Author Topic: Episode #670  (Read 6985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2018, 10:19:25 PM »
"Five minutes into this moon rock story and no one has made a Cave Johnson joke yet?  C'mon guys!"

 :steve:

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #16 on: May 14, 2018, 12:12:40 AM »
Steve's point on evolution "if only dogs would be left after an asteroid they would evolve and differentiate to fill different nices, but they'd still be dogs."
greatly under represents how great the differentiation would be given sufficient time.
think of marsupials for example, they all come from the same ancestor but they differ greatly from being "mouse like" to be "dog like". Of course they are all marsupials, but the are different species compared to each other
or to the commona ancestor.
or dolphins and wales, of course thy are still mammals but they are "fish like" mammals and look nothing like our common which was for sure some sort of mouse like (or perhaps larger) land walking animal

The point was that for dogs to fill other ecological niches after an ecological disaster, they’d have to first de-evolve, losing many of the features they currently have (such as being cute, human friendly, squashed faces in many breeds, etc) and then evolve again along other paths acquiring other features such as sharp claws allowing them to climb trees like cats.

Dogs currently are perfectly adapted to their current ecological niche - being adorable parasites on humans.  If humans went extinct, dogs would go extinct too.  No de-evolution would allow them to survive an ecological disaster.

Steve is right saying that you cannot de.evolve certain things. For exemple you probably won't go back to lying eggs once you are a mammal, because it's hard to imagine any selective pressure do that.
but dogs would certanly loose most specialised caracteristics they have, once they are not selectively bred by their environment (humans in this case), and they will slowly fill all the available nices.
they will certainly evolve the ability to climb trees, that's easy to imagine.
And eventually we can even expect marine mammals evolving from dogs, or flying animals (like we' got bats from "mice-like" ancestors, not very far off)
. they would definately not be "dogs" animore, there'd be just all sort of species descending from those dogse.

Wolves as dogs might survive an ecological disaster and evolve to fill many other ecological niches, including climbing trees.

Dogs as dogs probably, in fact almost certainly, wouldn’t survive an ecological disaster leading to the extinction of humans.  Dogs have lost too much of their innate wolf intelligence, gaining instead social abilities to tolerate humans and co-independence with humans.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Zec

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #17 on: May 14, 2018, 02:41:12 AM »
Steve's point on evolution "if only dogs would be left after an asteroid they would evolve and differentiate to fill different nices, but they'd still be dogs."
greatly under represents how great the differentiation would be given sufficient time.
think of marsupials for example, they all come from the same ancestor but they differ greatly from being "mouse like" to be "dog like". Of course they are all marsupials, but the are different species compared to each other
or to the commona ancestor.
or dolphins and wales, of course thy are still mammals but they are "fish like" mammals and look nothing like our common which was for sure some sort of mouse like (or perhaps larger) land walking animal

The point was that for dogs to fill other ecological niches after an ecological disaster, they’d have to first de-evolve, losing many of the features they currently have (such as being cute, human friendly, squashed faces in many breeds, etc) and then evolve again along other paths acquiring other features such as sharp claws allowing them to climb trees like cats.

Dogs currently are perfectly adapted to their current ecological niche - being adorable parasites on humans.  If humans went extinct, dogs would go extinct too.  No de-evolution would allow them to survive an ecological disaster.

Steve is right saying that you cannot de.evolve certain things. For exemple you probably won't go back to lying eggs once you are a mammal, because it's hard to imagine any selective pressure do that.
but dogs would certanly loose most specialised caracteristics they have, once they are not selectively bred by their environment (humans in this case), and they will slowly fill all the available nices.
they will certainly evolve the ability to climb trees, that's easy to imagine.
And eventually we can even expect marine mammals evolving from dogs, or flying animals (like we' got bats from "mice-like" ancestors, not very far off)
. they would definately not be "dogs" animore, there'd be just all sort of species descending from those dogse.

Wolves as dogs might survive an ecological disaster and evolve to fill many other ecological niches, including climbing trees.

Dogs as dogs probably, in fact almost certainly, wouldn’t survive an ecological disaster leading to the extinction of humans.  Dogs have lost too much of their innate wolf intelligence, gaining instead social abilities to tolerate humans and co-independence with humans.

