Sociality of insects, and their brains

Awesome! Hierofis once again created a new topic after my post, in passing in another place, in order to again screw up me to shame. And what you've got, Roma, is what you like to call a sheet. I would even say sheets. But the most amazing thing is that I also had an analogy with unicellular and multicellular cells, but not with the whole cell, but with its genome. Because at the cellular level of organization, it is the genome, with some stretch, that is similar to the brain at the organizational level. You can find out in the place where you pulled out your "previous series"

Ezoooks.. Shaming you is a thankless task, you and sabya garazd himself)))))

Now, if you are not only a writer, but also a reader, then you would pay attention that in the topic about news they asked not to flood, only to spread the news, but to discuss each news separately, which is logical

Well, about the genome - you have successfully sat in a puddle, you can try it out in the same place)))))

I repent, the request not to flood (although in fact this is a wrong term, since the discussion of the subject is not a flood) in that topic did not read. Okay, I won't flood here. Chukchi, you are the source that was quoted there, and you were looking at it diagonally, because otherwise you would not have missed it:

Esox.. how much do you buy a dyplom?

0) A large genome is always a complex genome, because complex means composite.. And the larger the genome, the greater the number of elements it consists of, respectively. the more difficult it is.

Hierophis, what a clinical case of genetic ignorance. In order to avoid terminological confusion, I explain that in this case I mean ignorance in the field of genetics, and not the hereditary nature of ignorance, I did not even think to offend your parents. And to show off your new Goryainov theory in the relevant department, the hand is not raised? So I can get up. Just in case, I will enlighten you: at this stage of the development of scientific knowledge, it is assumed that every cell of a multicellular organism, with the exception of some specialized types (for example, non-nuclear red blood cells or lymphocytes, in which the genome undergoes rearrangement during their maturation) contains the ENTIRE genome of a multicellular organism. They teach you this even in school, not to mention in the university curriculum, so your views are, to put it mildly, revolutionary. And revolutionary views without supporting facts are usually called fantasies. Or do you have such facts personally obtained? By the way, about the facts, how can you comment on the process of cloning an organism from one cell?

Hierophis, what a clinical case of genetic ignorance. In order to avoid terminological confusion, I explain that in this case I mean ignorance in the field of genetics, and not the hereditary nature of ignorance, I did not even think to offend your parents. And to show off your new Goryainov theory in the relevant department, the hand is not raised? So I can get up. Just in case, I will enlighten you: at this stage of the development of scientific knowledge, it is assumed that every cell of a multicellular organism, with the exception of some specialized types (for example, non-nuclear red blood cells or lymphocytes, in which the genome undergoes rearrangement during their maturation) contains the ENTIRE genome of a multicellular organism. They teach you this even in school, not to mention in the university curriculum, so your views are, to put it mildly, revolutionary. And revolutionary views without supporting facts are usually called fantasies. Or do you have such facts personally obtained? By the way, about the facts, how can you comment on the process of cloning an organism from one cell?

What was it all about?

This is generally enchanting )))

The cell will not burst, but your svidomitovy brain no longer even contains the basics. But after all, some couple of years ago, I very competently talked about the mitochondrial DNA of jaundice. After all, the Maidan trauma is a terrible thing. Genome in your favorite pedevikia.

About epigenetics, what exactly do you mean by it? The term is ambiguous and is often interpreted as the author of the next pseudoscientific blogger wants.

As for "Goryainov", I apologize, it was I who filled out the last name incorrectly (I mixed up with one outstanding angler-athlete and author of interesting literature on fishing topics), in fact Garyaev Pyotr Petrovich. There is a lot of information about him (and from him) on the forum. Now I came across a message that he died, if so, then according to tradition I will say nothing about him. But the king is dead, long live the king: the new foundation-shaking Hierophis is already ready to create his own theory of the quantum-nonlocal-gray genome. I have no idea where she came from.

And yes, I'm still waiting for your comment on cloning multicellular organisms.

This post was edited by ENO-06.08.2015 15: 34

I ischo times repeat your, Ezoks, abracadabra )))

And there is nothing to tell about the sheep Dolia ))) Her cloning was made possible by combining the egg of another sheep and the nucleus of the actual "Dolly sheep".
Thus, it is a chimera, and also with "left" mitochondria.

O Lord, cure the wart in the head of your slave Roman. Not a mockery , but a real prayer.

