Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interesting Stuff Thread

24567…219

Comments

  • #32
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    People might be interested to know that, according to this(see very last question), Richard Dawkins' next book will be about "the evidence for evolution". I guess presented for the lay person.


  • #33
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Dave! wrote: »
    Richard Dawkins' next book will be about "the evidence for evolution".

    Should be a good read.

    Taught I'd repost this (posted by another user in another thread). It seems we have discovered another link in the water -> land evolutionary mosaic:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7473470.stm


  • #34
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhIaOFbrEtI


    dave allen - practicing atheist


  • #35
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Major findings in avian evolution:

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/26/bird-evolution.html

    Primary publication:

    RT Kimball, S Reddy et al. (2008) Science 27 June, Vol. 320. no. 5884, pages 1763 - 1768


  • #36
    IrishKnight
    Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭IrishKnight


    The Irish Atheists

    http://www.atheist.ie/

    This is the new link to Irish Atheists.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    http://fora.tv/2006/04/20/Among_the_Dead_Cities

    christopher hitchens and A.C. Grayling talking about the morality of civilian bombing in ww2.


  • #38
    maitri
    Closed Accounts Posts: 426 ✭✭maitri


    The Relative Size of the Universe:pac:


  • #39
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Noisy vertebrates are much older than thought:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7510443.stm


  • #40
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Proposed Evolutionary Science forum:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56659345#post56659345

    If anyone's interest (or thinks it's a bad idea) please feel free to comment!


  • #41
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Proposed Evolutionary Science forum:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56659345#post56659345

    If anyone's interest (or thinks it's a bad idea) please feel free to comment!

    As long as first order of business is to move this thread there. :P


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Here's one of the TED Talks series on human evolution, worth a look!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=V-TGxJI4JwA


  • #43
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    anyone got a decent article on how evolution creates new/different species?


  • #44
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Standman wrote: »
    Here's one of the TED Talks series on human evolution, worth a look!

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=V-TGxJI4JwA
    Hah I was half way through watching that when you posted :pac: Pretty good video

    Oh ye may also be interested in this (youtube) video of Richard Dawkins being interviewed on Al Jazeera english. Pretty good clip (10 mins).


  • #45
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Big Brains Arose Separately in Multiple Primate Groups

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080718-bigger-brains.html


  • #46
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    anyone got a decent article on how evolution creates new/different species?

    I'll dig around for a general review of speciation, or if I get time I'll just outline it here myself :pac:


  • #47
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I'll dig around for a general review of speciation, or if I get time I'll just outline it here myself :pac:

    Do it. :pac:

    I'm starting to warm to the idea of this forum.

    What I find interesting in evolution is speculating about the evolutionary advantage a certain physical trait might have. For example... eyebrows! Might be useful for keeping sweat from your eyes when you're running, no? So you'd have an advantage when fleeing or fighting, and so be more likely to live and propagate those genes.

    I'm also really interested in evolutionary psychology. For example things like emotions being a means for guiding action. Fear is usually evoked when you perceive something threatening, so there's an advantage to that because you're likely to be cautious around it.

    I was also reading about the evolutionary basis for facial expressions, which was cool... For example they did tests on perception with people holding the 'startled' facial expression (open mouth and nose, wide eyes), and found that they perceived the stimulus quicker than usual. So there's an advantage there!

    I was also watching an interesting talk by Michael Shermer (founder of the American Skeptic Society) about evolutionary economics! Pretty interesting.

    You also have the whole area of memes, and how ideas evolve over time.

    Dan Denett (coulda been quoting someone) pointed out that people (scientists) are reluctant to associate human ingenuity with evolution. Spider web? yes. World wide web? no. Beaver dam? yes. Hoover dam? no. :)


  • #48
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Dave! wrote: »
    Do it. :pac:

    If the genetic analysis I'm doing today does not turn my brain into wet cake, I will give it a shot. I'll try to make it as accessible as I can.
    Dave! wrote: »
    Dan Denett (coulda been quoting someone) pointed out that people (scientists) are reluctant to associate human ingenuity with evolution. Spider web? yes. World wide web? no. Beaver dam? yes. Hoover dam? no. :)

    People get afraid when things such as human uniqueness start to be eroded by reason! I personally read some very scary articles about choice and free will this year that I'd rather not have to believe.


