What is the prize money we get for breaking a Guinness world record?
Answer is no. Guinness World Record won’t pay you any money for breaking existing or setting a new world record. In fact, if you want their adjudicator to be present at your venue, you will have to pay them their fees that goes in few lakhs plus you have to arrange accomodation preferably in five star, food and quality transport for them.Why I know these things are because I was part of the management which organised not one but two mass participation world records. You can check them hereLavani World Record - Tapasyasiddhi kala AccademyBharatnatyam World Record-The Largest Bharatnatyam DanceHope that helps.
How fast do species evolve? How many generations does it take? What about the evolution of humans?
How many generations does is take – to do what? Evolutionary biologists believe that humans and chimpanzees had a MRCA (most recent common ancestor) about six million years ago. If the average human and chimp generation since that time were 20 years, then it has taken about 300,000 generations for the MRCA to become both modern humans and modern chimpanzees. Trouble is, we hardly know anything about the MRCA. The answer to your question is that every generation evolves ever so slightly in response to its environment. The evolutionary clock has a smooth second-hand you might say. Any factor that decreases or increases a species ability to reproduce biologically successful offspring (offspring likely to reproduce) will make a very slight difference in the genetic make-up of the entire population. But the speed at which change occurs depends on the demands of the environment. During the earth’s periods of sudden trauma, usually caused by volcanic activity blocking sunlight, species go extinct and evolve at a much faster rate. But in the absence of such trauma, species undergo a slower metamorphosis through natural selection and genetic drift, in response to their environment.
What type of mutation can generate the new genetic information required for evolution?
I know there are some (rare?) mutations that increase the amount of genetic information. ie. Down Syndrome I know all DNA has the same base nucleotides. (Guanine, Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine) However I am searching for a mutation that generates new information that was not previously found within the DNA. ie. A Human mutates, his DNA is altered and they grow feather stubs. Is this possible? Or is evolution impossible? They have been able to make glowing rabbits with genetic engineering. (Jellyfish Genes) But I have never found a way for mutations to generate new information. When you answer please cite your sources and use logic and empirical evidence to support your answers. Or just shout your opinions... I am a creationist because the evolutionists side has made no sense to me. I have found no argument that cannot be disproved and next to no empirical evidence to support evolution. However I am willing to listen to both sides, for I am only 17 and I know so very little about the world around me. I believe in God. I believe in Micro evolution not Macro evolution. For if there is no evidence proving mutations can generate new information in DNA then macro evolution cannot even get started. Here are sites that I have been using to do research on: http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2... http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_m... http://scienceray.com/biology/microbiolo... http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation http://www.nowpublic.com/press/how-did-my-dna-give-me-my-nose http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml This is an example of an argument that doesn't address my question. http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/creationist-argument-mutations-cannot-increase-information/
How much space would be needed to store all human genomes?
Storing one genome per human for the entire world would take up a few PB of data, at most, and would cost a negligible amount (as data storage costs and computation costs continue to drop).There is some confusion from earlier answers about the idea of storing a genome sequence versus the underlying data that is collected and computed as part of estimating a genome sequence. While it is true that the "raw reads" of DNA sequence may total 2TB, depending on which platform you use and the precision that you desire, this is not relevant to the storage of a genome sequence itself. It is such a high amount because current sequencing technology requires such a massive amount of data to compile a genomic sequence (by running computationally intensive programs on this raw data). However, the genome sequence itself can not be more that 6GB (a sequence of four bases that is about 3 Billion in length, from each parent).The sequence can actually be represented in only a few MBs, without data compression. Out of the billions of bases that make up a DNA sequence, only a few million are different among two humans. As a result, if you pick a "reference" sequence, you can represent a new sequence by recording only the few million bases that are different (SNPs, insertions/deletions, CNVs). In fact, you can be even smarter about it by picking a new reference for every ethnic group, instead of just relying on one (this minimizes the number of differences that need to be recorded per genome, obviously).More clever representations combined with standard data compression algorithms can bring the per genome memory down to just a few MBs. An alternative way of thinking about how to store genomic sequence information is to just keep a copy of the DNA around, and every time you want to access it, just resequence it. In theory, this isn't too different than storing the raw data in computers. Sequencing costs are plummeting, so it may even be the most cost effective way of storing genomic information. The real data challenge will be in interpreting genomic data, including gene expression, protein-interaction, and small molecule profiles.
