|
Life is what you make of it!
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Wouldn't the selection pressure then come from fire and its use as a kind of 'external digestion', which then lets jaws get smaller? IIRC paleo-anthropologists currently put a lot of emphasis on the shift to a more palatable diet in the evolution of large brains. However the big change wasn't a shrinking sagittal crest, but a smaller stomach. So some physiologists were looking at the body and noticed, hey, humans have these huge brains eating up a ton of energy. To meet the needs of a big brain, we should expect humans to have a faster metabolism than our small brained ape cousins. However when they measured the metabolism of chimpanzees and gorillas, they found that wasn't the case. Humans and their cousins all used energy at about the same rate, even though humans had a calorie guzzling head. So where were apes spending all their energy? Well it turns out breaking raw leaves and tubers into usable energy is really expensive. If you look at gorillas you'll notice they have really big guts, and you can even see the difference in ape skeletons with their bowed out ribs. All the energy apes saved via a small brain got spent on their digestive system. So when proto-humans started eating a more digestible and energy dense diet, they freed up lots of metabolic space they could invest in big brains, and simultaneously lost the need for a big muscular jaw. Of course this theory doesn't necessarily contradict the idea that large sagittal crests capped skull capacity.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:There isn't any evidence for any of that. The only distinguishable hominid known to have interbred with human were the neanderthals, and even then there isn't any conclusive proof as to what caused them to disappear as a distinct sub-species. As for waxing lyrical about 'what is a man', lmao ok whatever. The past century was the most peaceful in all of human history, so it would be far more accurate to say that we've been finding reasons not to kill each other since whenever. There is genetic evidence of interbreeding between modern humans and other populations as different from us as neanderthals. The most accepted example is the Denisovans in Asia, who contributed a lot to the DNA of modern Melanesians, but some researchers now believe there were multiple other cases. This is difficult to demonstrate for many reasons, Denisovans for example were unknown until very recently and there still aren't many samples.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Phyzzle posted:Doesn't information require some being who can potentially perceive it? Yes, the information written in a book can be said to exist separately from a physical copy of the book, but if the last speaker of that language dies without leaving a translation key, the information is lost. Unless "the information" can sort of hover around a book with no potential readers, a perceiver is required. If life is information, who is the perceiver? Life perceives itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The level of distinction that Denisovans ought to have from Sapiens of their time is rather contentious. The same can be said of many hominids, including Neanderthals. If they were interbreeding they couldn't have been that distinct!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Interstellar or not, all species will o extinct. The only real question is: What comes next?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
We will die, but Life itself is immortal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
RODNEY THE RACEHOR posted:G-d is not a Deity; that is to say an Individual; G-d is an extreme Multiple to the point of Technical Infinity (there is no such Thing as Infinity); rather than creating Situations where Probability does not exist this Multiple exerts super natural forces upon the existing Possibilities; creating an Instance where in a Possibility is created and nurtured via external Factors. Chaos to the extent that a Complex State such as Conscious Life could be brought into being by Chance is not comprehensible with in the Neurological Constraints of Humanity (all Psychology is created and furthermore limited by the properties of Cell; there fore it inhabits the same Sphere as G-d; that is to say a vast and unknowable Force. There fore the only Logical Conclusion is to believe in a Creative Force; and by extension to believe in Creation (though I do not agree with the word Creation as commonly used; no thing can be created or destroyed; a more suitable term is Manipulation; or Artistry) by believing in infinitely nesting Yes Possibilities leading to the existence of Conscious Life; Thought; Philosophy. Thanks Rodney.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:There's a word for that though, and it's social darwinism. Totalitarian control over peoples lives under the veneer of hedonistic individualism is the ideology of our age and I absolutely detest it. I'm not sure what you're calling social Darwinism here but I wouldn't call trying to teach kids useful skills totalitarian. Anyway McDowell if you post that thread I'll post in it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Free snip jobs sounds great - but just for me. I need everyone else making as many babies as possible so's I can get that SS money. Not my fault the modern western state was built on the premise of infinite growth, if I'm lucky we won't have to reckon with the aftermath until after I'm gone.McDowell posted:Nice meltdown au contraire, In the future reproduction will be mandatory, and abstinence a vice. Or at least, this is a more probable future than the one you've outlined. McDowell posted:To continue being a scientific bastard - our current society is about helping individuals construct their ego - I think we are coming to the limits of that and our civilization now needs to construct a more definitive superego. The beauty of emergent social networks is that the Superego will construct itself. The horror is that we may have no choice in the outcome.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The most important thing for everyone with delusions of relevance to realise is "Until proven otherwise, I, personally, should be considered uneducated, unimportant, and generally just loving useless when it comes to anything that matters". When you actually reach a point where you know stuff, get taken seriously, and generally aren't a waste of space, you should recognise and take advantage of this improved position. But before then, accept you're clueless commenter #2534. Aww that's a bad attitude! Think positively about yourself!  Squalid posted:Life is what you make of it!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Today we can literally create life de novo, who gives a poo poo about the models?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
blowfish posted:I am mildly optimistic, because ecologists are slowly waking up from the "gently caress you, dad This is the opposite of my experience, but studying organisms that won't exist in 10 years may tend to politicize research. The argument about the political role of ecology is similar to that around Climate Change, and as long as there's a lot of funding from organisations oriented ideologically towards conservation and preservation I wouldn't expect things to change much. Especially considering the fierce politicization around conservation issues in my country pushes everyone to take a side.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 18:32
|
|
" phase of acting as quote unquote the guardians of the human relationship to nature. Ecology is a science, like molecular biology, organic chemistry, or nuclear physics, which through observation, experiment, and argument advances our knowledge. Tacking on godawful political bullshit is and will always be bad in the long run.
|
All life forms have an advantage over all others, if they didn't they would go extinct. In any case not all microorganism use sexual reproduction, and prokaryotes are if anything better at swapping genetic material than their more complicated cousins.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Bury me in the fine volcanic sediments of a shallow lake 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 03:56
|
|