We have less genes than a tiny aquatic crustacean

I am amazed by this.

It seems to be counterintuitive at first but then if we go back to what a gene is we can see that any organism with multiple forms must have multiple genes to code for them. Seeing that I left biological sciences over 3o years ago Imay be a bit mistaken so go easy on me.

uk.news.yahoo.com...

Daphnia's high gene number is largely because its genes are multiplying, by creating copies at a higher rate than other species," said Colbourne, genomics director at the Center for Genomics and Bioinformatics. Daphnia has a large number of never-before seen genes, as well as a big chunk of the same genes found in humans, the most of any insects or crustacean so far known to scientists. "More than one-third of Daphnia's genes are undocumented in any other organism -- in other words, they are completely new to science," said Don Gilbert, coauthor and Department of Biology scientist at IU Bloomington.

our genes are probably more evolved and less full of garbage. Like a CPU die shrink, same job done more effective and more efficient over less space.


is it to far off to think of DNA as code being optimized over time? makes me wonder who is optimizing it or if its natural selection at work.

reply to post by gougitousakusha


More evolved DNA? I don't get you. Dna makes Genes. A DNA is constituted of the same handfull of 4 base pairs (If I remember) across most life (the exception being RNA viruses).

en.wikipedia.org...

DNA consists of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called bases.

reply to post by tiger5


I'm just an interested novice. please don't take my thoughts to serious. i was thinking about the useless DNA removal vaccines conspirancy. so these guys would have to carry both the genetic makeup for the x and y chromosomes to self reproduce?


i guess they would have to have the insect version of those chromosomes

Originally posted by gougitousakusha
reply to post by tiger5

 

I'm just an interested novice. please don't take my thoughts to serious. i was thinking about the useless DNA removal vaccines conspirancy. so these guys would have to carry both the genetic makeup for the x and y chromosomes to self reproduce?


i guess they would have to have the insect version of those chromosomes

edit on 4-2-2011 by gougitousakusha because: (no reason given)

We were all novices so no worries. I graduated over thirty years ago so I have to go back and read up a bit hence the wiki article. Yes the X and Y chromosomes are necessary for sexual reproduction. I don't know about asexual (self reproduction) there is something called parthenogenisis in which the females reproduce only females.

Thanks you have methinking

here is a link on parthenogenesis

en.wikipedia.org...