oh wait yeah I have cats to post

Noah Versus Toba

By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — January 27, 2026

A Story That Only Fails When Taken Literally

The story of Noah has long been treated as a test of belief: either accept it as literal history or reject it outright. That framing is a mistake. Like many ancient narratives, the Noah story collapses only when it is forced into a modern,…

Noah Versus Toba

How to Write Clinical Genetics Dissertations - A Guide for Medics
Learn more here https://tr.ee/QgXysw

-

Could a hot cup of matcha dial down the ‘sneeze switch’ in allergic rhinitis?

There’s now another reason to love Japan’s famous matcha: a study in mice suggests that the green tea powder could reduce the need to sneeze in people with nasal allergies.

Matcha is a bright green powder made from specially-grown green tea leaves that are dried and ground. It’s used both for making tea and as a flavouring in a wide range of products. Previous research has shown that the tea…

Could a hot cup of matcha dial down the ‘sneeze switch’ in allergic rhinitis?

Thesis update:

I’m going to be absorbed into WormBase’s JBrowse when I die. I’ve spent so much time looking at it that I think I’m psychically linked with it somehow

Scientists Reveal Hidden History of the Modern Strawberry

The genetics are way out of my league, but may be illuminating to readers with a 21st C. knowledge of biology.

So, brain did in fact go brrrr and now I need to figure out what I’m going to post next.

On the menu we have the magic system, the taiga/tundra village building, more genetics (so much genetics….), a another small comic about another character of mine, this time from the Mountain side, more lore about kits, maybe a map at some point(?), biomes, culture in the different types….

Yeah I can’t choose, if there’s anything specific you’d like to see/hear/learn, I’m all ears!

Is Aging Genetic? | How Much Control Do You Actually Have? | Dr Tanya

Wondering if aging is all about your genes? Watch Dr. Tanya Unni debunk this myth and explain how your daily habits—diet, stress, and activity—are the real factors. Highly recommend this video to take control of your aging process!

Gratitude | RootsTech 2026

I am beyond honored and humbled that FamilySearch invited me to lecture at RootsTech 2026. To the attendees who made my session, “Let The Circle Be Unbroken: How DNA Reconstructs Enslaved Families,” a memorable moment, thank you for sharing your stories, your questions, and your dedication to repairing ruptured narratives, giving voice to those silenced by archives, and supplying dimension and nuance to characters that history had flattened. As we travel the long winding road, bobbing and weaving between documentary research and genetic analysis, never lose sight of our destination: discovery.

Whole-genome study of koalas transforms how we understand genetic risk in endangered species

A new study published in Science is challenging long-held assumptions about how we measure genetic risk in endangered species. Researchers analysed whole genomes from hundreds of koalas, finding that populations previously considered most at risk are now showing early signs of genetic regeneration.

Conservation biologists have long assumed that when a population crashes, known as a bottleneck,…

Whole-genome study of koalas transforms how we understand genetic risk in endangered species

Missing teeth that never grow back.

Permanent adult teeth never grow back, but there is a medical condition where adult teeth simply never grow in, and it’s called tooth agenesis. Normally, we get our baby teeth, which fall out & are replaced by permanent adult teeth. A genetic mutation of a gene called keratinocyte differentiation factor 1 (KDF1) disrupts the formation of tooth buds, enamel, & root development, resulting in many tooth buds never forming & the few that do erupting late or abnormally, which can lead to soreness. Sometimes, it becomes difficult to enunciate clearly or properly, or it even makes it difficult to chew. People with this condition can be permanently missing 1+ teeth, about 1.6-36.5% of the population; 1 to 5 missing teeth, up to 7% of the population; 6 or more missing teeth (0.1-0.5%); and the complete absence of all permanent teeth, well under 1/10,000, or 0.01% of the population. This condition is known as anodontia (0 adult teeth). There is no cure, but dental implants are usually indicated as well as dental bridges.

Overview of genetic adaptations to natural threats: climate, disease, etc.

How it differed in different populations.

‘For entertainment purposes.’ As always, please do your own research, and make your own conclusions.

Omega-verse Genetics?

So, I only know the very simplified basics of genetics and how they work, but I was wondering about the omega-verse and how genetics would determine your designation, and how it would be possible for a beta-beta pair could produce an alpha or omega, and vice versa for the traditional alpha-omega, and the rarer alpha-alpha and omega-omega pairings.

(Note that this most recently came into my head when I was thinking of an omega-verse MDZS au where beta-beta Jiang Fengmian and Yu Ziyuan had an omega Jiang Yanli and an alpha Jiang Cheng)

Using beta as the most common designation, though I’m not sure how important that is.

So there’s the beta, alpha, and omega genes. These genes pair together. All of these genes are automatically turned off during childhood, and only get turned on during a person’s presentation, which usually happens sometime between the ages of 10 and 14, often around the same time they start puberty if puberty starts during this time, but not always.

