We are at a unique confluence of science and publishing in which the results of the former are being dispersed by the latter at such a rate that even the most ardent reader of popular science books can hardly keep up. This is good news for science, of course; its products are outstripping even Moore's law of doubling every 18 months, so updates and revisions are called for just as frequently. Luckily for publishers, readers are willing and able to plunk down a quarter of a hundred bucks to discover the secrets of life and the cosmos. Literary agents specializing in science tomes are demanding—and getting—five- and six-figure advances for their clients, and by most counts publishers are earning back those advances in a matter of months.

British science writer Matt Ridley is a participant in and beneficiary of this pleasant conjuncture, and he has rewarded his readers admirably with such biobestsellers as The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature and The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation—the latter being, in my opinion, the most readable book to date on evolutionary ethics. In Genome Ridley continues his expansion into larger themes, as he takes us on a roller-coaster ride through the very foundation of life: DNA. The carnival-ride metaphor is apt, because in Genome Ridley hits many highs and lows (depending on the complexity of the subject and his knowledge of it) and leaves the reader feeling a little dizzy at the end. The fault, on one level, is not Ridley's, as he has taken on a subject vastly deeper and more complicated than can possibly be covered in a single volume—any one of the 23 chapters could have been a book in itself. And he has succeeded in providing a highly readable and informative encapsulation of the science that promises to do for the 21st century what nuclear physics did for the 20th. A revolution is in the making, and Ridley has his finger on its pulse.
Ridley's technique is at once clever and delimiting: Each chapter represents a chromosome, for which he has chosen a single entity supposedly determined or influenced by that chromosome. For example, there are chapters on intelligence, instinct, self-interest, disease and stress—entities that he associates with chromosomes 6 through 10, respectively. It is a facile literary device to help readers get their minds around this illimitable subject, but I fear that it gives the wrong impression—Ridley's disclaimers notwithstanding—that such things as intelligence, instinct or self-interest are wholly located on a single chromosome and are therefore genetically programmed and biologically determined.
I sometimes wonder, only half in jest, if there isn't a metagene gene—a gene that causes people to think that everything is in our genes. Evolutionary psychologists could have a field day with the concept. Of course, Paleolithic cavepersons knew nothing about genes, so we must postulate that they tended to view the actions of others as either largely capricious or largely determined. Those who took the latter view would be those with the metagene gene, and they would of course be better adapted and more successful, because awareness of living in a deterministic world allows one to better determine cause-and-effect relationships, and that is what leads to enhanced survival and the propagation of one's genes, including the metagene gene.
Okay, I'm being rather facetious. I do think evolutionary psychology has much value to add to the social sciences. But the glut of books by authors who seem themselves to believe there is a metagene gene is, I fear, doing more harm than good to the public understanding of how science and nature really work.
Fortunately, in most cases Ridley does an admirable job of clarifying the enormous complexities involved in gene-environment interactions, demonstrating in numerous cases that it is next to impossible to say that any complex human trait (such as intelligence or athletic ability) is, say, 60 percent genetically determined and 40 percent environmentally shaped.
For example, in "Chromosome 11: Personality" Ridley discusses the gene D4DR, which is located on the short arm of the 11th chromosome and codes for dopamine, a neurotransmitter that stimulates the organism to be active—or not, if a shortage exists: A complete lack of dopamine, for example, causes humans (or rats) to become catatonic, and high levels of it make them frenetic. Ridley here summarizes the fascinating work of Dean Hamer, who in his quest to find genes for smoking and homosexuality discovered the gene (or, more precisely, the gene complex) for the novelty-seeking personality. It turns out that the D4DR gene sequence is repeated on chromosome 11; most of us have 4 to 7 copies, but some have only 2 or 3 and others have 8 to 11. Those with more copies of D4DR have a lower responsiveness to dopamine in certain parts of the brain. Hamer theorized that this might mean that they would need to
No they do not. Scientists study it to figure it out why some have it and others do not. It is quite rare, actually. Certain humans are capable of things most would consider strange and not human, such as being able to calculate things at an incredible speed, or an athlete faster than an Olympic medalist.
<em>Answer (d) is right answer.</em>because the prokaryotes into two domain is the difference in genome sequences.
The two prokaryote spaces, Bacteria and Archaea, split from one another Archaea are likewise different, however none are <em>pathogenic and many live in outrageous conditions. </em>
Prokaryotes are genuinely more straightforward cells than eukaryotes, and their genomes are a basic, single hover of primarily coding successions of DNA, which is repeated and coded into proteins quickly.
Archaea flourish in various limits such as heat, cool, corrosive, base, saltiness, weight, and radiation.
These diverse ecological conditions after some time have permitted Archaea to develop with their outrageous surroundings so they are adjusted to them and, actually, make some hard memories adapting to less extraordinary conditions.
Most extremophiles are microorganisms (and a high extent of these are archaea), however this gathering additionally incorporates eukaryotes, for example, protists (e.g. green growth, parasites and protozoa) and multicellular life forms.
Archaea is the fundamental gathering to flourish in <em>outrageous situation</em>
In 1678, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek reported that he had observed "little animals" — protozoa — through a microscope. The discovery of the cell was made possible by the invention of the microscope, which was made possible by improved lens-grinding techniques.
