The Science & Skepticism Thread

ancient_mariner said:
It may also be a problem that we want to view time digitally - break it into discrete chunks if you like
Click to expand...
Helps when doing your time sheet though. Nothing quite like billing a client for poo time :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
It may also be a problem that we want to view time digitally - break it into discrete chunks if you like - rather than allow it to be analogue and flow.
Click to expand...

The smallest unit of time is the Planck Time - Wikipedia gives a nice account of the formal definition of it if you are mathematically inclined. It is approximately equal to
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000006 seconds .
It is the smallest possible interval that can exist between two related events as predicted by quantum theory. The universe appears to have been created within the first one unit of Planck Time.
Quantum theory makes a multitude of interesting, bizarre and totally unbelievable predictions non of which have ever turned out to be wrong. Frustrating as it is - quantum theory appears to be the most correct model we have at the moment.
James
 
Some podcast recommendations for you.

Planetary Radio. Weekly podcast from the Planetary Society (co-founded by Carl Sagan).
StarTalk Radio. Neil deGrasse Tyson's weekly fusion of comedy, chat and science.
Astronomy Cast. Excellent weekly podcast, a collaboration between the publisher of Universe Today and science educator Dr Pamela Gay.
Big Picture Science. Weekly science and skeptic show from the SETI Institute.
The Jodcast. Excellent monthly show by the team at Jodrell Bank.
The Silicon Valley Astronomy Lectures. Excellent lectures curated by Foothills College in California.
The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. The leading skeptic podcast. Excellent.
StarStuff. Excellent weekly space show from Australia's ABC.

If anyone else has any recommendation, please let us know.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Some podcast recommendations for you.

Planetary Radio. Weekly podcast from the Planetary Society (co-founded by Carl Sagan).
StarTalk Radio. Neil deGrasse Tyson's weekly fusion of comedy, chat and science.
Astronomy Cast. Excellent weekly podcast, a collaboration between the publisher of Universe Today and science educator Dr Pamela Gay.
Big Picture Science. Weekly science and skeptic show from the SETI Institute.
The Jodcast. Excellent monthly show by the team at Jodrell Bank.
The Silicon Valley Astronomy Lectures. Excellent lectures curated by Foothills College in California.
The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. The leading skeptic podcast. Excellent.
StarStuff. Excellent weekly space show from Australia's ABC.

If anyone else has any recommendation, please let us know.
Click to expand...

Excellent - thanks for that
James
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Some podcast recommendations for you.

Planetary Radio. Weekly podcast from the Planetary Society (co-founded by Carl Sagan).
StarTalk Radio. Neil deGrasse Tyson's weekly fusion of comedy, chat and science.
Astronomy Cast. Excellent weekly podcast, a collaboration between the publisher of Universe Today and science educator Dr Pamela Gay.
Big Picture Science. Weekly science and skeptic show from the SETI Institute.
The Jodcast. Excellent monthly show by the team at Jodrell Bank.
The Silicon Valley Astronomy Lectures. Excellent lectures curated by Foothills College in California.
The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. The leading skeptic podcast. Excellent.
StarStuff. Excellent weekly space show from Australia's ABC.

If anyone else has any recommendation, please let us know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for those.
I quite like BBC 5 Live Science with Dr Karl.
More or less is a good podcast on numbers / statistics - its where I first came across Benfords Law.
Material world with Quentin Cooper is sorely missed but all episodes are available on iPlayer radio.
 
Rapscallion said:
Thanks for those.
I quite like BBC 5 Live Science with Dr Karl.
More or less is a good podcast on numbers / statistics - its where I first came across Benfords Law.
Material world with Quentin Cooper is sorely missed but all episodes are available on iPlayer radio.
Click to expand...

Yep, I like 5 Live Science too. Dr Karl also features on another Q&A podcast called Dr Karl on TripleJ.
 
