Octopuses alter their own genetic code

mustrumridcully0 · March 2019

https://www.sciencealert.com/octopus-and-squid-evolution-is-officially-weirder-than-we-could-have-ever-imagined

In a surprising twist, in April last year scientists discovered that octopuses, along with some squid and cuttlefish species, routinely edit their RNA (ribonucleic acid) sequences to adapt to their environment.

So basically they alter their own genetic code, however it happens on the RNA level, not the DNA level. Both is possible in principle, but the RNA changes are more rarely found in most life forms.

I remember we had a discussion on life on different planets, and one question was how likely it would be to find lifeforms living in water with technological capability. A big challenge is that a fundamental aspect of technology as we understand it relies on the ability to master fire, and it just doesn't work so well under water, even if we tried to use natural heat sources. So it seems certain high level tech, like "organic" technology involving genetic manipulation, could be unreachable, because it requires highly precise instruments that don't exist in nature.

Apparantly, there are some natural mechanism that don't need this fundament. Of course, RNA and DNA modification are different. DNA changes are inherited to descendants, but RNA changes presumably not, but it still opens up interesting possibilies which can be fun to speculate about.

Fascinating stuff.

marty123 · March 2019

Don’t you remember the Eugenics War we fought in 1996 to stop genetic modification of Humans, remember how Kahn and some of his followers were never found and could still be out there?

artan42 · March 2019

marty123#3757 wrote: »

Don’t you remember the Eugenics War we fought in 1996 to stop genetic modification of Humans, remember how Kahn and some of his followers were never found and could still be out there?

No, the Eugenics wars were fought in 2050 not 1996. Archer's great grandfather was involved in them and they were 200 years into TOS' past and 300 into DS9s past.

jonsills · March 2019

In 1966, they were fought in 1996. Of course, in 1966 we had asteroid-mining craft and cryogenic suspension by 1996, so...

starkaos · March 2019

According to the Space Seed episode:

SPOCK: No such vessel listed. Records of that period are fragmentary, however. The mid-1990s was the era of your last so-called World War.
MCCOY: The Eugenics Wars.
SCOTT: Definitely Earth-type mechanism, sir. Twentieth century vessel. Old type atomic power. Bulky, solid. I think they used to call them transistor units. I'd love to tear this baby apart.
KIRK: How long have you been sleeping? Two centuries we estimate. Landing party to Enterprise. Come in.
Spock: From 1992 through 1996, absolute ruler of more than a quarter of your world. From Asia through the Middle East.

It looks like there was a retcon for the last so-called World War from the mid-1990s to the mid-21st Century. Whether Khan was part of the new retconned World War 3, it is not known if the Eugenics War happened in the mid-1990s or if it was moved to the mid-21st Century.

As far as the 2 centuries comment is concerned, Kirk should have said two and a half centuries to be more accurate. However, the Twentieth Century vessel comment and mid-1990s and 'from 1992 through 1996' comments confirms that according to TOS, the Eugenics War and the 'last so-called World War' happened in the mid-1990s and not 2050.

If the Eugenics War happened in the 2050s, then it makes more sense for Jonathan Archer's grandfather to have fought in it rather than his great grandfather. If we go by Henry Archer's actor's age when he showed up in Enterprise, he would have been born in 2078 which is 82 years since the end of the Eugenics War according to Space Seed. It is possible for Archer's great grandfather to have fought in the Eugenic Wars in the mid-1990s if they had Jonathan Archer's grandfather in his 40s and Henry Archer when Jonathan Archer's grandfather was in his 40s. Considering that we are not given an age for Henry Archer when he died, he could have been in his 50s or 60s when he died instead of 46. There is also the fact that we don't know how many children Jonathan Archer's grandfather or great grandfather had or when they were born.

artan42 · March 2019

jonsills wrote: »

In 1966, they were fought in 1996. Of course, in 1966 we had asteroid-mining craft and cryogenic suspension by 1996, so...

