Rules of the game:
1. Post a Biology question or riddle, try to be simple but creative. You must your self know the answer, no homework problems!
2. Wait after 5 or more replies are made trying to answer the riddle, Then give them the answer.
3. ONLY ONE RIDDLE AT A TIME!!!, after posting and answering a riddle let someone else post the next one... please.
4. When replying to a person's riddle put the person's name in the title of your post like such "Answer to ________"
5. Rules may be updated.

First Riddle,

"Around nuclear power plants fish tend to be larger, why?”

Warmer temperatures accelerate their growth rate?

Explain?

because fish are cold blooded. Their metabolic rate and growth rate are dependent in part on the environmental temperature.

On the other hand, maybe they just have more food, which possibly also grows better under these conditions.

yes but how is a nucler power plant conected to warmer water?

Thats not a biology question

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Thats not a biology question


good one...


I will answer anyway..


because the employees of the nuclear powerplant are not allowed to smoke inside. Therefore they go outside to have a smoke break. They have a smoke and see the running cooling water coming out of the plant. That makes them pee. They pee in the water and hence raise the overall temperature and add fertilizer on top of that.

oooooh almost spuriousmonkey so close... Hey you know the answer your just fucking with me arn't you! :mad:

Dr Lou Natic,

If you have a better one why don't you post it?

Why are there no penguins in the artic?

How do you know there are no penguins in my attic?, or do you mean arctic? :D

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
good one...


I will answer anyway..


because the employees of the nuclear powerplant are not allowed to smoke inside. Therefore they go outside to have a smoke break. They have a smoke and see the running cooling water coming out of the plant. That makes them pee. They pee in the water and hence raise the overall temperature and add fertilizer on top of that.
even if all the employees pee at the same time it would hardly affect the already hot cooling-water. fertilizer might be an added advantage.:D

Originally posted by Neuromancer
Dr Lou Natic,

If you have a better one why don't you post it?
I just meant the way in which a nuclear power plant effects water temperature is outside the realms of biology.
Your original question was ok. I didn't know the answer though:(

Why no penguins in the arctic?
I didn't even know that.
I guess it explains why I've never seen a polar bear eat a penguin.

ummm
there aint no airline service b/w the two poles?

Penguins don't live in the arctic because they can't swim up north several thousand miles through waters that they would likely overheat and die in?

Because penguins LOOOOVE Antarctica and they would NEEEVER leave. Maybe they like leopard seals better than polar bears?

I've got a riddle...

My name comes from my SPINY SKIN. What am I?

Hmmm, suddenly I wonder why penguins decide to live south while polar bears decide to live north....... History needs to be revealed here..... about nowadays penguins can't swim north and nowadays polar bears can't swim south, most possibly because warm water contain less fish, or maybe they are afraid of being burned by their own fat.

there used to be one flightless bird called penguin, also known as the Great Auk, but it was exterminated four centuries ago. The reason that there aren't any is probably because of predators: penguins need to go on land to nest and are quite defenceless with their feet on the ground. Antarctica and other southern island are devoid or have few land predators. The Arctic has bears, wolves, foxes, rats and more...

http://www.rom.on.ca/biodiversity/auk/graphics/aklith1a.gif

http://www.rom.on.ca/biodiversity/auk/

The truth is that corrupt corporations and their government cohorts have been perpetrating a misinformation campaign for many years. They would have the people of Canada, and other countries within the Arctic Circle believe that the Arctic Penguin does not exist and never has!

This, of course, is nonsense. Penguins did exist, and we believe they still do.
The problem is they are on the verge of extinction!
With your help, we can bring back this mighty and majestic reptile from the brink of collapse!

donate (http://www.superspoof.com/penguin/)

My my my, aren't I unknowledgable about the great auk?
But the arctic penguin link seems suspicious...... Just to find such specieses they ask for money as if they were penniless.... how RUDE! And by the way.... reptile????

Nono, reptile is a thing that creeps, the name refers to its reptile mode of locomotion. Think Latin.

no penguins north of equator because of phylogenetic and biogeographical history, plus, the warm water barrier spearating north and south poles, although, there are historical reports of penguins crossing the equator and (in the west Atlantic) getting as far north as New England

good one bringing up auks, however any penguin-like characterisitics are due to convergence

birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are reptiles, hence, birds are reptiles

BigBlueHead: You are an echinoderm. A sea star, urchin, sand dollar, etc.

Sweet. Your turn Idle Mind.

