Deathby

We had this in our test and I'm slightly confused by it. Both the long-eared bandicoot and the rabbit share many similarities, yet their evolutionary pathlines divered 120 million years ago, why? The answer is obviously convergent evolution, but I can't find any selecting factors which would be similar. Firstly, my quick net search tells me that the long-eared-bandicoot is also apparently called the bilby (a name I am more familiar with) and common features are the long ears, a slight hop, burrowing and a similar overall shape. However I would have assumed that rabbit evolved their long ears to avoid being eaten, and yet I would have assumed the bilby was relatively safe given that it doesn't have any natural predators. Their diets also vary- the bilby being an omnivore and the rabbit being purely herbiverous. Their environments are different. rabbits live in meadows and woodlands, whilst bilby's are spinifex grasslands and an almost desert environment. So my question is why would they evolve such similar adaptations? I thought it was a strange question to put in a test myself, seeing as it requires some general knowledge of the bandicoot (i had no idea it was also called the bilby, if they had said bilby I'd have answered the question more readily) and its a strange case of convergent evolution. My guess was that entirely different selecting factors caused similar adaptations. No idea about the hop, but the bilby's ears would be for heat loss, the rabbit's for hearing.

Even if we find some unifying theory of physics, there will still be stuff like harmonic motion or meteorology that is so complicated to calculate from those basic few laws that it might as well be a different equation altogether. Meteorology is based upon simple stuff, hot to cold, high to low. Yet it is one of the most complicated parts of physics because it is so complex. Perhaps biology is a very advanced extension of chemistry. In that case, even if we find a unifying theory of biology, evolution into higher forms would be the equivalent of meteorology which would take even longer to find equations for, derived from this basic theorem. Evolution is affected by so many factors, that chaos theory dictates that only general trends can be found and no specific equation or hard-and-fast rule. In fact in biology rules are meant to be broken, since that would give you an advantage in survival.

The problem is that you're threads are intelligent. For some reason most of the other stuff is "Oh gee evolution is crap" or something else that is easily answered. I think your post is practically a free-standing thread on its own. I don't entirely understand everything they're saying, probably because I'm a bit tired. Is the second article suggesting that the first articles says we interbred with Neanderthals and the like? The first article seems to say that humans moved out of Africa then evolved certain characteristics to suit their new environments... I don't see how this is wrong, or even contradictory to the second article. Just one note, I could have sworn it was mitochondrial RNA (not DNA) that was used to prove the age of humanity.

Evolution says that we do not move towards a "goal" but apologist creationists might argue that the hand of God is in all things, so it is God who determines if a "random" mutation exists that allows a species to survive a new environment. In either case there is no real way to tell, even if humanity lives for a million years, which is true. But from a secular POV, species do not evolve towards a goal. You're right many people get confused and its natural for them to just say towards a goal, since it is part of our language, it sounds very roundabout to say stuff like this trait happened to be a minority in the gene pool, but became larger when the environment just so happened to change into a position where that trait was more advantageous. It's much easier to say this trait evolved to suit the new environment. And what you say about the "they're hot" line of thought is true, but they can't be hot if they're already dead since they cannot compete. Success of a mate is as much a factor in determining the concept of beauty as any other. Eg. Big strong muscles in a human is a sexy, for obvious reasons.

Well there are many examples of species co-operating, symbiosis, like the tarantula (or snake forget which) and the frog living in the same burrow (the frog gets the ants that the spider can't the spider kills everything else) I have heard of an example of a human being adopted by gazelles, it was semi-reliable sources of a boy being raised by gazelles and since he hopped around like a gazelle he had really strong ankles. He was "rescued" but I believe he escaped. Last I heard people were claiming there were other explanations for this wild-boy. I also heard of a tarzan type boy raised by apes which is slightly more likely. Never heard of any other stories like this- yours is especially weird with the predator-prey relationship reversed

But they're right. I am fairly certain the sun wasn't created by hydrogen atoms colliding together! It surely has to be the work of the great Sky-serphent Oookapookaloo farting and igniting it. I mean its like saying that we can create a sun just by getting a lot of hot air in one place... Oh and computers are difficult to build in one step. First we had lots of ideas like golems who were inanimate objects capable of movement, then various primitive calculators like the abacus, then we eventually built those giant giant room sized computers. Then we got to silicon computers which are much better nowadays than the ones they first came up with. So yes, it would be difficult to build a computer using a bottle of sand.

