Not quite, cancers are caused by any mutation that causes the regulatory proteins to stop being produced. Frameshift mutations are the most common cause. This are often caused by additions or deletions. However other mutations can deactivate the gene like a substitutionin the binding site for mRNA transcription.
Mutations, like deletions can occur all across the genome. Since we have large amounts of non-coding DNA, these mutations usually have no effect.
It’s a recessive gene on the X chromosome.
In females this means that it only expresses if both chromosome have the orange gene.
Since males only have one X chromosome it always expresses if present.
The orange males to female ratio in a population will average around 4:1.
The author was confused and that was written poorly. It is a mutation. A mutation is any change to the DNA sequence. Specifically it’s called a point mutation deletion. A point mutation is a small mutation of one nucleotide.
The recipe for proteins on DNA is stored as a 3 nucleotide code. 3 nucleotides represent 1 amino acid (A protein is a chain of amino acids). A small deletion (1 or 2 nucleotidds) in the active coding sequence messes up the entire sequence.
Not really. Although the genetic diversity across the entire continent is higher, limits to mate selection is common. Location, culture, economics, language, etc, all limit the genetic pool that people have to choose a mate from. So in-group inbreeding is relatively common.
Humans have lived in smaller groups with limited mate choice for most of our evolutionary history. A lower level of inbreeding improves fecundity (around 4th cousins). Once the inbreeding coefficient gets to around 2nd cousins, that’s when problems arise. This happens often in small tribes.
Smaller polygamous groups quickly develop issues with inbreeding. The entire group often has an inbreeding coefficient around 1st cousins or even siblings (example - polygamous Mormons).
Now Uganda is a bit different because the polygamous group is large. This limits inbreeding effects.
has not been peer reviewed.
Then I read their methods … It should not pass peer review. Their variable control is shit.
But… we don’t have unlimited hectares of suitable land for people to fuck up. That’s the point… A food forest concept would require every last bit of ariable land on the planet and still not provide enough food for everyone.
The entire idea shows a complete lack of understanding what it takes to feed people at the scale of billions.
Agriculture is water intensive. The more land we use, the more water we need. Whether from the sky or from a irrigation canal, it’s still water used to grow crops not native environments. Reducing our land footprint reduces our total water usage. That’s what matters, not the per hectare usage.
Corn and wheat - just irrigating itincreases the average yield by 2x to 10x depending on the region.
If you’ve never been in a 50 hectare greenhouse it’s hard to imagine (they are 12-15m tall). These greenhouses are all in soil as well. The larger a greenhouse is the more efficient it is as maintaining temperature. You can get 2-3 cycles per year in them depending on light levels. So the yields are irrigated + 50% per cycle and 2-3 cycles per year instead of 1 cycle. Supplemental lighting can push it to a solid 3 cycles.
We need food for billions not a small community.
Food forest = lower environmental impact per acre but a higher environmental cost per kg of production. It’s also highly environmentally irresponsible to add in invasive species, disease, and pests into and established ecosystem. These are all spread by seed, soil, and plant tissue of the crops we grow.
Irrigated and/or protected culture… Protected culture for the crops that make sense. Irrigated in for all others.
We farm the way we do because historically we go through periods of innovation then stagnation. When the way we farm no longer works and we either rapidly innovate again or the civilization flounders and dies due to famine and war.
“Enormously expensive,” it’s all in perspective. It’s damn cheap compared to the cost of the environmental damage we are currently doing. FYI The equipment and technology already exist to do it as well.
The best thing for the environment and soil health is to not farm it. There is no such thing as environmentally friendly agriculture. It is always destructive.
We farm the land we do because it’s profitable.
Irrigated acres make up less than 7% of the land area used for agriculture but produce 65% of the total yield.
Protected culture (greenhouses, high tunnels, etc) produce 10x to 20x more per acre than open field production.
Increasing our water storage and transport infrastructure on a massive scale, combined with expansion of protected culture could reduce our agricultural land requirements by as much as 80%. All wiithout changing our diets.
Imagine 80% of the farmland rewilded? Massive stretches of native ecosystems rebounding without fertilizer or sprays.
If I recall correctly they linked a bunch of powermacs together with FireWire.
I think that the data Ukraine has on Russian losses is better than in any previous conflict. The drones are constantly flying over the battlefield recording.
I also think that Ukraine has significant political reasons for attempting to be reasonably accurate. They rely on NATO for money, weapons, and supplies. They need to provide an reasonably accurate representation of what they are doing with the resources to keep their suppliers happy.
It doesn’t need to be exact, just a reasonable estimate made in good faith.
Record high estimated numbers of Russian casualties reported on the same day as well.
🤔
How to create a baby boom in Russia or any country.
Step 1: Stop the wars of aggression.
Step 2: Increase pay so that one person can provide for a family.
Step 3: Open borders for trade and travel.
Step 4: Create housing for families do that they can afford.
Step 5: Free quality healthcare and childcare.
Step 6: Invest heavily in schools and pay living wages.
Step 7: Promote massive immigration from countries with a higher birthrate. The citizens of your country know you are full of shit and ain’t falling for it
Long range attacks are about knocking out supplies, the ability to produce new supplies, and the ability to get supplies to the front line.
Say Russia is getting more newly made artillery shells to the front line. The best way to fix this is to blow up the factories.
If you can’t take out the factories directly, take out components that the factories need to operate: ore processing, fuel refineries, electricity grid, etc.
The problem is all the critical targets are a long ways from the front line and Ukraine currently has limited capacity to hit them.
Meanwhile Russia is targeting all of Ukraine’s internal infrastructure constantly.
Long wars are won by the production capabilities of the groups involved as much as the front line troops.
Medical privacy ends when the condition may cause detrimental effects to other people. It’s not that difficult of a concept to understand.
Somebody who has epilepsy is not allowed to drive vehicles or fly a plane. They might have an episode while operating the vehicle and kill/injure others.
Somebody with a confirmed deadly disease is not allowed to wander around spreading it to others. Their decisions to ignore quarantine restrictions will kill/injure others.
I like to hear the howl of the coyotes and the hoot of the great horned owl nearby at night. We have no issues with cats roaming the neighborhood.
For many religious groups it’s common for teens and even young adults to not have a clue where babies come from. The biological urge to have sex is still there. So teens experiment around and figure it out but often don’t understand the consequences.
Teens are going to have sex whether you teach them anything about or not. Comprehensive sex ed reduces teen birthrates and STD transmission. It also delays the age when they initiate sex.
I am of the opinion that most “supply” issues are due to investors. Except in certain geographic areas we do not have a shortage of actual physical housing. What we have is a shortage of available housing at a mixed pricepoints for purchase.
All housing that investors purchase for rentals removes it from the supply.
Traditionally investors have sought out entry level housing for rent. They invest in building rental complexes. They make all cash purchases and then rent it out to people who otherwise would have been first-time homebuyers. Investors used to be the low end offer. Blatant price fixing has increased rent outrageously. Now investors are the high end offer and removing supply constantly.
With AirB&B, the middle and even upper range market that traditionally has had less investor competition is now a major target. This has led to price wars for investment purposes on previously safe segments.
The first solution to the housing supply is simple: taxing income from rent so that selling the property is financially more lucrative. It will have to include a prohibition against rental increases to cover the taxes as well.
The second is to mandate zoning and new construction to match the market needs not the needs of the investors.
Last would be to create a program where builders who focus on entry level housing receive incentives from governments (also include hefty penalty for substandard construction).
There is a very strong cultural expectation of younger generations providing care for their related elderly. I suspect the stories of why they end up abandoned and desperate are more complex than reported.