Yea, probably. Anyway, Steve's example was "let's assume only dogs would survive". But it's ok to talk about wolves, if you prefer.
But actually, an interesting fact is that (giving the unlikely assumption that only dogs would be there) dogs could have an advantage onto wolves, since they are already very differenciated in very diverse breeds.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 03:28:00 AM by Zec »

Offline Redamare

  • Deleted
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *
  • Posts: 4206
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2018, 08:44:46 AM »
It was extremely gratifying to hear a physicist shit all over the Copenhagen Interpretation.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2018, 10:18:26 AM »
Steve's point on evolution "if only dogs would be left after an asteroid they would evolve and differentiate to fill different nices, but they'd still be dogs."
greatly under represents how great the differentiation would be given sufficient time.
think of marsupials for example, they all come from the same ancestor but they differ greatly from being "mouse like" to be "dog like". Of course they are all marsupials, but the are different species compared to each other
or to the commona ancestor.
or dolphins and wales, of course thy are still mammals but they are "fish like" mammals and look nothing like our common which was for sure some sort of mouse like (or perhaps larger) land walking animal

The point was that for dogs to fill other ecological niches after an ecological disaster, they’d have to first de-evolve, losing many of the features they currently have (such as being cute, human friendly, squashed faces in many breeds, etc) and then evolve again along other paths acquiring other features such as sharp claws allowing them to climb trees like cats.

Dogs currently are perfectly adapted to their current ecological niche - being adorable parasites on humans.  If humans went extinct, dogs would go extinct too.  No de-evolution would allow them to survive an ecological disaster.

Steve is right saying that you cannot de.evolve certain things. For exemple you probably won't go back to lying eggs once you are a mammal, because it's hard to imagine any selective pressure do that.
but dogs would certanly loose most specialised caracteristics they have, once they are not selectively bred by their environment (humans in this case), and they will slowly fill all the available nices.
they will certainly evolve the ability to climb trees, that's easy to imagine.
And eventually we can even expect marine mammals evolving from dogs, or flying animals (like we' got bats from "mice-like" ancestors, not very far off)
. they would definately not be "dogs" animore, there'd be just all sort of species descending from those dogse.

Wolves as dogs might survive an ecological disaster and evolve to fill many other ecological niches, including climbing trees.

Dogs as dogs probably, in fact almost certainly, wouldn’t survive an ecological disaster leading to the extinction of humans.  Dogs have lost too much of their innate wolf intelligence, gaining instead social abilities to tolerate humans and co-independence with humans.

Yea, probably. Anyway, Steve's example was "let's assume only dogs would survive". But it's ok to talk about wolves, if you prefer.
But actually, an interesting fact is that (giving the unlikely assumption that only dogs would be there) dogs could have an advantage onto wolves, since they are already very differenciated in very diverse races.

How would having hundreds of breeds help survival?  Particular breeds of dogs are really just one-trick ponies.  If their trick doesn’t work in the changed circumstances, then they die.

Wolves are much more intelligent and adaptable than domestic dogs.  If faced with a problem that they want to solve then they persevere until they succeed.  Domestic dogs tend to give up easily and turn to their owners for help instead.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline colinc

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 3
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2018, 11:02:10 AM »
This episode - again - failed to automatically download on the premium feed. It is available on the website, but it is not in the episode list for either the premium or the free feed. The extended interview downloaded okay, but the full episode is just missing.

I encountered the same problem. The second time in less than a month.

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2018, 12:43:34 PM »
Wolves as dogs might survive an ecological disaster and evolve to fill many other ecological niches, including climbing trees.
Dogs as dogs probably, in fact almost certainly, wouldn’t survive an ecological disaster leading to the extinction of humans.  Dogs have lost too much of their innate wolf intelligence, gaining instead social abilities to tolerate humans and co-independence with humans.

Ever heard of feral dogs and dingoes?

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2018, 01:17:08 PM »
How would having hundreds of breeds help survival?  Particular breeds of dogs are really just one-trick ponies.  If their trick doesn’t work in the changed circumstances, then they die.
Wolves are much more intelligent and adaptable than domestic dogs.  If faced with a problem that they want to solve then they persevere until they succeed.  Domestic dogs tend to give up easily and turn to their owners for help instead.

The genetic diversity of dog breeds can vary widely between one breed and another. There are also millions of dogs that don't belong to any particular breed, or are hybrids of more than one breed.

It isn't true that wolves are more intelligent than dogs (at least not all of them). Dogs (i.e., the dogs that have been studied) do put more attention on what humans do, in their facial expressions and in their voice intonation, whereas wolves are more interested in what other wolves or dogs do. But that may not necessarily be a disadvantage during a mass extinction event in case their survival depended on collecting potentially useful information from the activity of the individuals of other species.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2018, 01:47:51 PM »
Wolves as dogs might survive an ecological disaster and evolve to fill many other ecological niches, including climbing trees.
Dogs as dogs probably, in fact almost certainly, wouldn’t survive an ecological disaster leading to the extinction of humans.  Dogs have lost too much of their innate wolf intelligence, gaining instead social abilities to tolerate humans and co-independence with humans.