Generally, the beta gene is dominant, and when the other genes are paired with the beta gene, it is the beta gene that turns on during presentation, and the alpha and/or omega gene(s) stay off. However, there’s another gene that switches which of the alpha-beta-omega genes turn on, when there are 2 or 3 different genes available. When 1 of this gene is tied to the designation genes, it turns on the alpha gene, if the alpha gene is there. With 2 of this gene, they turn on the omega gene.

So basically, beta-beta gene always results in a beta, alpha-alpha gene always results in an alpha, omega-omega gene always results in omega. Without the switch gene, any gene combo that involves at least 1 beta gene results in a beta. With 1 switch gene, any gene combo with at least 1 alpha gene results in an alpha, and with 2 switch genes, any gene combo with at least 1 omega gene results in an omega.

If there’s no alpha or omega gene, the switch gene does nothing, even if it’s there. If there’s only an omega gene to switch to, 1 switch gene will turn on the omega gene. Same with the alpha gene and 2 switch genes.

Note that someone with the alpha-omega gene pairing that doesn’t have any switch genes will not naturally go through presentation, as without the switch and/or the beta gene, they seemingly neutralize each other. Their presentation needs to be forced through outside interference, and how exactly it’s done will determine whether they become an alpha or omega.

Does this make sense?

(Also, my personal headcanon is that beta-beta pairs and alpha-omega pairs have the best chances of having kids. Alpha-beta and beta-omega pairs have a harder time trying to have kids, and alpha-alpha and omega-omega pairs have the lowest chances of having kids, but all of them are technically viable.)

Is Aging Genetic? | How Much Control Do You Actually Have? | Dr Tanya

In this episode of The Daily Dose, Dr Tanya Unni debunks the biggest myth about aging: that it’s all down to genetics. While your parents might give you a “blueprint,” Dr Tanya explains why your daily choices—from what you eat to how you handle stress—are the real architects of your future.

Geneticists study evolution from the point of view of homo faber, yet parents, these studies suggest, seek out and interpret genomic information from the point of view of homo curare. I coin this term to refer to the human understood from the point of view of a being oriented and defined by care, i.e., a being instituted and constituted through relations of concern. These parents are not interpreting genetic information qua homo faber, but qua homo curare. That is to say, these parents report micro-level concerns — specifically ones concerning the possibility of their child becoming “abnormal,” which, tellingly, always acts in these studies as a synonym for “disabled.” They struggle to reconcile macro, genomic information understood from the view of homo faber with its micro, lived meaning understood from the view of homo curare.

Joel Michael Reynolds, “Health and Other Reveries: Homo Curare, Homo Faber, and the Realization of Care”, in Normality, Abnormality, and Pathology in Merleau-Ponty (2022).

Why Jurassic Park is a Lie (But The Chicken-osaurus is Real)

I’ve got a confession to make: I spent most of my childhood waiting for someone to build a real-life Jurassic Park. When I sat down to research the actual science of de-extinction, I secretly hoped to find out we were just a few breakthroughs away from cloning a Velociraptor.

Instead, my heart was completely broken by basic biology—and then, almost immediately, my mind was blown by a chicken.

Here is the harsh reality I discovered: that iconic mosquito trapped in amber won’t save us. It’s brilliant movie magic, but horrible science. Why? Because DNA is incredibly fragile and literally destroys itself over time.

DNA has a half-life of about 521 years. To put that into perspective:

• After 1,000 years: The genetic code is heavily fragmented.
• After 1.5 million years: It’s practically unreadable.
• After 6.8 million years: Every single bond is destroyed. It is gone.

Since non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, there isn’t a single drop of T-Rex DNA left anywhere on Earth.

But just as I was ready to give up on my dinosaur dreams, my research took a wildly weird turn. What if we don’t need ancient DNA? What if we just use the dinosaurs hanging out in our backyards?

Evolutionary speaking, birds aren’t just related to dinosaurs; they are dinosaurs. Deep inside a modern chicken’s DNA are dormant, silenced genes from their prehistoric ancestors. Right now, scientists are actually experimenting with chicken embryos, trying to flip those ancient genetic “switches” back on to grow a reptilian snout, crocodile-like teeth, and a long tail.

They are literally trying to reverse-engineer a “Chicken-osaurus.”

I wrote a massive deep dive into exactly how they are manipulating these embryos, the science behind it, and the massive ethical dilemmas of playing god with modern animals. If you love science and slightly terrifying genetic engineering, you need to read the full breakdown on my site:

Read my full deep dive here: The Truth About Dinosaur DNA and the ‘Chicken-osaurus’ Dream

Honestly, the tech geek in me is fascinated, but the rest of me is a little terrified. If scientists actually hatch a toothed, long-tailed “Chicken-osaurus” in our lifetime… would you want to see it in real life, or is this a boundary we shouldn’t cross? Let me know what you think!