As a result of which processes is it impossible? As a result of your keyboard verbiage, yes, it's impossible. But competent other people
've been doing. Especially pay attention to plant cloning, everything is elementary there, no epigenetics interferes.

I haven't read the article about epigenetics that you linked to, because I'm too lazy to translate it, and even machine translation can distort a lot of things. Editorials has a similar article in Russian. The authors consider epigenetic phenomena exclusively in the context of the ontogenesis of the organism, and not the transmission of hereditary information to offspring. So there are no contradictions with what I said above. Although yes, it seems that there are reliable cases of epigenetic inheritance of individual traits, for example, through the egg's proteome, but this is very rare.

P.S.

O Lord, cure the wart in the head of your slave Roman. Not a mockery , but a real prayer.

As a result of which processes is it impossible? As a result of your keyboard verbiage, yes, it's impossible. But competent others have been doing it for a long time. Especially pay attention to plant cloning, everything is elementary there, no epigenetics interferes

I haven't read the article about epigenetics that you linked to, because I'm too lazy to translate it, and even machine translation can distort a lot of things. Editorials has a similar article in Russian. The authors consider epigenetic phenomena exclusively in the context of the ontogenesis of the organism, and not the transmission of hereditary information to offspring. So there are no contradictions with what I said above. Although yes, it seems that there are reliable cases of epigenetic inheritance of individual traits, for example, through the egg's proteome, but this is very rare.

I drew it.. Especially on this )))

How many percent of an organism's genetic information is contained in mitochondria? I don't know the exact numbers, but I think it's not much, most of it is in the core. Still, pay attention to plant cloning.

Just as long as it takes to recognize that with the left mitochondria, the clone will not be complete
And why should I pay attention to plant cloning?
Are social insects and their brains plants?
It's probably mushrooms, though.
It is even possible that fly agarics.
Ezoooks.. quit it!

By the way, Esox.. I ran into it myself))
If you don't write down why cloning is not only possible in plants, but also often occurs in nature. and in animals (bilaterium)- no, then personally I will assume that you are buying a hole, and figs that you will prove to me )

I don't see the slightest contradiction: it is really impossible to get a copy of the cell-in-cell to the cell, to the molecule. Even identical twins are slightly different. This is exactly what the authors wanted to convey. But I did not touch on the subject of cloning in itself, but as an argument in favor of the fact that one cell of a multicellular organism generally contains its entire genome, which you, if you remember, categorically denied. Well, what does this have to do with "environmental influences, random deviations" and so on, so on, as well as terminological quibbles (by the way, completely subjective) about what can be called cloning and what religion forbids? And what did the plants do to displease you (besides directly contradicting your pseudoscientific gibberish)? Not multicellular enough?

Remember, Roma, you are an ignoramus. Moreover, a special subspecies of it is the militant ignoramus. I may not know (and I don't know) a lot of the nuances of molecular genetics and cytology, because this is a very far field from my specialty, but you don't even know the basics.

Of course, I can be completely mistaken. Therefore, I submit this question to the experts. And yes, don't think about erasing anything, I saved everything.

a single cell of a multicellular organism generally contains its entire genome

again
Esox.. you're cool )) So be it - I'll enlighten you again ) Esox.. all cells of a multicellular organism, with the exception of specialized cells devoid of the genome, contain approximately identical copies of the zygote genome, the differences are due to the accumulation of acquired mutations.
You see, that's not the same thing as "containing his entire genome"

The devil..
Ezox, damn it, WHERE IS THE THEME??!! I've been waiting 20 minutes for you to roll out the topic in molbiology

Wow, enlightenment! And almost created the theme "on the court". Be glad that you checked this one last time (in order to copy the link, just before clicking the "create" button). You managed to look at the textbook for the 11th grade in time - you avoided total smearing in the mud.

Yes, I messed up with this "enlightenment".. Because I already understood, but it's too late )))
Although, I think that it's never too late to create this topic for me, but I'll feel sorry for you, for now )
Until you get to the bottom of the restrictions on animal cloning

Yes, I scared off the test trash

That's right, but you can't turn back the lost time. Never mind, next time between your remissions I'll try to create a theme in time. About the "school curriculum", I think I can guess what you mean (but only it seems, because guessing about the meaning of your cryptograms, as practice has shown , is a thankless task), but this is obviously not it. Although with your subjective extremely narrow interpretation of the term "cloning", it is difficult to say that in most animals it is hindered by their very nature, it is complex. Plants themselves have different multicellular origins, the evolutionary path of its formation is different, histo-and organogenesis is also different, so it turned out that their cells live according to more liberal laws, and animals have totalitarianism. Although there are actually cloning restrictions for plants, they just turned out to be much easier to circumvent.

