|
WoodrowSkillson posted:That seems like a long shot. We are loving up ecosystems hardcore, but as long as we don't completely gently caress agriculture we will be alive and kicking. I could see a dystopian future of barely any animals other then livestock, birds, insects, and rodents though. Right now our entire agricultural system is built around nitrogen fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and it's not like we're gonna run out of that anytime soon right?
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Right now our entire agricultural system is built around nitrogen fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and it's not like we're gonna run out of that anytime soon right? Which is bad yes but humans lived for 10000 years of agriculture without nitrogen fertilizers so its not an extinction threat. Civilization wide change, gently caress yeah, extinction, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
There are some crops (corn) that can't naturally reproduce though, so we would have some crops wiped out without human intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
PowerBuilder3 posted:Human species in millions / billions of years? I think the next mass extinction event / global ice age is going to wipe us out way before that. Like < 50,000 years?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Can anyone find that one comic about how civilizations will never contact each other because they'll destroy themselves first?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Can anyone find that one comic about how civilizations will never contact each other because they'll destroy themselves first? This makes me think of another aspect of evolution. If a species is too aggresive they may kill their selves off by destroying their food source or each other. If they are not aggresive enough they'll end up being beating out by competing species. Pretty cool!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Right now our entire agricultural system is built around nitrogen fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and it's not like we're gonna run out of that anytime soon right? It's not made from fossil fuels, it uses fossil fuels in the process because those are the cheapest source currently available. You can get nitrogen without fossil fuels, it just costs more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I suppose it's in our best nature to de-evolve over time, taking a simpler form.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I suppose it's in our best nature to de-evolve over time, taking a simpler form. That wouldn't help at all in an earthwide extinction event. We need to spread out to other planets to maximize any chance of survival.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
greatn posted:They found proof of gravitational waves which proves the inflation theory of the big bang and furthermore implies infinite universes. Go on?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Go on? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26605974
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Robnoxious posted:The most tell-tale evolutionary "feet" we humans are going through generation after generation right now is the further absence of the pinky toe. This is entirely wrong. The pinky is vital for balance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Finally got a chance to watch the episode. Gave me chills. I wonder how many people got pissed when Tyson looked at the camera and said "Some claim evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion. The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact. Evolution really happened." I wanna see dat fundie rage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Cracked has a sort-of-relevant article today http://www.cracked.com/article_20929_5-insane-ways-animals-changed-course-humanity.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not made from fossil fuels, it uses fossil fuels in the process because those are the cheapest source currently available. You can get nitrogen without fossil fuels, it just costs more. There's an unfathomable amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere we could use, if we wanted to if we had to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I suppose it's in our best nature to de-evolve over time, taking a simpler form. This may be a joke but I'll respond to it. There is no such thing as de-evolution. Living things can go from big to small and it is still evolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Sash! posted:There's an unfathomable amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere we could use, if we wanted to if we had to. That's what the fuel intensive Haber process (and others) does. Triple bonds ain't easy to break.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
I really hope this show reaches kids and inspires them to focus on their education. I keep reminding myself when I'm disappointed with the lack of info that it is a show meant to inspire more than educate. There is such a vast universe that we barely understand even the age of technology we are in. I did really enjoy how in the sub-cellular world seeing DNA, helicase, and polymerase as molecules made up of hundreds of atoms and not as solid objects. Every time I see the DNA in the title sequence I twinge. Hope he revisits more molecular cell biology. I wish he would have at least given the Miller-Urey experiment an honorable mention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Right now our entire agricultural system is built around nitrogen fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and it's not like we're gonna run out of that anytime soon right? All we have to do is convince China to try and get to Titan. Then the US is contractually bound to do beat the Commies and it'll all work out for Exxon, and by extension agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