Convergence refers to the widespread tendency in nature of unrelated organisms to possess nearly identical anatomical and physiological characteristics.{1} The wings of birds and bats is one textbook example of convergence. Birds and bats are unrelated organisms, with birds belonging to the class Aves and bats to the class Mammalia. Though superficially similar, the wing structures of birds and bats are fundamentally different. Another common example of convergence, one in which the fundamental structural differences are not so obvious, is the remarkable anatomical similarity shared by the modern placental wolf and the extinct Tasmanian wolf.{2}

{1}Monroe W. Strickberger, Evolution, 3d ed., (Sunberg, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2000), 632; 637.

{2}Mark Ridley, Evolution, 2d ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, 1996), 470-72.

why thank you paul
however, what do we actually know about the auk anatomy?
btw, convergence appears to be used as an creationist argument;)

Originally posted by Neuromancer
yes but how is a nucler power plant conected to warmer water?

A nuclear reactor uses water as a coolant. Water from an adjacent body is regularly used. The water goes back to the environment a few degrees warmer.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are reptiles, hence, birds are reptiles
Birds are reptiles in the same way mammals are reptiles, in other words; not anymore.
Mammals changed more ofcourse, but birds too became their own thing.
Bats seem likely to create a whole new category in the future after further evolution.
They will then be akin to what birds are to reptiles.

Also I did not think the similarities between the placental wolf and tasmanian tiger were a case of convergence, I thought they shared a common ancestor.
I thought marsupials were the base from which all mammals evolved. And so assumed it was a similar case of reptiles branching out to make birds and mammals, so the tree gliding lizard eventually lead to birds, the warm blooded reptile with parental instincts lead to mammals, the marsupial possum lead to lemurs, the marsupial wolf lead to at least a wolflike creature that evuntually lead to wolves etc.
But then would this require a convergence in regard to becoming placental?
Which would actually be far more remarkable:confused:

Unfortunately, I've got jack. Anyone else want to step up and be the man I've failed to be?

And Idle Mind, we're composed by protozoans........ lol... think of our cells....
Okay shoot me... hHAhA

Here's a riddle. How is it documented in fossil records that bees were around 100 million years before flowered plants?

bees traped in amber?

You mean, like, hymenoptera?

More like:

The fossils unearthed by Dr. Demko are much much older. If further studies confirm that they were made by ancient bees (unfortunately, these are ichnofossils or trace fossils showing only nests but no actual bee fossils). The oldest wasp body fossils date to about 116 million years ago, the oldest bee fossils at about 80 million and the oldest described wasp nest at about 75 million. The angiosperms, or flowering plants, are known from fossils from 110 to 120 million years ago although they may have evolved somewhat earlier. Their origin was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin in the 19th century and modern biologists are still largely in the dark about the exact origin and age of flowering plants. Now we are faced with the fact that bees may have been buzzing around a whopping 140 million years earlier! If there were no angiosperms around then, which seems likely, then the early bees or protobees probably survived on sweet exudates from non-flowering plants and pollen and spores from ferns, cycads and other ancient plants. The complex multi-chambered (individual nest cells) fossil nests found at the Petrified Forest indicate that these bees may have even been social, since the nest architecture seems reminiscent of the type of nests made by modern ground-nesting sweat bees (in the family Halictidae). Each nest consists of clusters of 15 to 30 cells shaped like little flasks or urns and each about one inch long. Most of the nests seem to have gained entry to the tree through open knotholes and were made while the tree was alive, since the team found "reaction wood" to be present. Further, the nests are found high in the top one third of the trees within what would have been the canopy region.

Source: http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/nx/fossils/fossils.html

Originally posted by spookz

however, what do we actually know about the auk anatomy?
btw, convergence appears to be used as an creationist argument;) there are extant auks, aren't there?, i.e. the lesser auk.

convergence is a phenomenon of evolution

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Birds are reptiles in the same way mammals are reptiles, in other words; not anymore. not exactly, which is why i made the point. mammals, birds and reptiles are three different classes of vertebrates, and because birds are paraphyletic relative to reptiles, it has been suggested that birds are just modified reptiles (i.e. they belong in the Class Reptilia).

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Also I did not think the similarities between the placental wolf and tasmanian tiger were a case of convergence, I thought they shared a common ancestor.

All living organisms have a shared common ancestor, but there are still convergent characters. The carnivoran (I mean this in the literal sense, not the taxonomic sense) characters found in the Tasmanian wolf (and the Tasmanian devil for that matter, both modified kangaroos) are convergent, i.e. they evolved separately and independently of carnivoran (meant in the taxonomic sense, not the literal sense) characters.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I thought marsupials were the base from which all mammals evolved. And so assumed it was a similar case of reptiles branching out to make birds and mammals, so the tree gliding lizard eventually lead to birds, the warm blooded reptile with parental instincts lead to mammals, the marsupial possum lead to lemurs, the marsupial wolf lead to at least a wolflike creature that evuntually lead to wolves etc.
But then would this require a convergence in regard to becoming placental?
Which would actually be far more remarkable:confused: not to worry; you're in a safe place. remember, evolution is not directional. all extant marsupials are as evolved as all other mammals (the placentals and monotremes). I can't draw a tree here, but see this tree ====>>>

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vertebrates.html

There are much better trees in any evolution book, but the point is that if alligators and dinosaurs are reptiles, then birds are too.