I had heard of woodlice, but never realised they were slaters (Australian here) Actually if you place your hand on one wall and keep following that wall you'll eventually find a way out... even if it is the way you came in. I don' think it would be possible to make a 2 -entranced maze that can be solved, but not by simply placing a hand on one wall. Unless of course it was multilayered... hmm didn't think of that one. Then you could just have the trapdoor or stairway in the middle somewhere. I guess that's how video games work haha.

"Mark" may also be henceforth called the Idiot Author. I'm surprised its a bestseller, considering its also only available on the internet, with no publicity surrounding his name as that google search revealed Most bestsellers would be known to a fair few people, the bestseller's name is usually general knowledge. I only went through the chapter summary, then looked through th PDF but found none of his equations for a real physicist to ridicule. How odd I would also like to add that hanging off a cliff by your fingertips doesn't rely on electrostatic force but on friction... which would mostly be dependent on gravity anyway - weight of your fingers on the cliff (+friction itself) vs weight of your body down

I dislike discrimination intensely. And yet I do not feel hatred towards stereotyping. Eg. If you walk up to me dressed like a hobo and rapping, would it be acceptable for me to think you are of a lower intelligence? I say yes. And that's why I think that any black person who dresses like that should be looked down upon, not because they are black, but because they have a stupid way of talking, are much more likely to commit a crime and take drugs. But if a black man in a suit approached me, I would treat him as I would any other business man I would meet. I don't see why people should discriminate because of race, but I can see why they should discriminate despite race. It is incredibly difficult to fire a homosexual at times if they are unwilling to leave because they can claim discrimination. All things being equal, it is easier to fire a white, heterosexual male between the ages of 30-40 than anyone else. To me this is discrimination, not anti-discrimination gone too far.

Just one bit of nit-picking. Don't use the word evolved ffs, because you can't evolve backwards. Whales returning to the ocean isn't evolving backwards, they produced dolphins after all which are universally accepted amongst the top 5 most intelligent animals on earth. Well perhaps if Doctor Mad had thought of buying up all the 8 track record players, then trading them slowly for the actual records themselves, don't you think he could destroy the knowledge? There are numerous possible ways for humanity to "forget" everything. An asteroid could hit earth and a lone colony ship heading towards the stars survives. Fundamentalist Evangelists could take over the world (another spur for the dark ages). There have also been past events- the fall of the great empires each triggered a loss of some knowledge, the loss over time of oral tradition (the inventor of fire and the wheel) In China there were periods of information suppression by the emporers, something similar happening in modern day Earth is much more difficult. There might only be a hundred thousand or even a million books in Imperial China and some still survived. There might be a hundred thousand books in my suburb alone. It would be impossible to wipe out all information. Although not all books contain the information you talk about (indeed not even Britannica woul have the equations needed for rocket science), but that would only wipe out the most difficult stuff. We would retain the basics such as gravity -the foundations that took so long to build. The most important thing in my mind is the process of scientific investigation. If we forgot that, then we'd eventually forget everything else through entropy.

We only ever use our pool in summer, so its sort of a waste (of time and money) to put in chlorine during other times, but then algae will start growing along the edges and that's difficult to get rid of with just chlorine. So I've had this idea, is there some sort of fish that will eat the algae growing on the side of my pool, and better yet some of the free-floating algae? I'd like to restrict it to fish since insects will multiply (although I have plenty of them anyway) and die and amphibians could run away. Ideally they should be self-sufficient and not require much feeding (anything over once a month is fine by me). Oh and bonus points if you can think of a way to lure them into some kind of trap when summer rolls around.