What is wrong with the representations of DNA in the show? Is the whole double helix thing incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Yaos posted:This may be a joke but I'll respond to it. There is no such thing as de-evolution. Living things can go from big to small and it is still evolution. Yeah, it was a Threshold joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:What is wrong with the representations of DNA in the show? Is the whole double helix thing incorrect? My brother noted that if those star things are supposed to be atoms then there's too many of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
I was waiting for this and it turns out it already came out on the 11th, a critique of the first episode of Cosmos. And by a critique I mean a summary of the episode followed by science bashing. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/03/11/review-cosmos-milky-way Second episode: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/creation-debate/review-cosmos-molecules-evolution Here's where I found it. http://billmoyers.com/2014/03/18/science-deniers-are-freaking-out-about-cosmos/ I can't wait until they get to string theory. Edit: Hot drat, don't forget to click on the many links. quote:In the evolutionary model, mutations are hailed as a dominant mechanism for pond-scum-to-people evolution and provide “proof ” that the Bible’s history about creation is wrong. Yaos fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
computer parts posted:My brother noted that if those star things are supposed to be atoms then there's too many of them. Your brother didn't have a problem with the fact that only a single hydrogen bond was shown at every base pair, or that the hydrogen bond's length was larger than a Ribose ring, but the fact that the visual fx was unrealistic if it's denoting atoms (which it wasn't stated that it is)? Darth Windu posted:What is wrong with the representations of DNA in the show? Is the whole double helix thing incorrect? No, it is entirely correct. Here is an actual picture of DNA:  Note the tight packing, the closeness of the two separate strands, and the protrusions of structures outward from the double helix. Here's how the show presented it:  It's not wrong at all, but it's also not realistic at all. HarveyxCosmonaut posted:I wish he would have at least given the Miller-Urey experiment an honorable mention. I'm glad he didn't. His agenda's pretty clear, and referencing MU would have just given ammunition to any detractors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:Here's how the show presented it: I loved how it looked like he was flying around like... DNA helix star constellations? It was like he was flying around the cosmos but inside a creature!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
HarveyxCosmonaut posted:I really hope this show reaches kids and inspires them to focus on their education. I keep reminding myself when I'm disappointed with the lack of info that it is a show meant to inspire more than educate. I really have no idea why people fail to grasp this (not talking about you). It's literally the best form of science show that can be for those not familiar with science - awesome graphics, awesome charismatic narration, with every other sentence distilling why exactly science is awesome. We are made of stars! We are related to trees! We literally created our own perfect servants from dogs! These are all facts and if it inspires just one kid to look deeper into how we are made of stars it's totally worth it because that kid might discover something awesome in the future. It teaches me absolutely nothing I don't know before, yet I've been blown away by both episodes thus far in a way that very few shows have achieved. I hope I never become cynical enough to start nitpicking about things in shows like this. Every time somebody wonders why people aren't interested in science, sometimes it's because some pedantic nerd started over-explaining things to people who aren't familiar with their particular branch of science and took all the magic away from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:Your brother didn't have a problem with the fact that only a single hydrogen bond was shown at every base pair, or that the hydrogen bond's length was larger than a Ribose ring, but the fact that the visual fx was unrealistic if it's denoting atoms (which it wasn't stated that it is)? Well he's only in high school.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
So as far as astrobiology goes, why Titan? I understand that the show presented it as an example of how an environment could possibly support life with alternative biochemistries, but is it also the best place to look for life in the solar system? I always thought that Europa was the best candidate because it has liquid water under the ice. Edit: Although if it were Europa, I guess we should attempt no landing there... ghableska fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
ghableska posted:So as far as astrobiology goes, why Titan? I understand that the show presented it as an example of how an environment could possibly support life with alternative biochemistries, but is it also the best place to look for life in the solar system? Titan's bigger, therefor cooler  Also, you answered your own question. They were talking about life being completely different from Earth life. If Europa has liquid water and undersea vents, there's a chance early sea life could be similar to Earth's. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:I loved how it looked like he was flying around like... DNA helix star constellations? It was like he was flying around the cosmos but inside a creature! It's because we are made of star stuff. That's honestly the artistic reason behind it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Part of it is an ease of studying. We could plop a lander on Titan and directly sample the "ocean" and look for signs of life in situ. Europa, at best, we could fly something through a vapor plume and hope that we detect something that provides evidence that there's life down there way under the icecap. Titan, on the other hand, we could be putting buggers right under a microscope and watch them squirming around. Also, alternate biochemistry is more bag for your buck because it proves there's broader conditions and possibly definition of life in the universe. I mean, yeah, it's the greatest discovery of all time if we found life on Europa, but if its exactly like Earth-life...less kick, really. Proves life loves heat and water, which we kinda already know. Titan having something exotic adds a whole new type of ecosystem. Sash! fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