Ever heard of feral dogs and dingoes?

Well, dingos aren’t domesticated dogs gone wild.  The CSIRO defines them as a separate species - Canis dingo.  Hibrids of dingos and domesticated dogs aren’t more likely to survive an ecological disaster killing off all humans.  Someone brings along a dingo hybrid to my local dog park, and it’s a gorgeous animal, but still very much dog-like in its behaviour in wanting to play.

If I had to bet as to what animal would survive an ecological disaster better, between one that’s already finding its own food from a variety of sources such as wolves (and dingos) and one that depends on humans for its food (often by begging) I know which one I’d put my money on.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11563
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2018, 01:53:55 PM »
How is evolution taught in schools these days?

When I learned about it it made perfect sense.

In our biology class, before evolution was even mentioned,d we learned the about biological classifications(KPCOFGS).

From there we went to a very detailed understanding of selective breeding, hybridization and genetics as it was as it was applied throughout human history and was refined in the 1600s-1800s, and used in the present day (1960s-70s)

From there, it was an easy step to go from artificial selection to natural selection to evolution.

For me, when taught that way, there was no argument. No preconceived notions. It just made sense. It was logical.

I'm wondering if it's taught the same way today.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4445
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2018, 02:30:09 PM »
The idea of eating an Insekten Burger appeals to me in the same way that eating a durian does.  Overcoming my initial revulsion which is probably not warranted.

I liked the jokes about moving from 1% insect parts to 100% insect parts.

« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 02:40:21 PM by Friendly Angel »
Amend and resubmit.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8875
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2018, 05:37:08 PM »
This episode - again - failed to automatically download on the premium feed. It is available on the website, but it is not in the episode list for either the premium or the free feed. The extended interview downloaded okay, but the full episode is just missing.
Worked fine for me.
I waited a few days, then streamed it from the website in Safari, which is pretty inconvenient because it doesn't save my location when I have to stop and return to it later. I emailed the team, and I see that it now shows up in the episode feed, but it's too late :(
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him.

Tarvek: There's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it.
Agatha: If that's what you think, then you're DOING IT WRONG!

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2018, 10:35:38 PM »
Well, dingos aren’t domesticated dogs gone wild.  The CSIRO defines them as a separate species - Canis dingo.  Hibrids of dingos and domesticated dogs aren’t more likely to survive an ecological disaster killing off all humans.  Someone brings along a dingo hybrid to my local dog park, and it’s a gorgeous animal, but still very much dog-like in its behaviour in wanting to play.
If I had to bet as to what animal would survive an ecological disaster better, between one that’s already finding its own food from a variety of sources such as wolves (and dingos) and one that depends on humans for its food (often by begging) I know which one I’d put my money on.

Do you know how the dingoes' ancestors arrived in Australia?

• Jackson SM et al. "The Wayward Dog: Is the Australian native dog or Dingo a distinct species?" Zootaxa (2017) vol. 4317 (2) pp. 201-224 DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4317.2.1
https://biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4317.2.1
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319470485

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2018, 11:20:43 PM »
It was extremely gratifying to hear a physicist shit all over the Copenhagen Interpretation.
I only have lay understanding of QM despite it being part of my undergrad studies last century. Perhaps I should pull out one of my old QM text books.

Can you point me to exactly what it is they are shitting on? Is there a statement clearly defining the CI?

It seems to me to be a case ripe for tearing down strawmen, in that many criticise what they think or interpret the CI to be, rather than what it is - which is pretty difficult since it isn't well defined.

The issue I had with the microscope/telescope analogy is that in those instances (i.e. microbes or stars that couldn't previously be observed without the right tools) is that in the quantum world the mere act of observation itself impacts the system, no matter what tool you might have available to make observation, either now or at any time in the future with improved technology.

This is not the case for the microbes or stars that can't be seen until you have a better microscope / telescope. The physical reality of the microbes or stars are not impacted by the act of observation.

From my lay understanding, we can never observe the reality of the quantum world without impacting the system. So all we can do is build models instead to mathematically describe what's going on, which while not describing an objective reality the models are of course very useful.

Is the problem that people simply don't like the notion that observation without impact is itself defined as not possible in the quantum world?
I'm actually not sure what's really being shat on.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7404
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #670
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2018, 11:38:38 PM »
Have you heard the interview? Basically, he said CI is an amorphous blob of poorly defined ideas based on politics and miscommunications more than physics. Steve took him to task on some points (in the member's feed at least) but the core point is that CI really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

 

personate-rain