If we did in fact evolve from apes, which apes did we evolve from and why? Evolution would suggest changes for the better, so why do apes still exist and not become extinct?
 
nilagin said:
If we did in fact evolve from apes, which apes did we evolve from and why? Evolution would suggest changes for the better, so why do apes still exist and not become extinct?
Click to expand...

we and apes evolved from a common ancestor
 
Ok - good point.
First - evolutionary changes are mostly detrimental, therefore do not successfully breed and tend to die out.
The small number of evolutionary changes that Benicia the individual can lead to better success at breeding and nance pass that change onto future generations.
Humans are slowly evolving - a study of ancient bones suggests that there were a number of ape groups successfully evolving but competition ( and more controversially - interbreeding) meant the most successful of the group survived ( us) and any close competitors became extinct cure to being out competited. The other great apes ( eg gorillas etc) that still exist are not seen as competitors to the human ape so have survived.
It's interesting that if a new born captive gorilla has difficulty surviving the medical support given to them is based exactly on the care given to human babies that have problems in the first few days after birth. DNA profiles of the great apes ( including humans) is do close it takes real experts to see the differences in their profile.
 
big soft moose said:
we and apes evolved from a common ancestor
Click to expand...
jbw said:
Ok - good point.
First - evolutionary changes are mostly detrimental, therefore do not successfully breed and tend to die out.
The small number of evolutionary changes that Benicia the individual can lead to better success at breeding and nance pass that change onto future generations.
Humans are slowly evolving - a study of ancient bones suggests that there were a number of ape groups successfully evolving but competition ( and more controversially - interbreeding) meant the most successful of the group survived ( us) and any close competitors became extinct cure to being out competited. The other great apes ( eg gorillas etc) that still exist are not seen as competitors to the human ape so have survived.
It's interesting that if a new born captive gorilla has difficulty surviving the medical support given to them is based exactly on the care given to human babies that have problems in the first few days after birth. DNA profiles of the great apes ( including humans) is do close it takes real experts to see the differences in their profile.
Click to expand...

So if both apes and man evolved from the same ancestor, why two species instead of just one and why did one evolve more than the other? As a result of our evolution, man learnt a different form of vocal communication to apes, again why? Also as man converses in different languages, do apes communicate in different languages?
 
nilagin said:
So if both apes and man evolved from the same ancestor, why two species instead of just one and why did one evolve more than the other? As a result of our evolution, man learnt a different form of vocal communication to apes, again why? Also as man converses in different languages, do apes communicate in different languages?
Click to expand...

Because evolutionary "survival of the fittest" means fittest as in best fitted to the ecological niche. There's enough space and enough resource for both species so they don't have to compete as a fight to the death.

As for the development of language, there's a beautifully elegant theory that homo sapiens' symbiotic living alongside packs of dogs meant that the dogs possessed the teeth and jaws to provide the protection of biting so that mutations in human jaw shapes could modify them to permit speech and vocal language!
 
Yves Geza said:
Because evolutionary "survival of the fittest" means fittest as in best fitted to the ecological niche. There's enough space and enough resource for both species so they don't have to compete as a fight to the death.
Click to expand...
But if it was necessary for a species to evolve, why evolve into two species as suggested, rather than just one. Has any other species evolved into two or more species?
 
Yves Geza said:
As for the development of language, there's a beautifully elegant theory that homo sapiens' symbiotic living alongside packs of dogs meant that the dogs possessed the teeth and jaws to provide the protection of biting so that mutations in human jaw shapes could modify them to permit speech and vocal language!
Click to expand...
And living in such close proximity, it was only natural that a hybrid should occur ;)
I never understood the full moon bit though :D
 
nilagin said:
But if it was necessary for a species to evolve, why evolve into two species as suggested, rather than just one. Has any other species evolved into two or more species?
Click to expand...

Every single one of them! Evolution is not necessary and is not specifically directed to an end. In every case, the mechanism of random genetic mutation has resulted in a genotype that has conferred an advantage for that species to survive and prosper better in its particular ecological environment
 
nilagin said:
But if it was necessary for a species to evolve, why evolve into two species as suggested, rather than just one. Has any other species evolved into two or more species?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you're not familiar with Darwin's work. His theory was borne out of seeing finches and their similarities, then how their differences were adaptations to their environment.
 
nilagin said:
Has any other species evolved into two or more species?
Click to expand...
In simple terms
Horses / Zebra's / Przewalski's horse.
Even Hippo's are from the same ancestors.