However, going back to our sheep, it is obvious that the multicellular genome (or "a copy of the genome contained in each cell," as you oddly put it) is functionally more complex than the amoeba genome. Do you agree, or has the aggravation started again?

This post was edited INO-06.08.2015 18: 06

Everything is easier, Ezox..
Plants are characterized by asexual reproduction, which is also vegetative.
No meiosis, Esox!
In bilaterians, meiosis is an obligatory stage of the sexual process, and even with truly sterile egg activation, when division occurs without the participation of the "second half", the egg's genetic material undergoes recombination and loss of part of the genetic material.

  

However, going back to our sheep, it is obvious that the multicellular genome (or "a copy of the genome contained in each cell," as you oddly put it) is functionally more complex than the amoeba genome. Do you agree, or has the aggravation started again?

Is that how I put it? (in a whisper) Zooaccess, put it all, who has little biological thinking.. Go to Google, type and get the first link you see

By the way, Esox, admit it, you would never have thought that in addition to the red blood cells listed by you(by the way, lymphocytes without nuclei and resp. without a genome does not happen), which do not have a genome at all, as well as neurons of one rider, which are also without a nucleus, do not have a nuclear genome identical to the rest of the cells, and germ cells

Still, the aggravation has started again, I'm sorry. It's a lot worse than I thought, and I was expecting you to get hung up on the Hayflick limit.

Vegetative reproduction is a type of asexual reproduction, didn't you know? So asexual reproduction is also vegetative reproduction, I emphasized the name itself - vegetative, Esox!

Not exactly. In botany, asexual reproduction is usually understood narrowly as reproduction by spores. Vegetative reproduction is considered separately. Zoologists ' objects do not reproduce by spores, so they take the liberty of treating vegetative reproduction as an asexual option. To avoid terminological confusion, it is more correct to call vegetative reproduction and asexual reproduction two varieties of non-sexual reproduction. You'll be charged for listening to this lecture.

Friends, I remembered that the intelligence of insects (although not wasps, but ants) is here are some studies.
What do you say?

Friends, I remembered that the intelligence of insects (although not wasps, but ants) is here are some studies.
What do you say?

Interesting but..
I didn't understand, maybe there is a text on more details, with all the "statistics" and a more subtle description of experiments, but..
The bottom line is - how did the scout ant know that its station number was exactly what it is, if it was planted, as it is clear from the text, immediately on the desired branch?
In order to understand that the branch number, for example, is exactly 25, the ant had to examine all the branches, and also take a reference point.
Foraging ants should also behave in the same way. They should count branches from the t reference point, which they should also receive in the message, and calculate the desired one
Ants have very poor vision, especially in the far distance. Most likely, it is generally very bad, at the level of spots and blurriness.
Acc. in theory, the ant needs to calculate the number of combs in some other way

IMHO, but you need to look for some other way in which the ant reports the position of the branch.

Not exactly. In botany, asexual reproduction is usually understood narrowly as reproduction by spores.

I give write about this in Wikipedia. Although in the BES, such reproduction (by specialized higher plant spores) is clearly included in the variety of asexual reproduction along with vegetative.

What worries you about achieving full cloning? Well, let's say you can take any cell, turn it into an egg (it looks fantastic, but everything can be))), activate and raise a cub with 100% of both the genome and epigenetics, but what is the problem? Even from the point of view of the Bible, I don't see a problem.

To begin with, I would repeat the experiment. I have now calculated the described results (where the ants immediately found the desired "branch" 117 times, and only 35 were mistaken) The exact binomial distribution criterion (two-sided) in R is a very high level of significance (p=0.00000000001582). Despite the fact that the design of the experiment, the number of tests, and the very nature of the objects of research are such that it would seem that if the exhaust comes out p<0.05 - already a joy. Although this is a purely subjective assumption, to get an objective one, you need to consider the power of the test, and I do not know how to do this in this particular case. If you want, ask in the section "Biophysics and mathematical methods in biology", they know about these cases "more than ordinary mortals should". But as one statistician professor, whose opinion I trust, says, a very high achievable level of significance often leads to suspicion of forgery. In general, IMHO, the experiment should definitely be repeated by some independent researcher. It's a pity we don't have polyktene.