Finally, species are not convergent, characters (adaptations) are.

marine mystery
coelenterate's folly
combs present
cnidocyst absent
convergence?

Riddles, Paul! C'mon!

(edit) woops, heh

hey!

it's supposed to be a riddle in Tolkienian sense.

Yeah, I started writing it before you posted... sorry

So it's a marine creature, probably a predator of jellyfish or other marine invertebrates, and it has combs but no stinging tentacles... and you want to know if it's related to other things that look like it or not.

That's gonna be a toughie.

Is it a <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/efc/living_species/default.asp?hOri=1&inhab=453">comb jelly</a>?

too easy

But I don't know if it's a matter of convergent evolution or just plain genetic relation with other invertebrates, so I didn't really get that right...

Don't get too biologically precise here:

What's smaller than a teeny weeny flea?

Originally posted by paulsamuel
there are extant auks, aren't there?, i.e. the lesser auk.

ahh paul forces me to do my homework.
yes there are! a puffin! (Fratercula arctica)

:D

taxonomists shamed
molluscan named
anenome's code for
crabs abode

have fun!

The girl of your dreams has told you that she thinks she wants to end her torrid, passionate relationship with you. You beg and plead with her, but she remains ambivalent. She finally agrees to abide by the results of an endeavour that you, at your wit's end, suggest. You say that you will pull the petals off of a daisy flower, one petal at a time. With each petal you pull off you say, alternately, "she loves me" or "she loves me not". What will be the outcome? Is it chance? To guarantee a positive outcome for yourself, should you begin with "she loves me", or "she loves me not" ? Will it make any difference with which phrase you begin?

Please read rules everyone, this is a mess!

Originally posted by paulsamuel
taxonomists shamed
molluscan named
anenome's code for
crabs abode

have fun!

I'd say barnacles, though I'm not sure. They're arthropods but they look like mollusks.

Nope.

is there any evidence that penguins can't cross the warm waters of the equator?

Wales seem to have no problem with it.

Originally posted by Neuromancer
Please read rules everyone, this is a mess!

it is a chaotic system analogous to many biological systems.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
is there any evidence that penguins can't cross the warm waters of the equator?

Wales seem to have no problem with it.
It is strange.
Even if none of the current penguins could handle the heat at the equator you would think that a penguin family would have branched off and adapted to it at some stage in history. Unless penguins haven't been around for long, but there are so many types so I imagine they have been.
Weird.
I think its some kind of anti-penguin conspiracy:eek:

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
is there any evidence that penguins can't cross the warm waters of the equator?

Wales seem to have no problem with it.

apparently whales don't do it because migratory patterns are opposite on either side of the equator (i.e. summer migration in the northern hemisphere means winter migration in the southern hemisphere, while northern migration is bringing whales to the north pole, southern migration is bringing them to the equator)

ok then...but whales are not limited to either north of south, which suggests that they crossed the equator at one point in time

why don't we humans have a thick coat of fur?

Because we became semi aquatic before the ice-age when much of africa was flooded. Short coats helped us cross rivers and also find food such as crayfish and freshwater clam things.
We weren't forced to grow back coats during the ice-age because we figured out how to make clothing out of the furs and skins of dead animals.

no wrong

the answer (http://www.*******************/lectures/archive/lectures/023.html)

Or was it the loss of our fur that allowed for giant brains?
eh?

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Or was it the loss of our fur that allowed for giant brains?
eh?

there are always 20 answers to 1 question in biology

Surgically reduced their brain size? You gotta be kidding me.

don't worry about it, they were only students. Plenty around where they came from.

Question/Riddle:

what is the main source of mutations in a genome?

That hard to say it could be many things depending on the genome and conditions. Transponing elements are considered to be the prime cause of mutations although depending on conditions radiation and mutagens can be the primary causes. During reproduction crossing over a chromosomes during meiosis is the primary cause of mutation.

na ja...then...especially for wellcookedfetus:

what is the main source of point mutations

Those damned mutagens!

Ah again spuriousmonkey you need to ask what kind of point mutation, if you ask what cause Thymine dimmers or a frame shift, Nonsense, ect. Then I could answer quickly and within 1-2 sentences.

it doesn't matter actually. The answer is the same.