Why don't we trace human evolution a bit? Lets start with the primates. One of the defining characteristics of primates is their "flat" faces. Their eyes aren't on the sides of the head (like a cow) but are flat. This is an adaptation to jumping around through trees. That requires quick reflexes and thinking, which I think are strong factors towards evolution. Much of our brain I've been told is devoted, at least partially, towards vision in some way or another. It also required grasping of branches requiring fairly complex motor mechanics. Now evolving into hominids. We retained those grasping hands, but now they've been freed up, which means we can carry things and hold things. I'd class this fairly highly towards your type of intelligence. According to Walking With Mammals, scientists believe the discovery of fire and more importantly, cooking, allowed us to expand in brain size because it allowed us a higher-protein diet. And I don't see how you could invent fire without some kind of grasping limb. In addition, since we'd have evolved on the plains, I think we'd need some kind of social structure like meerkats, with sentries and such to look out for prey. As we've said these sorts of groups help develop intelligence. And just on another note, i believe dolphin's brains are big, but I remember reading something in a science magazine bout them not being overly complex or interlinked. Octopusses (yes that is the most correct plural) are very intelligent, are not cold-blooded, vertebrates, terrestrial or even social. I think their intelligence is linked to their unique camoflage ability (even better than chameleons), as well as their advanced eyes.

It has been proven that carbon compounds can form in asteroids from the stuff that is already on them and the addition of UV light from the sun. We don't know how life formed in the first place so we can't be sure if replicating molecules can form from these compounds in outer space. After all a protein is a long way away from an amino acid and DNA is another magnitude away from that. We have to remember that natural selection is the key to evolution. There has to be a reason for microbes to live in the atmosphere. I suppose competition for space on earth is a reason, but it would be difficult to get energy, except through photosynthesis.

To play devil's advocate... "Mah grandpappy wasn't no son o' a monkey!" - From a survey on views on evolution But there are some who try and apply scientific theories to creationism. http://www.answersingenesis.org They generally seem to make a lot of sense, although some arguments are stronger/weaker than others. They are dismissive (as much perhaps as this forum is of creationism?) but they argue quite well. I didn't read through very much of it, but one of their best points that I couldn't find a way to refute was a tree which stuck through several million years worth of strata. I could find an explanation but half the time it would seem as fanciful as some of the crap creationists use. A half-decent challenge for some of you fellows to disprove. Their weaker points include why there are no human fossils in rocks scientists believe date back to the mesozoic. Apparently we ran away from Noah's Flood so we escaped. And there would only have been around 10,000 humans so the chance of finding a fossil is 10,000/SA of earth = 1 fossil per 100 thousand square kilometers (or something like that anyway). Evidently they didn't think of humans as social creatures.

I would like to raise one point that I don't think people have raised yet. (I just skimmed quickly through it) What creationism are we talking about. Are we talking about God creating everything AS IT EXISTS TODAY WITHOUT CHANGE or are we talking about modified creationism where God created the universe and it changed to what it is now. A "theory" (I should rather say something like idea) which is more fitting to the evidence as we have it. And secondly, science has to do with hypotheses which match existing data. Religion has to do with unswerving belief. I believe some prominent theologians thought it would be a terrible idea to have a proof of God. Science is not inflexible, it is scientists who treat science as a religion who are inflexible. Religion is the most damned inflexible institution in the world.

Uh lets have a fun "debate". Assuming it is possible for telekinesis and telepathy to exist, which would come first evolutionarily? Would the evolution of the first eventually lead to the second evolving? Is the first a necessary prerequisite (a question similar to the one before but slightly different). Just to be clear telepathy = talking using mental powers telekinesis = moving stuff with your mind and just for fun we can add a few more psychic powers such as firestarting (there was a term I just forgot) or future-sight. I hope this is in the right forum, not sure if it belongs in parascience, but I think it has more to do with evolution.

With the Bible predicting the end of the world, I think you are referring to the Bible Code. I watched another random doco that said that using that same program they could predict anything. The Bible Code predicted Bin Laden. Similarly, the doco I watched predicted Ice Cue's rise and fall in the rapping industry

So is France. Both are influential, neither a superpower. China is not a politcal superpower. It has a very strong influence in Asian politics, but a far less influential one in international politics. The last major story regarding China I can recall was the spy-plane incident with America. When making foreign policies, countries will take into account a superpower, I don't think this is the case with China, or Russia. Moral corruption of the people themselves is an entirely different matter to whether or not China will become a superpower.