2050, they were fought in 2050. Two centuries prior to 2267 is 2067 and what's 7 years to a couple of centuries. The rest of the dialogue even spells out it's the same conflict as the Third World War.

SPOCK: No such vessel listed. Records of that period are fragmentary, however. The mid-1990s was the era of your last so-called World War.

Obviously Spock misspoke with the 90s line because Kirk clarifies it was basically 200 years

KIRK: How long have you been sleeping? Two centuries we estimate.

The 90s are much closer to 300 years than 200 to 2267.

Confirmed by DS9 which adds a century to the total given by Kirk. Confirmed again by VGR which has the crew travel to a 90s Earth with no WWIII. Confirmed again by ENT which has Archer's great-grandfather involved in the conflict.

Anyone who believes the Eugenics War happened in the 90s probably thinks the Enterprise runs on lithium and Spock only has a human ancestor.

mustrumridcully0 · March 2019

In unrelated news, Octopus have also been found to have telepathic abilities to distract people with Starfleet canon trivia discussions, so that humans never really figure out a way to deal with the Octopus capabilities for world domination until it's too late.

Starfleet is not a military!

Mustrum "A voice in my head made me write this" Ridcully

jonsills · March 2019

As I said, Artan, in 1966 they happened in 1996. In 1995, they happened sometime after 2024, the year of the Bell Riots. In 2025, there'll probably be another retcon putting the Bell Riots in 2035, and the Eugenics Wars in the later 21st century. Blame the Change War - er, I mean the Temporal Cold War.

starkaos · March 2019

jonsills wrote: »

As I said, Artan, in 1966 they happened in 1996. In 1995, they happened sometime after 2024, the year of the Bell Riots. In 2025, there'll probably be another retcon putting the Bell Riots in 2035, and the Eugenics Wars in the later 21st century. Blame the Change War - er, I mean the Temporal Cold War.

Good enough reason for the retcons or they could say that the Star Trek universe separated from our universe. Just like what happened with the Prime Universe and STO Universe after Nemesis.

ryan218 · March 2019

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

In unrelated news, Octopus have also been found to have telepathic abilities to distract people with Starfleet canon trivia discussions, so that humans never really figure out a way to deal with the Octopus capabilities for world domination until it's too late.

Starfleet is not a military!

Mustrum "A voice in my head made me write this" Ridcully

Can't...breathe...!

evilmark444 · March 2019

Huh ... this is slightly off-topic but I have never heard 'octopuses' before, I had always known the plural form of octopus to be 'octopi'. A quick Google search showed that I was incorrect though and in fact both are acceptable, with 'octopuses' being technically more correct due to the origins of the word 'octopus'. Fascinating.

brian334 · March 2019

You only use the us to i plural for Latin words. So, fungi and octopuses.

The three-year life span of octopuses renders any plans they may have for world domination somewhat less than achievable. Now, when they convince some human to come up with a way for them to survive their breeding cycle, they might become something more than very smart animals. And they are, indeed, very smart.

I encountered exactly one octopus in the wild, (though I probably swam past hundreds and never saw them.) It definitely out-smarted me. I may not be the shining example of human intelligence...

It left me with rows of hickeys where its tentacles latched onto my arm and try as I might I couldn't get it to let go until it decided it wanted to get away from me, at which time I was more than glad to not bother it again. It was all of ten inches long, or about twenty or so centimeters. My point is, don't reach out and grab that cool-looking octopus. It might grab back.

mustrumridcully0 · March 2019

brian334 wrote: »

You only use the us to i plural for Latin words. So, fungi and octopuses.

The three-year life span of octopuses renders any plans they may have for world domination somewhat less than achievable. Now, when they convince some human to come up with a way for them to survive their breeding cycle, they might become something more than very smart animals. And they are, indeed, very smart.

I encountered exactly one octopus in the wild, (though I probably swam past hundreds and never saw them.) It definitely out-smarted me. I may not be the shining example of human intelligence...