  • #49
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    People get afraid when things such as human uniqueness start to be eroded by reason! I personally read some very scary articles about choice and free will this year that I'd rather not have to believe.

    Link! :D


  • #50
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Dave! wrote: »
    Link! :D

    There's been a few, here is one...

    The paper (not free sadly):

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html;jsessionid=AACD3358632BA50FB06B71815D8407F2

    Mainstream coverage (New Scientist):

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/brain/dn13658-brain-scanner-predicts-your-future-moves.html

    The implications being that some decisions may be made by the brain prior to engagement of the consciousness. What we perceive as a conscious choice is merely our unconscious informing us that a decision has been made.


  • #51
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I'll dig around for a general review of speciation, or if I get time I'll just outline it here myself :pac:

    If you could that would be great. I can completly understand how evolution works within a species but interspecies I I don't know much. The main reason I believe in it is the people who do are generally very logical/trustworthy


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    bogwalrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    I need help in understanding something.

    How and in what way can humans affect the evolution of other species and is it possible that there is a hierarchy involved. By hierarchy i mean that the evolution of the bettering of humans is more importanat then that of another species.

    I say and ask this because of the way horses have evolved to be perfect species for transporting us lazy humans around. Their bone structure and build is scientifically perfect for carrying humans and this is believed to have happened through evolution.

    Instead of the horse evolving to carry humans (which i imagine causes the horse some sort of pain and back problems) why did evolution not give the horse a defense against humans such as needles on its back??

    I know the question is very simple and in parts silly but if you get the jist of what i am saying maybe you could answer my query,tnx


  • #53
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    I need help in understanding something.

    How and in what way can humans affect the evolution of other species and is it possible that there is a hierarchy involved. By hierarchy i mean that the evolution of the bettering of humans is more importanat then that of another species.

    There's no evidence to suggest a hierarchy of evolution in favour of humans. Species evolve at varying rates which are primarily dependent on the types of selective pressures and extent of exposure to mutagenic influences. You should also understand that evolution does not work to "better" a species. It works merely to change a species. There is no "goal" per se.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    I say and ask this because of the way horses have evolved to be perfect species for transporting us lazy humans around. Their bone structure and build is scientifically perfect for carrying humans and this is believed to have happened through evolution.

    They're not perfect really. Bone breakages are a serious problem for horses and their temperament occasionally means that humans get kicked through the chest. One could equally contend that horses are perfectly evolved to allow chimpanzees to ride them. Really it is just that humans domesticated a wide range of animals and quickly discovered the advantages of riding horses. They simply chose the best fit from a very very wide range of organisms. The ancient Indians would no doubt have considered the Elephant to have been perfectly built for riding too. This again is just a question of humans picking the best fit.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    Instead of the horse evolving to carry humans (which i imagine causes the horse some sort of pain and back problems) why did evolution not give the horse a defense against humans such as needles on its back??

    If there is a survival advantage to preventing humans from riding horses, perhaps they will develop a specific mechanism to allow this. I suspect though, that horses as a species benefit quite well from our symbiosis. We guarantee their food and breeding, we increase their number and protect them from disease. Also, there hasn't really been enough time for horses to have adapted through evolution since their domestication. Evolution generally works on the scale of 10s of thousands of years and the horse has only been domesticated for about 6000 years.


  • #54
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    If you could that would be great. I can completly understand how evolution works within a species but interspecies I I don't know much. The main reason I believe in it is the people who do are generally very logical/trustworthy

    Well if you can understand what the creationist types refer to as "micro evolution" then you can understand "macro evolution". The processes are exactly the same. As will Bulmers, nothing added but time.


  • #55
    bogwalrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »



    If there is a survival advantage to preventing humans from riding horses, perhaps they will develop a specific mechanism to allow this. I suspect though, that horses as a species benefit quite well from our symbiosis. We guarantee their food and breeding, we increase their number and protect them from disease. Also, there hasn't really been enough time for horses to have adapted through evolution since their domestication. Evolution generally works on the scale of 10s of thousands of years and the horse has only been domesticated for about 6000 years.


    thanks for the informative reply.

