I’ve never felt one under water, nor did I try to go skin deep when I had my opportunity, but I would guess they’re pretty dry under there, I couldn’t say for sure though.

Their fur is very dense, otter fur has more hairs per square inch than any other mammal, a million per square inch, like a hundred times what humans have. The oils excreted into their fur creates a hydrophobic layer that keeps the water on the outside. It’s in nowhere near shark skin (which exhibits incredibe hydrodynamics, like we’re studying it in labs to better improve aerodynamics of cars and planes, a single bite of food is enough to get a great white shark from California to Japan their skin is so efficient at moving through water), but it’s very good at keeping the water out and their movement efficient, their hair does not cause Resistance like human hair does. Our hair hangs out and gets water in it and creates drag, otter hair seals itself around the meat and creates a cylinder, keeping happy warm dry otter inside.

I got the treat of touching/petting a wild otter while it was sedated, it’s on of my top 10 experiences. It was not a happy camper when it woke up. It had to be in an ice bath while sedated otherwise it’s hair/fur coat would’ve caused it to overheat while being knocked out because it is incapable of homeostatic regulation while sedated. When it woke up it was a wild otter in an ice bath, lil (haha, huge actually) dude was pissed.

That’s not what that line means at all?

You’re not too far off with the essence of a couple of them, I’ll give you props for coming up with some very silly ideas,

Much more frivolous.

In the future (probably in the next couple years) after a company I with with release their product, I’ve learned of the stupidest use for diamonds you’ve never heard of, I’ll drop it here in whatever announcement package they release.

They’ll still be in a mess, and people will expect them to have an answer to brexit, and progress will be slow, but too slow for muck rakers, and they’ll get replaced because they’re “incompetent”, by the torries.

I’ve yet to find a plant substitute for every flavor and texture that I might want to consume, variety is the spice of life. We could all eat Soylent or jelly fish, and if that was all we had let’s chow down! I eat vegetables as much as I enjoy to, and I eat other things in the same moderation. I don’t eat things that are trying to imitate other things, I nearly always prefer the original to the imitation (I appreciate that some people don’t want the original, or cannot have the original, so I’ve never talked against those products existing), plants do not have the same texture, nor cook the same way, as meats, it doesn’t happen. I’m not against progress and I appreciate the ethical (and sometimes biological) argument against modern farming, but I would try to dissuade you against turning perfect into the enemy of better.

I’m ready for lab grown meat farms.

No (very little) ethical implication

Scientifically tuned flavors and meat content (allergens? Vitamins?)

More focused growth, less waste

Fewer emissions

More low impact agriculture areas, more habitat for wildlife restored

Less transit costs, meat grown within the cities it’s consumed in

Less antibiotic resistant bacteria

No chance of mad cow/that T disease pigs used to spread.

His constituents “that matter”. He almost said the quiet part out loud

Lest we get bogged down with the notion cis or trans this only happens at this frequency in America.

Every sperm isn’t sacred and every piece of DNA isn’t with purpose, otherwise explain ferns and plants having hundreds of times more DNA than higher functioning life forms.

deleted by creator

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I respect your knowledge and agree with you for the most part. From an evolutionary perspective there’s very little pressure to cull genetic material that does not have a purpose, genome replication is already taking place and takes very little overall energy/time.

There may not be as much useless DNA in the system as previously thought, but not every codon pair has a use. There are undoubtedly identical transcription codes being suppressed in one section of DNA that are active in other regions, and it may have been useful to have that extra region available if pressures ever applied that caused that region to be reactivated, but if mutation occurred and caused that region to no longer have the original blueprint it was coding for, it could theoretically create actual evolutionary pressure to eliminate/suppress that section of the genome, it could be suppressed/inactive harmful DNA, not junk but also not beneficial.

My biggest hang-up on the whole “every codon has a purpose” argument is that it blatantly ignores the evidence occurring so much more frequently at “lower” life forms. Eukaryotic single cell organisms swap DNA rather readily, it’s a much higher risk/reward mechanism of evolution, a lot of that DNA, if it turns out to be beneficial, will be ancillary to the actual genes with benefit. Plants have genomes that vary in length from generation up generation, often times much larger than required, maybe it’s because they chill in the sun all day and are more susceptible to genetic mutation, but just because there’s extra targets for codon swapping, doesn’t mean that DNA is set there with purpose. It just exists. It may have been beneficial at one point, but it’s only there because it isn’t detrimental enough to have selection pressure repercussions. If pressures were high enough they every codon mattered, (or if it were designed intelligently so that every codon mattered) a lot of genomes (I’m not to nervous to claim I believe all genomes) would be shorter due to junk culling, it’s just such a small factor in the schema that it isn’t ever selected against.