And you say history never lies. I can say for one thing that history is a very dubious thing. Ramses the Great is portrayed as one of the greatest pharoahs Egypt had. In truth he built monuments only because he was insecure about his own power and constantly feared rebellion. The Holocaust is a fact of history isn't it? Many Palestinians believe otherwise. My specific knowledge of Chinese history isn't spectacular, but couldn't the same be true of China being a province of Mongolia or Manchu? I mean both conquered China at some point or another. Edit: And I don't believe that a system of government should be suited to a person simply because of their culture and history. The hatred of communism is not inborn in American, nor is democracy. The same applies for the Chinese. Either could revert to the other, if they were not indoctrinated in a thousand different ways as they grew up (not just by the government and the media, but also by relatives and friends). You might say that the Greeks should be the most democratic of all considering their history. Or the Romans should be the most imperialistic. That is not true. The system of government must suit the nature of the country, not its people. In a country like China, with many minorities concentrated in little corners of the country, I believe a three-tiered democracy (federal, province and local government system) would work well. As opposed to a dictatorship which would cater only for the majorities.

Just because an animal has intelligence doesn't mean it will clash with our niche. Our niche is presently domesticated animals and plants. Its like suggesting that no more than one species can possess flight otherwise it will occupy the other's niche. If an intelligent race (think elves and pixies or something) were smaller in number and more adept of hand they could catch animals inside forests and stuff, provided there are still some left by the time we're done. Back on topic I think that insects may survive the initial radiation blast and do well, but would not dominate due to a lack of food and colder conditions (nuclear winter)- cockroaches are ectotherms after all. I think it would be more likely that a small mammal would survive and evolve. Perhaps a rat like last time.

I would like to add one thing yang. Did you get all your information out of that one book you were talking about earlier? Read both sides of the argument. I think both America and China use their media to brainwash their populance. many Americans believe it is unpatriotic to question the actions of their president, as do many chinese. The Chinese government cracks down very heavily on media who do not conform. Whilst the same cannot be said of the American government, I think it is suffice to say that there is silent pressure against the media, considering the terrible job they've done of uncovering various scandals. (At least according to Michael Moore, dunno how far I'd trust him)

Hi I just read this thread and I'm not quite sure how you said that certain structures were vestigial. If our ancestors had tails, then logically we lost those tails for some reason and what remains is vestigial, even if it is being used for another function.

The lack of humans (or any other animal capable of killing off large animals) is a major factor, but don't forget that elephants, giraffes, rhinos, hippos, storks (a bit dodgy- not many large birds left) still exist in Africa. And emus and cassowaries (around human height) exist too in Australia. I reckon its the climate. A large size generally means a lower surface-area to volume ratio, which means that less heat can be lost/gained. Ironic eh? Also I just thought of this: what about migrationary habits? Not many smaller mammals migrate. Only birds (I know Monarch Butterflies do but they can fly as well). Elephants "migrate" a fair bit, as do antelopes. They're fairly "large" as far as modern mammals go. And the biggest whales all migrate. I reckon that food would be scarce during the Pleistocene so animals would have to migrate, or at least wander. We know that mammoths and wooly rhinos migrated don't we?

Energy doesn't cycle, its a one way flow. Your answer is pretty much correct. If you think of energy in a food chain. Sun->plant (photosynthesis)->used by plant in respiration ->animal->used in respiration But if you mean inside one plant. Glucose is formed through a long process you don't need to know about. This is transported to the other cells (not in the leaf) via the phloem. The glucose diffuses into the cell (usually sometimes active transport is needed). It is then broken down into C02 and H20 in several stages. The energy released is then stored as the third bond on the ATP (adenosine triphosphate) molecule. The ATP then floats off into another part of the cell where it loses that bond and forms ADP (adenosine diphosphate). At each stage a big of energy is lost to the atmosphere. If that's a bit confusing, don't worry. Basically you are right, although I don't quite understand your last sentance. Energy goes from the leaf to the rest of the plant, is used, then leaves the plant (usually as heat). Or in a plant it is ingested, goes into the bloodstream, then leaves as heat or as kinetic energy (if we use it to move).

I'm not a particularly adept chemistry student, but wouldn't it be oxidation?