It left me with rows of hickeys where its tentacles latched onto my arm and try as I might I couldn't get it to let go until it decided it wanted to get away from me, at which time I was more than glad to not bother it again. It was all of ten inches long, or about twenty or so centimeters. My point is, don't reach out and grab that cool-looking octopus. It might grab back.

I don't know about your intelligence, but I guess you weren't the tastiest humans it found? Or did it have romantic ambitions?

brian334 · March 2019

Well, I happened upon it while it was on the sand. I thought it was a rock because it was just an odd-shaped bump on the sand, so I picked it up. It wrapped its arms around my wrist. I panicked and tried to pull it loose, but I had one free hand and it had eight. It made a football-sized ball of black water and shot off towards real rocks about three seconds into the encounter, and I went up for a breath of air, having lost most of what I had in surprise at the situation. Afterwards I went looking, but never saw the guy again. brian 334 = 0, octopus = 1.

lordgyor · March 2019

> @mustrumridcully0 said:
> brian334 wrote: »
>
> You only use the us to i plural for Latin words. So, fungi and octopuses.
>
> The three-year life span of octopuses renders any plans they may have for world domination somewhat less than achievable. Now, when they convince some human to come up with a way for them to survive their breeding cycle, they might become something more than very smart animals. And they are, indeed, very smart.
>
> I encountered exactly one octopus in the wild, (though I probably swam past hundreds and never saw them.) It definitely out-smarted me. I may not be the shining example of human intelligence...
>
> It left me with rows of hickeys where its tentacles latched onto my arm and try as I might I couldn't get it to let go until it decided it wanted to get away from me, at which time I was more than glad to not bother it again. It was all of ten inches long, or about twenty or so centimeters. My point is, don't reach out and grab that cool-looking octopus. It might grab back.
>
>
>
> I don't know about your intelligence, but I guess you weren't the tastiest humans it found? Or did it have romantic ambitions?

Bawhahaha, someone has been watching too many Hentai movies ;D

Kidding aside this is more evidence that genetic engineering is NOT unnatural.

artan42 · March 2019

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

In unrelated news, Octopus have also been found to have telepathic abilities to distract people with Starfleet canon trivia discussions, so that humans never really figure out a way to deal with the Octopus capabilities for world domination until it's too late.

Starfleet is not a military!

Mustrum "A voice in my head made me write this" Ridcully

Must! Resist! Continuing! Off-topic! Stuff! I! Like! Talking! About!

Octopuses, cool animals right. It's still impossible for any aquatic animals to develop anywhere near what a surface animal could. Individual intelligence wouldn't be able to overcome the impossibility of not having hands, a solid surface where you could leave stuff, or the ability to mine or harvest raw materials.

brian334 wrote: »

You only use the us to i plural for Latin words. So, fungi and octopuses.

Except both fungus and octopus are now English words not Latin and are therefore subject to English pluralisation rules. The correct pluralisation for both is to add an 's'. Funguses and octopuses.
'Fungi' is only ever appropriate if you're using the word as a Latin word in the same way we use Latin for genus and species names, in which case the convention is to italicise it. Same with octopodes (but never octopi)

rattler2 · March 2019

Then explain Cactus and Cacti.

artan42 · March 2019

rattler2 wrote: »

Then explain Cactus and Cacti.

Explain what? The correct plural is cactuses. Cacti is more common because people think they're being clever. It's an English word like octopus so it gets an 'es'.

rattler2 · March 2019

Acutally...

Confusion arises over the plural of cactus because its original plural form (cacti) derives from Latin and native English speakers are drawn to cactuses, which adheres to the standard ruling for forming plurals. Both cactuses and cacti are acceptable. Of note, cacti is the more common plural.

And as it turns out... Octopus isn't actually Latin. Its Greek.

USAGE The standard English plural of octopus is octopuses. However, the word octopus comes from Greek, and the Greek plural form is octopodes. Modern usage of octopodes is so infrequent that many people mistakenly create the erroneous plural form octopi, formed according to rules for Latin plurals

So actually... the correct plural form of Octopus is Octopodes.