Evolution Debate - so now i'm confused?
I said: Genetic information grows by itself, as a result of mutation. Genetic changes happen apparently at random, all kinds of changes. Only those changes that enhance the survivability of the species will be more likely to be passed on to future generations. This drives a very slow (but steady) improvement of the species. For instance, as climate gets colder during an ice age, those individuals with thicker fur or more body fat have an advantage, so they will tend to have more offspring. Micro evolution is a result of narrowing genetic information, not broadening it. Those mutations, random genetic changes, that don't help the species (which is the great majority of mutations) disappear. His Counter: That's the point. Those mutations sound great in theory, but they are missing, just as missing as the missing link. That's where evolution loses a lot of its credibility. I dunno if you know this, but a lot of 'creationists' don't believe in Creation or even a God at all; they just don't believe in evolution, because of problems like these. The ONLY mutations we have seen are losses in information; give me one example where a mutation occurred that resulted in a survivability advantage (I do agree with microevolutionary adaptation to climate and environment changes, they have been proven and observed), but at the SAME TIME resulted in an added feature or addition in the genetic code. I'll save you the time: they don't exist. Is he wrong? what is wrong with it?
How does the genetic makeup if the cells that result from mitosis compare with the genetic makeup of the?
The genetic makeup of the 'daughter cells' that are a product of mitosis should be identical to that of the cells they were created from. However, cellular copying of DNA is never 100% perfect, so each subsequent generation of cells will have some changes (mutations) in the DNA. Additionally, the telomeres at the end of the DNA strand in each chromosome shortens with each mitotic replication (with the production of each new generation of cells).
Is it possible that we inherit more than 50% of genetic material from the mother since we inherit the exact copy of the mitochondrial DNA from our mothers?
if you are female, you inherit 50% of the nuclear DNA from mom, 50% from dad, because they each give you an X chromosome. If you are a male, you get slightly more than 50% of your nuclear DNA from mom, because you get her X chromosome and dad's Y chromosome, and the X chromosome has 153 million base pairs and about 2000 genes, while the Y chromosome is about 58 million base pairs and about 200 genes. so if you calculate on the bases of the whole genome, which is about 3.3 billion base pairs, it ends up being that you have around 2.7% more nuclear DNA from your mom. An interesting point here is that fathers pass down a bit more nuclear DNA to daughters than to sons, because they give the much larger X chromosome to daughters! Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is very, very small (~17000 base pairs), but there are many genomes per cell. In humans (in mammals in general), mtDNA is inherited only from the mom, because the mtDNA in the sperm is actively destroyed and does not get into the egg, but there is one recorded case of mtDNA being inherited from the dad[1].So yes, overall, there is more DNA from mom, but only slightly more. Footnotes[1] Paternal Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA — NEJM
Biology Genetics Question?
KNOWING THIS: In humans pseudohypertrophic muscular dystrophy is a condition in which the muscles gradually waste away, ending in death in the early teens. It is dependent upon a sex-linked recessive factor. The condition occurs only in boys, and has never been recorded in girls Whats the answer to this: Why does the factor for pseudohypertrophic muscular dystrophy not become eliminated from the human race, since all the boys showing the trait dies before reaching maturity?
How are instincts coded into DNA?
Organism development and developmental neuroscience is one of the most complex and rich areas of study, its very difficult to talk about it unless you are an expert in this field because everything is so tightly interconnected.There are two stories that give a flavour of what we might discover, but this answer is completely inadequate.. its more just a flavour:Oxytocin is a recently discovered hormone that affects a number of behaviours like how and when you take care of babies or socialise with other mice, and related to other factors that show aggressive behaviour.Transgenerational epigenetics describes how aspects of the way DNA is passed on affect the behaviour of the animal. In particular mother (mice) that care for their pups pass this mothering "instinct" on.The point here is that there are signals and systems which transmit complex behavioural patterns that are either directly or epigenetically encoded. There appears to be hard coded behaviour that can be accessed through simple signals. In the baby zebra probably a circuit that links olfaction to a mechanical motion of the mouth that would lead to drinking milk that is activated by an early signal that fades as the brain develops. All of this would be encoded in DNA but most likely in ways that might be difficult to identify, more like an emergent effect from many parts, like a concert of many instruments.