I just want everyone to know that I don't know a single thing about genetics.
Why do I want everyone to know?
Well strangely I'm proud that I don't know anything about genetics. It has to be the most boring scientific subject, its to science what soccer is to sport.
Ok I'm done.

No spuriousmonkey what kind of point mutation? A point mutation does not need to be a single nucleotide mutation, it can be any form of mutation not detectable by karotyping.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I just want everyone to know that I don't know a single thing about genetics.
Why do I want everyone to know?
Well strangely I'm proud that I don't know anything about genetics. It has to be the most boring scientific subject, its to science what soccer is to sport.
Ok I'm done.

Dr. Lou, Do you know anything about flowers? I put up a riddle about daisy flowers and nobody has taken a stab at it.

Oh, by the way. Did you get those waffle irons?

i'm still waiting for the correct answer. And fetus, there are no extra points for being a smartass.

Sorry I can't answer you if you don't give me a correct question.

feel free not to answer the question.

I did answer it.

It is not the 'correct' answer (insofar that correct answers exist in biology).

Sorry.

Well how could I answer the question correctly if you can't give me a proper question?

Feel free not to answer a question that you feel is not a proper question.

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus

"Around nuclear power plants fish tend to be larger, why?”

I can imagine this is also not a proper question, since the answer is not valid in all situations.

The question could also have been: Around nuclear power plants fish tend to be dead, why?

no you ask "what is the main source of mutations in a genome? I ask which kind of mutations? since there are many types mutations caused by many sources I can not say which is the main source, if you asked "What is the most common mutation in the genome and what is its most common source" that would be a better question.

The question could also have been: Around nuclear power plants fish tend to be dead, why

But fish don't tend to be dead it’s a studied fact that they are bigger though, am I to believe that all the questions are to by hypothetical with hypothetical answers?

During the last summer many fish died near powerplants because the water there was warmer than in other areas leaving less oxygen.

I believe that the substitution of alleles during the copying of DNA causes the most genomic mutations. However, given that multiple triplets of alleles will code for the same protein, the most common cause of significant phylogenic mutation is cause by deletion of an allele, causing the rest of the gene sequence to be mis-aligned for protien transcription.

Riv, an allele is a form of a gene... a triplet of base pairs is called a codon.

river-wind, while on the right track, I don't think allele is the correct word there. Base, or nucleotide works better. An allele refers to the gene as a whole.

*edit: Dammit Blue, you beat me to it. Kudos.

ah, crap you're right. it's amazing how fast the information flys out of your brain. Three years out of school, and I'm mixing alleles and codons. :(


did I at least get the translation/transcription pair correct? translation is DNA->DNA during cell reproduction, transcription is DNA->RNA for protein creation? I was debeating which was which when I posted.

Sort of...transcription is going DNA to RNA, but translation is RNA to protein. Replication is DNA to DNA.

*edit: I didn't notice this the first time, but each codon codes for an amino acid, not the whole protein. So when you change a base, the amino acid changes (and likely all subsequent ones), because there is a shift in the codons. You are correct, multiple codons can code for an amino acid.

Whups, ya got me there Idle.

Spurious:
I sez it's DNA gnomes that does it.

Originally posted by Idle Mind
Sort of...transcription is going DNA to RNA, but translation is RNA to protein. Replication is DNA to DNA.

*edit: I didn't notice this the first time, but each codon codes for an amino acid, not the whole protein. So when you change a base, the amino acid changes (and likely all subsequent ones), because there is a shift in the codons. You are correct, multiple codons can code for an amino acid.
gah, I feel stupid.

Blue: What?

river-wind: No worries man. The only reason I have all this somewhat straight is because I am doing it now (albeit in a lot more detail), and my grade depends on it. The details aren't important, and you have the right idea.

Idle: I missed the amino acid/protein break.

Riv: I concur with Idle. Vocab was off, but idea is sound.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
Question/Riddle:

what is the main source of mutations in a genome?

Well, Mr. Monkey, I dunno. But, I think that Idle Mind and River and Blue are kinda on the right track. Here's my SWAG about how these substitutions come about; The keto-enol tautomerizations that occur in Guanine and Thymine occasionally cause T to be substituted for C and G for A. Also, the amino-imino tautomerizations that occur in Adenine that cause C to substitute for T, and the same amino-imino thing with Cytosine that will lead to A being substituted for G.

Anyhow, that's my wild guess. I understand that the repair systems usually correct almost all of this right away. But, what the hell it's my stab at this. Well, it's either this or the gnomes.