ghableska posted:So as far as astrobiology goes, why Titan? I understand that the show presented it as an example of how an environment could possibly support life with alternative biochemistries, but is it also the best place to look for life in the solar system? Titan is thought to be a close approximation to a primordial Earth, at least atmospherically. If you want a model for what Earth was like before living things, Titan is a good place for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Ernie. posted:Your brother didn't have a problem with the fact that only a single hydrogen bond was shown at every base pair, or that the hydrogen bond's length was larger than a Ribose ring, but the fact that the visual fx was unrealistic if it's denoting atoms (which it wasn't stated that it is)? His brother, and the majority of the audience didn't, because the show is made for the general public, not for cellular biologists, geneticists, and scientists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
The Taint Reaper posted:It's because we are made of star stuff. I forgot he said that. That makes it even better then!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Maldoror posted:His brother, and the majority of the audience didn't, because the show is made for the general public, not for cellular biologists, geneticists, and scientists. I thought my post was clear in that I wasn't criticizing the show, rather surprised that someone criticizing the show misses the the forest for the tree. And I was wrong anyway because: computer parts posted:Well he's only in high school. Your brother is great, then, and good on him for critically thinking about what the dots represent (actually). In this case, the answer is 'nothing'. They're just fancy design choices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I suppose it's in our best nature to de-evolve over time, taking a simpler form. ARE WE NOT MEN?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Dr_Strangelove posted:ARE WE NOT MEN? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Yaos posted:I was waiting for this and it turns out it already came out on the 11th, a critique of the first episode of Cosmos. And by a critique I mean a summary of the episode followed by science bashing. The topography of these people's inner mindscape must be a Klein bottle. quote:They test their ideas about the past within their own concept of what the past was like, and they believe they are actually using the scientific method to make observations about the past. Oh my goodness, 'historical' versus 'observational' science. "You can never know what happened in the past unless you directly observed it!" Man, I hope you have the budget for grad students to watch everything 24/7. quote:Oh yes, you totally observed the history of all animals. Fossils were planted by the devil, all the contrary evidence is a test, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Go on? Technically it's extremely good evidence for an inflationary epoch and further reinforcement of the LCDM cosmological model. It's a little too much to say it "proves" the Big Bang, but it severely constrains any other model.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Ernie. posted:Your brother didn't have a problem with the fact that only a single hydrogen bond was shown at every base pair, or that the hydrogen bond's length was larger than a Ribose ring, but the fact that the visual fx was unrealistic if it's denoting atoms (which it wasn't stated that it is)? And just to be elaborate, this is a more accurate representation of what DNA actually looks like, if you haven't seen it before:  So at the scale that Cosmos was showing the DNA molecule the individual atoms should have been visible. Those "gaps" you see in the double helix are hydrogen bonds (shown in detail at the bottom right), where the (slightly positively charged) hydrogens from one strand of DNA bond weakly with the (slightly negative) oxygen or nitrogen of the other strand. These bonds are weak individually (they're forming and breaking constantly in liquid water for example), but with millions of them working together they hold the molecule together until a helicase comes along and breaks them, in preparation for duplication for example, as was shown on the show. I get why they decided to show it the way they did, though, it emphasizes the structure of the molecule rather than the reality of it like the image above. A more realistic image may have come off as too confusing. Oh, and how do we know the molecules really form those hexagonal shapes with the hydrogens sticking straight out? Well, one way is that we've managed to actually image molecules using a sophisticated form of something called Atomic Force Microscopy:  Top: Structural model of pentacene (black is carbon, green is hydrogen) Bottom AFM image of a single pentacene molecule BBC article about this image: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8225491.stm The paper it was taken from: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5944/1110 (free with registration) P.S. I'm a chemist, not a biochemist so any experts feel free to correct me about anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 04:28
|
|