Google-fu at work.

ryan218 · March 2019

In unrelated news, Octopodes' telepathic abilities have also been found to distract people with linguistic trivia debates, believed to also be a part of their scheme for world domination.

Starfleet is not a military!

Ryan "stealing another guy's gag, shamelessly" 218

rattler2 · March 2019

ROFLMAO

lordgyor · March 2019

I for one welcome out Octo...er...eight tentacled Overloads.

artan42 · March 2019

rattler2 wrote: »

Acutally...

Confusion arises over the plural of cactus because its original plural form (cacti) derives from Latin and native English speakers are drawn to cactuses, which adheres to the standard ruling for forming plurals. Both cactuses and cacti are acceptable. Of note, cacti is the more common plural.

And as it turns out... Octopus isn't actually Latin. Its Greek.

USAGE The standard English plural of octopus is octopuses. However, the word octopus comes from Greek, and the Greek plural form is octopodes. Modern usage of octopodes is so infrequent that many people mistakenly create the erroneous plural form octopi, formed according to rules for Latin plurals

So actually... the correct plural form of Octopus is Octopodes.

Google-fu at work.

Except neither of these are true. Both are now English words not Latin or Greek and so don't get Latin or Greek pluralisations unless you're speaking Latin or Greek.

rattler2 · March 2019

So... are you a linguist?

And... what's the "proper" plural of Moose?

brian334 · March 2019

According to Bullwinkle the plural of Moose is Meese. (Goose/geese, moose/meese.) Of course, you youngsters know nothing of Bullwinkle. 10 minute shorts with hundred-episode story arcs, serialized for your pleasure, and interrupted by Fractured Fairy Tales, Aesop and Son, World of Commander McBragg, Mr. Peabody's Improbable History, Tennessee Tuxedo, Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties, or Go-Go-Gophers. And they were actually funny as in you laughed from time to time.

ryan218 · March 2019

I know of the adventures of Rocky and Bulwinkle! Admittedly, only from the movie, which I have no idea why I had on VHS.

Hold on, I need to find my Steve Rogers 'I got that reference!' meme...

artan42 · March 2019

rattler2 wrote: »

So... are you a linguist?

And... what's the "proper" plural of Moose?

Group of moose. Herd of moose. Bloody moose in the pickup again Cheryl, git ma shotgun, there's more than one of dem buggers.

markhawkman · March 2019

artan42 wrote: »

rattler2 wrote: »

So... are you a linguist?

And... what's the "proper" plural of Moose?

Group of moose. Herd of moose. Bloody moose in the pickup again Cheryl, git ma shotgun, there's more than one of dem buggers.

so you have groups, herd and bloody mooses eh?

aten66 · March 2019

markhawkman wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

rattler2 wrote: »

So... are you a linguist?

And... what's the "proper" plural of Moose?

Group of moose. Herd of moose. Bloody moose in the pickup again Cheryl, git ma shotgun, there's more than one of dem buggers.

so you have groups, herd and bloody mooses eh?

Once he shoots them with that shotgun...

brian334 · March 2019

I wonder what moose tastes like in a sauce piquant?

starswordc · March 2019

jonsills wrote: »

As I said, Artan, in 1966 they happened in 1996. In 1995, they happened sometime after 2024, the year of the Bell Riots. In 2025, there'll probably be another retcon putting the Bell Riots in 2035, and the Eugenics Wars in the later 21st century. Blame the Change War - er, I mean the Temporal Cold War.

I liked Greg Cox's Rise of Khan novels' solution of making the Eugenics Wars into an alternate history/historical fiction piece: he repurposes a lot of real events of the '80s and '90s, e.g. the '84 anti-Sikh riots and the intervention in Somalia, as pieces of a fairly shadowy war with the Augments.

Octopuses alter their own genetic code

Comments