Imagine being Rosalind Franklin and this is who steals your work and wins the Nobel price

I just want to take a second to communicate how angry I get at people who tell obese or overweight people to “just eat better” or “just exercise”, because 1) That’s Just Fucking Awful and 2) actually scientifically it’s way more complex than that????

essentially, your size is generally controlled by a neurological pathway that controls your intake of food. This pathway is made up of various different genes that can all have variation and mutation that can make huge differences in how heavy you are, and no matter how you try you cannot change the literal way your genes are laid out.

(if you want more info on this, check out the work of Prof. Giles Yeo, an experienced geneticist who I saw talk. his research focuses on understanding how the brain control of food intake differs between people and is extremely fascinating!)

Another thing I get pissed about on this topic is shaming concerning weight loss jabs. I have first hand experience of how these jabs have made a person I love very much so much more happy and confident in her life. She was overweight for a while after having children and always had eaten healthily and exercised regularly and never been able to lose weight, and I have seen how those jabs helped her feel more confident about herself again.

I know there may be side effects but this person has luckily not experienced them and been open and honest about her experience which is what that needs right now.

Basically in short overweight people are not lazy or awful or terrible you’re just an ignorant and weird human being

thanks for coming to my ted talk

Recently my work place just held a couple days of talks about breeding plants. A bunch of breeder companies (well-known ones and a few smaller ones), growers and few on the public garden end were there.

My takeaway:

One of the main goals of the “conference” was supporting the interaction from breeder to grower to retailer to gardens (mostly public). Something about how we all rely on each other in different ways within the industry. The latter 2 promote the interest and desire for plants in a consumable way, which drives the former to find and grow such plants. Breeders and growers are also trying to find solutions to diseases and pests and other “abiotic and biotic hurdles” (with the caveat of $$ and production logistics). In turn, the gardens get to run the “solution” plants through reality.

But a big take away I have from the event was how different the mind set and relationship with plants is across the board.

My work has been mostly on the public garden side, nonprofit and all, so making money isn’t a direct part of my job. Most of my experience is from that perspective. I did a couple stints elsewhere - at a large mass production greenhouse and a “luxury” garden center. Plants as consumables isn’t a foreign concept, but it’s not one I am actively thinking about.

From my outlook, in the gardens, plants can be living things, beings even, especially if you go more naturalistic in your ideals and focus on the environment and habitat.

[Side bar: I do think it depends. On the individual level - the plant person, horticulturist, gardener. And on the larger scale - the public garden spaces’ (parks can be included) big picture or missiob. In respects to the latter, some places are for display, putting beauty first, while others focus on the environmental impacts. Granted there is a lot of overlap, but those focuses affect how one interacts with the plants. What comes first (deemed of higher importance to fulfill the mission) determines how one, the employed horticulturist, gets to work with the plants and then how it’s presented to the public. That presentation influences how the public sees plants… ]

Plants may even be considered an art medium (speaking for the landscape designer). In the other areas - breeding and growing and especially retail - plants appear to be only a product, a thing to be manipulated to be purchased and hit the mark of the influenced, predetermined desires of the consumer.

Sitting through some of the talks, insight was mixed. There was a lot about the processes in creating new varieties: “check out the glow in the dark petunia”, “Oh, and this bigger flower, more purple flower. This one attracts pollinators” (specifically butterflies, but not so much bees) (and also be careful, might want to cut back earlier in the fall so it pushes the butterflies south) (which reminds me of when I heard someone suggest that annuals provide more sugar rushes than good nutrients for the respective insects and others, but no sure how legit that is) and “hey, this isn’t as a susceptible to xyz fungus or virus any more” (which is a win, though not 100% how the genetics work - long term effects).

But then in a separate talk, it was suggested that maybe we don’t need the fifth newest pinkest flower, maybe we need something that can withstand phytopthera or drought. Meaning to expand out plant choices beyond the naturally okay with it plants because of their standard habitat (I think). Which is cool, but then goes against the whole philosophy of “right plant, right place”. Then again it is making it to be possible through alternative modes, I guess. The drought resistance was mentioned in regards to the desire to have robust plants to holdup for the long run as our climate changes. Which then those comments also felt like there is a misunderstanding about plants and nature in general and gardens too. Frankly, gardens (the larger landscape of the environment) changes over time, that’s one of its whole schticks, so to want plants that can stand for the next 2 decades feels very “must control things”.

I think there maybe some benefit to the latter ideals… But I got questions.

Another element that stuck with me was from the retail side. They mentioned the desire for no flats, but bigger, statement plants, which to me feels like going backwards. Though I do understand the desire for a show piece. (The consumer was also almost always referred to as “she” and “her”, which isn’t wrong, but I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it.) And a breeder agreed, like maybe that is a way they go in the future. I, despite being a “she” however, was like noooo… I love the flats, you can get more bang for your buck. Fill the space more and have a better chance of survival, I like to think that’s the case at least. (I have realized given my position that I am not the general consumer on which standard companies are marketing for lol, so that’s something to consider.)

All in all, it was a good time. Lots of info, decent food, and lots more to ponder.