teenagers killing themselves its because they were doing 50 mph in a residential zone or 80 on some two-lane highway.
Teens have a lot of problems with situational awareness- ie where other cars are around them. This is aggrivated by distractions in the car with them; teenage passengers, unlike adults, aren't as good as recognizing when they shouldn't talk to the driver.
All true - but the more slowly they're driving when these things happen, the less likely they are to end up crashed/injured/dead.
Speed comes from a lack of the understanding of the implications (stopping distance skyrockets with speed, for example) and consequences (survivability in a collision plummets, for example). Policing them, just as policing adults, does not solve the root cause.
True again, but speed is much easier to police directly than the knowledge of driving physics and the wisdom to apply that knowledge. (Especially if they're smart enough to weat tinfoil hats to keep their thoughts from being read.)