If a gene becomes disabled (a start triplicate pair gets changed to a nonsense triplicate), and it turns out that gene was no longer useful so there’s no impact on survivability/reproduction, what happens to the rest of the pairs before the next start triplicate? That stop triplicate and everything before it is now useless. Except evolution doesn’t understand useless, there’s just as much chance of flipping that gene back on as there is of shortening all of that non readable DNA by just 1 codon length, DNA replicators are very good at not dropping codons. But not you have a gene that isn’t being read (outside of replication) or transcribed, and it really isn’t costing the individual any significant amount of extra resources to continue to produce that set of code in that strand, so it just hangs out.

There are dozens of other mechanisms to control the rate of protein synthesis, why would junk DNA be the controlling mechanism for it when there are epigenetics, gates, chemical limits, so many different ways rare limit down the path.

“It’s there so it must have function” is spitting in the face of the theory of evolution. “It’s still in the genetic code so it must’ve been selected for” is barely less offensive. Evolution does not select for efficiency, it’s descent with modification, there is no pressure that says the genetic information must be as efficiently contained as possible. Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica

Also I’m not at all arguing that proteins are junk (also not saying they’re peak efficiency, but “junk” in a ‘read’ section of DNA is clearly not ‘junk’), I’m arguing there are sections of DNA, especially repeating sections outside of start stop sections, that are without purpose.

There are way more than half a dozen, they’re just too dry to get the algorithm’s/communities attention. Most Internet viewers want an answer in x minutes or less, they don’t care to understand what the details of the questions are. If an answer is able to be given in a few minutes, why would the question exist for centuries?

Sure large proteins have multiple forms and functions, but we do know the exact makeup shape and function of a lot of the smaller ones, like the ones that are small enough to get between either strand of an opened helix to read, transcribe, and send for translation the code for the larger proteins (anything inside the nucleus). Saying all proteins are inherently not understandable because there are large proteins that we don’t have full understanding of, is just as incorrect as saying we know every function of every synthesized protein.

Also I can’t stand veritasium, he gives over simplified, easy to latch onto, “explanations” of questions and misses out on a lot of minutia that would actually lead to a better understanding of why these questions exist. But people on the Internet love that stuff because they get an answer and are enabled to say “well actually” next time the topic comes up even though they’ve barely gotten any of the details of the problem itself. Pop science at it’s worst. Him and numberphile both

A pretty deus ex machina approach.

How would the size of this plants genetic code be justified I wonder?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_japonica

There are plenty of plants that execute the exact same functions with code thousands of times smaller.

To say every codon has a purpose is to be ignorant of how evolution works. There are start triplicate pairs and stop triplicate pairs, the regions between stop and start don’t need to have function, even structurally, otherwise why would chromosomes come in different lengths? There was no creator of the genome, there was no efficiency driven outcome, there’s only descent with modification, things just happen to with the way they work, and that’s beautiful in it’s own way.

Junk DNA is repeating codons, or codons that occur in areas that are outside of the “start/stop” codon triplicate pairs. A DNA transcribing protein will read the genetic code from a start signal, until it gets to a stop signal. Then it clips itself off the chain and re-binds the chain together for the next transcriber to use. Sometimes there are extra codons between a stop signal and the next start signal, sometimes there are hundreds of thousands of extra codons. They aren’t there for structural reasons, all DNA is the same 4 codons linked together over and over, all the different chromosomes are different sizes. All of this DNA is reported when the cells divide, that’s the only time those regions between the stops and starts actually come into play. This is very easily proven, we know the structure of the reading proteins down to the molecule (indeed there are starts and stops and triplicate base pairs that design these transcribing proteins). The “important” junk DNA that has significance while not being in a “start->stop” zone are the codons that occur before the first start codon on either side of a DNA strand, when DNA is replicated the protein that starts replicating it has to start at 1 end of 1 side of the DNA in order to be able to read it, except it needs to find the end first, and to make sure it’s all the end it “clips” the first 6 (? Maybe more maybe less, it’s been decades since I’ve studied this) codons from the strand of DNA, this is lost for all future replications of the cell, your DNA actually gets shorter every time your cells reproduce (except your miosis division cells, they have a special replication process that keeps the full length of every chromosome).

Sorry for the wall of text, but there’s plenty of examples of blatantly junk DNA, and there are known methods of how it occurs. Anyone who says every codon pair has a purpose has a screw loose and is ignorant to the mechanics of evolution.

He needs to look at some plant DNA, there are places with 50 times now DNA codons per cell than Humans have, with many many many times fewer genes.

“If it’s there it must be there for a reason” sounds an awful lot like intelligent design to me, and his putting down his colleges for holding alternative (seemingly more informed than his own) theories doesn’t help my view of him. More codons don’t mean more reason, evolution is not what is most efficient, it’s just what works best at any time. It’s also full of cross contamination at the simple life form level, and what’s good for one single cellular life form might benefit another life form, but the entirety of that first life form isn’t necessary for the second, so evolution would suggest that the absorbing life form will slowly whittle down what isn’t necessary.

Or has mitochondria always been perfectly fit for it’s function in our cells? (Hint it hasn’t)