|
minasole take your meds
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 11:16
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
minasole, don't take your meds. I think you are on to something big here. take your meds, man. seriously. no great story in all of history, ever, started with not taking the meds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Proof of concept: when your Mom stopped taking birth control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
minasole posted:1)Apart from the solar energy, dis-equillibrium is maintained by the different isoforms that organic stereochemistry pose, which adds to the diversity and mechanics that is needed to avoid equillibrium.... Ok! Now i am going to take my meds so i can vote!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
To see the importance of stickiness, take for instance the sponges. Recent studies has shown that they were one of the first organisms on earth, along with corals. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sea-sponge-oldest-animal-on-earth-a6891511.html They don’t seem quite like the other animals. In fact, I would say that they are something in between animals, plants and plain random chemical systems. However, the strong adhesions between molecules (as well as other things) in sponges makes those systems sustainable over time. They can sustain themselves for millennia. The same thing happens with corals. These systems could serve as something like “chemical labs” performing chemical experiments for thousands of years before they die. Any chemical novelty that can sustain itself will survive and will be selected. And we know today that reproduction is one of the best strategies. So, a sponge before it dies, maybe can create other sponges, or something similar. Maybe this is why sponges and corals have now multiple reproductive strategies. PS Old cars or old technology, although performed inferiorly, however they lasted longer!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
Just in case anyone isn't already better informed than village idiot minasole: Cells in sponges stick together more weakly than in higher animals. In fact, the ability to form tightly stuck-together cell epithelia is a defining characteristic for higher animals. It's also been known for a long time that sponges and cnidarians (jellyfish and corals and stuff) are among the oldest groups of animals so congratulations on joining the rest in the world in knowing basic facts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
I thought this was interesting. A common ancestor of most animals had fine neuron cilia that we have but other animals like lobsters can live without.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
minasole posted:These systems could serve as something like “chemical labs” performing chemical experiments for thousands of years before they die. Any chemical novelty that can sustain itself will survive and will be selected. And we know today that reproduction is one of the best strategies. One of the many speculations about early life is that it began in small water puddles, that acted as bio reactors. Heavy rainfall would connects all smaller puddles into a huge water reservoir, where everything is nicely mixed over days and weeks. As the water slowly retreats, separate little water reservoirs form. During the evaporation process, the salt concentrations slowly increases(high salt concentrations are absolutely necessary for polymer folding) and when they dry out completely, you can get crystalization of bio-molecules into complicated structures. It's an awesome idea and makes so much sense, considering the number of small water puddles at any given moment on earth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:One of the many speculations about early life is that it began in small water puddles, that acted as bio reactors. Heavy rainfall would connects all smaller puddles into a huge water reservoir, where everything is nicely mixed over days and weeks. As the water slowly retreats, separate little water reservoirs form. During the evaporation process, the salt concentrations slowly increases(high salt concentrations are absolutely necessary for polymer folding) and when they dry out completely, you can get crystalization of bio-molecules into complicated structures. It's an awesome idea and makes so much sense, considering the number of small water puddles at any given moment on earth. I think this model makes more sense when applied to coasts and tidal basins - lots of churning, different salt contents (sea water mixing with fresh run off), and lots of pebbles and sand for substrate surface area. I attended a proteomics review recently and one concept touched on was how single unit cells of some minerals have been integrated into proteins.