    In the above verse you talk about how horses benefit from our symbiosis with them, so evolving to become more "attractive" to humans would be a step in the right direction for a horse would it not? Such as better temperment and ability to learn new tricks and all that.
    What i find interesting is the fact that evolution "realises" that humans are good for horses without there being an obvious external pressure at all. Or am i missing something here? How is it that a horse can evolve to be more easily domesticated and useful where there does not seem to be a trigger for this evolutionary step.

    And the whole point of one species effecting another species evolution like i made in my first point.


  • #56
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    thanks for the informative reply.

    In the above verse you talk about how horses benefit from our symbiosis with them, so evolving to become more "attractive" to humans would be a step in the right direction for a horse would it not? Such as better temperment and ability to learn new tricks and all that.
    What i find interesting is the fact that evolution "realises" that humans are good for horses without there being an obvious external pressure at all. Or am i missing something here? How is it that a horse can evolve to be more easily domesticated and useful where there does not seem to be a trigger for this evolutionary step.

    And the whole point of one species effecting another species evolution like i made in my first point.

    I know this may sound cliche, but you should read The Selfish Gene. After reading it I was left in no doubt about the workings of genes and natural selection, at least from a laymans level anyway.

    :pac:


  • #57
    bogwalrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    I know this may sound cliche, but you should read The Selfish Gene. After reading it I was left in no doubt about the workings of genes and natural selection, at least from a laymans level anyway.

    :pac:


    sounds like a good read. Just saw some reviews on the net. Thanks for that:)


  • #58
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    sounds like a good read. Just saw some reviews on the net. Thanks for that:)

    Its a brilliant book, one of my favourites. It teaches you a lot about game theory as well as biology. Oh and the 'memes' chapter is jaw-dropping.

    Enjoy!


  • #59
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    thanks for the informative reply.

    In the above verse you talk about how horses benefit from our symbiosis with them, so evolving to become more "attractive" to humans would be a step in the right direction for a horse would it not? Such as better temperment and ability to learn new tricks and all that.

    This may occur, however humans selectively breed horses as it is, so most of the attractive traits one would observe emerging in horses are because of human selection rather than natural selection.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    What i find interesting is the fact that evolution "realises" that humans are good for horses without there being an obvious external pressure at all. Or am i missing something here?

    Evolution is blind. It realises nothing. Traits that are benefical survive in the gene pool for that reason alone. Those that are not beneficial either have no effect at all or quite the reverse. They tend not to survive to reproduce and are not passed on. This is a very basic version of how natural selection works.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    How is it that a horse can evolve to be more easily domesticated and useful where there does not seem to be a trigger for this evolutionary step.

    I'm not sure that horses are any easier to domesticate than they previously were. We rear them from birth so they are domesticated throughout life. As to a "trigger" for changes in the Horse gene pool- we have driven that by selective breeding. This can be seen as a part of evolution but it is too soon for there to be many significant changes due to natural selection.

    As to your question about how species influence each others evolution, this is very much the case. Natural selection includes many influences. Environment, food supply, prevalence and health of own species, interaction with other species. These all constitute what we refer to as "selective pressures". They define the boundaries of which traits survive and which do not.


  • #60
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I'm not sure that horses are any easier to domesticate than they previously were. We rear them from birth so they are domesticated throughout life. As to a "trigger" for changes in the Horse gene pool- we have driven that by selective breeding. This can be seen as a part of evolution but it is too soon for there to be many significant changes due to natural selection.

    There's a good chapter on domestication in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel - all the domesticated species share certain traits: unfussily herbivorous, fast-growing, easily breeding, non-violent disposition, herd together when panicked rather than bolting, not overly territorial, and living in hierarchical herds. Lack of any one of those characteristics has meant domestication has been unsuccessful.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    There's a good chapter on domestication in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel - all the domesticated species share certain traits: unfussily herbivorous, fast-growing, easily breeding, non-violent disposition, herd together when panicked rather than bolting, not overly territorial, and living in hierarchical herds. Lack of any one of those characteristics has meant domestication has been unsuccessful.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Yep, with the notable exceptions of dogs and cats...


Advertisement