Roma, from the point of view of the Bible, there are just no problems, all the problems from the point of view of your theory of "not fitting the genome of a multicellular organism into one cell, it will burst".

This post was edited by ENO-06.08.2015 21: 34

Interesting but..
I didn't understand, maybe there is a text on more details, with all the "statistics" and a more subtle description of experiments, but..
The bottom line is - how did the scout ant know that its station number was exactly what it is, if it was planted, as it is clear from the text, immediately on the desired branch?
In order to understand that the branch number, for example, is exactly 25, the ant had to examine all the branches, and also take a reference point.
Foraging ants should also behave in the same way. They should count branches from the t reference point, which they should also receive in the message, and calculate the desired one
Ants have very poor vision, especially in the far distance. Most likely, it is generally very bad, at the level of spots and blurriness.
Acc. in theory, the ant needs to calculate the number of combs in some other way

IMHO, but you need to look for some other way in which the ant reports the position of the branch.

I didn't go into this in detail... but if anything, this Reznikova has a bunch of articles about the intelligence of ants (see, for example, the list of references).

Yes, it turns out that the scout counted the branches when he went back. Why not? And there is no need for vision, touch is quite enough.

In general, IMHO, the experiment should definitely be repeated by some independent researcher.

Yes, that would be nice. Maybe there are those who want to...

This post was edited by KM2200-06.08.2015 21: 46

Just at Formic vision rasprekrasnoe-made sure during the capture of glaucus in the field on a hot day. Maybe, of course, polyktena is different, I don't know.

An expert on ants who regularly deals with them alive, not dried, is the only one on this forum, but he generally denies the possibility of their communication, except through odors. And the smell to convey the number, as it seems to me, is very problematic. Although I believe that ants transmit information at least tactilely, with the help of collisions of antennae and mandibles, but still "ant numerals" are too much even for me. But an objective conclusion can only be drawn here experimentally, and it is necessary to achieve repeatability of the experiment. And then the aforementioned P. P. Garyaev also, according to him, received very significant results in his American experiments, but at Home - somehow it didn't work out. After all, you can abstractly swing your "authoritative opinion" to the right and left, and in fact then irrefutably prove that ants can not only count, but also read. Without empiricism, rationalism degenerates into scholasticism.

This post was edited by ENO-06.08.2015 21: 50

I didn't go into this in detail... but if anything, this Reznikova has a bunch of articles about the intelligence of ants (see, for example, the list of references).

Yes, it turns out that the scout counted the branches when he went back. Why not? And there is no need for vision, touch is quite enough.

Well, I don't know, maybe none of this is true. Let the experts tell you.

Well, to say whether this is true or not-no one will say, And if they say it, they will lie )
Because it's a very ambiguous description.
And how did the scout choose the starting point? Where is his "first branch"? Here it would be nice to see the comb itself with branches.
IMHO, it's rather something similar to bee orientation, where data is transmitted by flight time and changing path directions.

Just at Formic vision rasprekrasnoe-made sure during the capture of glaucus in the field on a hot day. Maybe, of course, polyktena is different, I don't know.

Well, to distinguish the contours of a large object and distinguish narrow branches of the comb, these are different things)

I still consider this statement of yours to be false:

Ezoks, proofs, or an explanation that forms see objects in detail and do not forget to indicate changes depending on the distance

In general, the data in the article, if everything is written there as it is, is quite similar to the truth. But there are still a lot of questions, for example, where in nature will an ant need such abilities?
In real foraging conditions, the situation when you can calculate the number like this is difficult to imagine. Is that in the nest to navigate by the numbers of entrances
By the way, another question is how ants navigate their nests, namely, whether they remember all the paths to the necessary passages and chambers.
The similarity of the comb to the actual underground structure of the anthill prompted this idea
Perhaps ants have a way of transmitting the path to the desired path or camera, which is used in the case of a comb.
But not the fact that these are numbers.

I still consider this statement of yours to be false:

Rather, it is true, but only for certain groups of ants, among which the genus formica is not included.

In general, Esox, you will have to explain how formics, having a number of ommatidium approximately within the limits of the written ones below, manage to do something rpazichat