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I thought this was interesting. A common ancestor of most animals had fine neuron cilia that we have but other animals like lobsters can live without. We don't really have those either, to my knowledge. They are part of a design that is really efficient for small, very symmetrical, long invertebrates because it efficiently coordinates motion, especially legless motion. That's why worms have conserved that design but arthropods haven't, most likely. Individual nerve projections from the midline is still the basic organizational principal that vertebrates use, of course, but scaled up to fibers instead. This guy is in the middle of getting rid of that design and transitioning to moving around on legs controlled by larger nerve clusters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:This guy is in the middle of getting rid of that design and transitioning to moving around on legs controlled by larger nerve clusters. I think that is a very linear perspective of 'intermediate form' that I don't subscribe to. Thinking of nerve growth you need different cues for different structures to grow in the proper direction/orientation (much like how plants grow in response to gravity and light) - if the fossil is a common ancestor it seems possible that one set of critters went one way - keeping and developing more complex neuron genes - while others mutated, lost sophistication, but get along fine. Or here's a funny thought - maybe the fossil record is the worst source of evolutionary trends because this one didn't live long back in the Cambrian days. We're the descendants of winners who didn't get fossilized. The losers died and were subducted to become our industrial fuel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I think that is a very linear perspective of 'intermediate form' that I don't subscribe to. Thinking of nerve growth you need different cues for different structures to grow in the proper direction/orientation (much like how plants grow in response to gravity and light) - if the fossil is a common ancestor it seems possible that one set of critters went one way - keeping and developing more complex neuron genes - while others mutated, lost sophistication, but get along fine. I never asserted that it was a naturally inferior design or anything. It isn't. In fact, it's an incredibly efficient one, for the right body size and type. The additional complexity of other designs basically arose to surmount the distance issues that develop when you have a larger body. Once you have a different body plan - as indicated by this critter having legs - a different organization is called for. Both us and arthropods developed much more sophisticated nervous systems than what this thing has because we have more complicated bodies, though we came to somewhat different solutions. You are mistaking the efficiency of the worm-like nervous system at the appropriate scale for sophistication, but it really isn't, if you read about it in any detail. Organization on the level of individual neuron projections isn't inherently complex. In fact, at that level, simple is much better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
I was referring to this study, which is quite recent. McDowell posted:
minasole fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
minasole posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sea-sponge-oldest-animal-on-earth-a6891511.html  That study pins down a somewhat more precise time estimate, it does not actually say much new beyond that. Of course, it is unsurprising you are unable to understand anything beyond a sensationalist newspaper headline. quote:Hmmm!! Interesting but the bones of our grandparents will be fossilized one day!! We are supposed to be the winners!! I don't think you understand how the fossil record works, or for that matter how the argument you're responding to works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
minasole posted:Hmmm!! Interesting but the bones of our grandparents will be fossilized one day!! We are supposed to be the winners!! Jesus Christ, I really hope no one ever digs up my grandfather and throws him into some bog.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Bury me in the fine volcanic sediments of a shallow lake 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
blowfish posted:
So you mean that after 10 million years maybe there will be no signs of humans from our period? I thought that everything major was, more or less, recorded. blowfish posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Or here's a funny thought - maybe the fossil record is the worst source of evolutionary trends because this one didn't live long back in the Cambrian days. We're the descendants of winners who didn't get fossilized. The losers died and were subducted to become our industrial fuel. Generally, you'd expect the "winners" to have a better fossil record since they have more chances at fossilization. Granted, I'm not totally sure what you're even proposing here. Are you trying to say that basal members of lineages seen today are actually highly derived and radically different from the ur-organism of that lineage? Because there's not much you can change on, say, Pikaia and still end up with a plausible ur-chordate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Generally, you'd expect the "winners" to have a better fossil record since they have more chances at fossilization. Granted, I'm not totally sure what you're even proposing here. Are you trying to say that basal members of lineages seen today are actually highly derived and radically different from the ur-organism of that lineage? Because there's not much you can change on, say, Pikaia and still end up with a plausible ur-chordate. We will never know..
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
minasole posted:We will never know.. There exists a thing called the scientific method, which combined with information from genetics, biotechnology, and evolutionary biology can actually answer that exact question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:57 |
|
|
blowfish posted:There exists a thing called the scientific method, which combined with information from genetics, biotechnology, and evolutionary biology can actually answer that exact question. Agreed!! We had a little problem understanding the hypothesis of Mcdowell though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:45
|
|