My gnomes theory gains supporters!

Originally posted by BigBlueHead
My gnomes theory gains supporters!

Hi BigBlueHead:
Well, the hypothesis that gnomes are involved does seem more plausible than the far-fetched mechanism that I proposed. I do have one problem with the gnome idea however:
Aren't gnomes placental mammals? Is is possible for them to be small enough for this?

I would have to appeal to Magic Powers to answer that question - in this manner:

"Gnomes can be small enough - if they use their Magic Powers."

I have a question - not a quiz - just something I don't know the answer to.

In some reading I've done lately I've come a the unit kDa(apologies if I've wrote it down wrong, it's not in front of me) in terms of a 30 kDa protein.

Does kDa mean 1000 amino acids? (I know this sounds dumb, but it could change the meaning of what I read)

Thanks in advance!

A kDa is a kiloDalton; it refers to a unit of atomic weight. If I remember correctly, a proton weighs one Dalton, hence a hydrogen atom weighs slightly more than one Dalton. I could be wrong... I'm not a chemist/physicist.

Check out http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictD.html

Thanks a lot, BigBlue !!

No prob, that was the easiest riddle yet! Heh.

Originally posted by BigBlueHead
A kDa is a kiloDalton; it refers to a unit of atomic weight. If I remember correctly, a proton weighs one Dalton, hence a hydrogen atom weighs slightly more than one Dalton. I could be wrong... I'm not a chemist/physicist.

Check out http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictD.html

Hi BigBlue: You're basically correct here about a hydrogen atom. But, here's the deal. If one considers naturally occurring Hydrogen, a Hydrogen atom has a mass of one dalton. Except, some Hydrogen atoms also contain a neutron. Those ones (Deuterium) have a mass of two daltons. If one looks at a periodic table, they see a mass for Hydrogen of 1.0079. This is because, if you have, say, a mole of H atoms, most of them have a mass of one dalton, and a few have a mass of two daltons. The 1.0079 is the average mass of the mix of the two isotopes. I'd go on about this a little more, but I'm busy right now researching gnomes.

Yeah, one Dalton is approximately equal to one atomic mass unit. Or it is equal...not sure.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
Question/Riddle:

what is the main source of mutations in a genome?

Answer:

There is no single answer as usual in biology. The answer totally depends on the organism. People have discussed here mostly the main causes of mutations in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.

If we look now at the evolution of viruses we see that there evolutionary speed is much higher. In fact it is in the same range as the mistake rate produced by their polymerase. Their polymerase lacks proofreading capacity. Therefore, the main source of genomic mutations in viruses is their own polymerase.

For the other sources see the discussion above.

New Riddle

The Fruitfly, or Drosophila lives only for 14 days but can produce a giant egg in only 12 hours.

How can it do this?

Ummm, isn't that the smaller the size and the shorter the life or an organism, the faster its reproduction processes are?
Or are you into something I missed?

Ummm, isn't that the smaller the size and the shorter the life or an organism, the faster its reproduction processes are?
Or are you into something I missed?

The answer is unfortunately incorrect.

Probably by metabolizing its own body mass into egg proteins, leaving it a tiny, dry, egg-filled husk. Of course, this means that different maternal lines of fruitflies would represent different mass budgets... skinny flies would forever lay small eggs, since the maternal investment would represent more mass than the fruitfly is actually able to consume from its environment in its short lifespan.

Probably by metabolizing its own body mass into egg proteins, leaving it a tiny, dry, egg-filled husk. Of course, this means that different maternal lines of fruitflies would represent different mass budgets... skinny flies would forever lay small eggs, since the maternal investment would represent more mass than the fruitfly is actually able to consume from its environment in its short lifespan.

no, still no correct answer.

ANSWER:

Drosophila lives for about 14 days and produces a large egg in 12 hours. This can be done because the oocyte (or egg) is entirely supplied with everything it needs by nurse cells.

The developing eggs are located in tubes called ovarioles. Each oogonium (egg progenitor) divides 4 times and gives rise to 16 cells. These cells remain connected to each other via thin tubes called fusomes. Only one of these cells becomes the egg. The remaining 15 sister cells become nurse cells. The nurse cells amplify their genome to contain 500 -1000 copies of it. This makes it possible to have a high level of transcriptional activity.

All the products the nurse cells produce are then moved into the egg cell.

Also the wall of the ovarioles contain follicle cells that also contribute maternal products to the egg.

Yolk proteins are manufactured outside the ovary in the fat body and then later transported to the egg.

I got a riddle: where's Neuro?

I got a riddle: where's Neuro?

he has eaten wellcookedfetus, but then WCF disappeared into a black hole.