However everything is / was inextricable linked from the moment the first organism climbed out of the primeval ooze
 
Last edited:
Yves Geza said:
I haven't been out with the dogs you have! :p :D
Click to expand...
A few in my time J a few in my time ...
Oh that's not what you meant was it? :D
(or was it? :D )
 
Cobra said:
However everything is / was inextricable linked from the moment the first organism climbed out of the primeval ooze
Click to expand...

you may need to magnify your screen to read this in full

TreeOfLife.jpg
 
nilagin said:
So if both apes and man evolved from the same ancestor, why two species instead of just one and why did one evolve more than the other? As a result of our evolution, man learnt a different form of vocal communication to apes, again why? Also as man converses in different languages, do apes communicate in different languages?
Click to expand...

Lot of questions - so let's deal with the first one.
All apes have a common ancestor somewhere deep in the past. It is highly likely that small variations in the offspring over many generations led to multiple differences - anything which disadvantaged the animal died out and successful variation survived. Over millions of years this led to multiple splitting from the original ancestor species. As long as these different new species did not directly compete with each and found a successful yet different niche to exploit then survival was possible. For example a close relative to modern man was the Neanderthals ( if you type this into google asking why they died out Wikipedia gives a highly readable explanation). One definition of evolutionary successful is to say that is an organism that is highly adapted to changes in its environment. Humans are successful because they inhabit all five continents plus parts of outer space. But we are new on the scene - many species ( eg sharks) have been around a lot longer than us so you could rate them as even more successful - if we survive and evolve is open to question and the test of time.
Probably the most successful organisms on our planet ( in terms of abundance, robust strength against change, numbers, the ability to adapt quickly within a few generations etc) is not humans but indeed the microbes.
 
nilagin said:
Evolution would suggest changes for the better,
Click to expand...

If it helps, the example I was taught was about moths in the British Midlands. After the Industrial Revolution, there was a genetic advantage for black spotted, blotchy moths who were better disguised against predators. Moths don't live long so they have lots of generations in a relatively short human timescale. After the Clean Air Act, the white moths were observed to predominate again because they no longer benefited from their disguise and there was some other survival advantage linked to the non-spotted gene.
 
nilagin said:
If we did in fact evolve from apes, which apes did we evolve from and why? Evolution would suggest changes for the better, so why do apes still exist and not become extinct?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but surely this is a wind up?
 
Yves Geza said:
If it helps, the example I was taught was about moths in the British Midlands. After the Industrial Revolution, there was a genetic advantage for black spotted, blotchy moths who were better disguised against predators. Moths don't live long so they have lots of generations in a relatively short human timescale. After the Clean Air Act, the white moths were observed to predominate again because they no longer benefited from their disguise and there was some other survival advantage linked to the non-spotted gene.
Click to expand...

As you say, because of their short lives, we can see quite a fast change over many generations, whereas changes in humans would take a very long time, relatively speaking, yet the human `bite` has changed over the past couple of hundred years. Not that many generations in reality & occurred in a short (ish) time scale.

We used to have teeth which lined up, top & bottom more like a guillotine, but because of changes in diet & using utensils, these days we now tend to have an overbite.
 
OldCarlos said:
but because of changes in diet & using utensils, these days we now tend to have an overbite.
Click to expand...
And pay £100's if not £1000's ( largely through the NHS) to have it corrected :D
Nature is there to be interfered with :thumbs:
;)
 
OldCarlos said:
As you say, because of their short lives, we can see quite a fast change over many generations, whereas changes in humans would take a very long time, relatively speaking, yet the human `bite` has changed over the past couple of hundred years. Not that many generations in reality & occurred in a short (ish) time scale.

We used to have teeth which lined up, top & bottom more like a guillotine, but because of changes in diet & using utensils, these days we now tend to have an overbite.
Click to expand...

The widespread use of dummies in infancy accounts for many an overbite.
 
Cobra said:
And pay £100's if not £1000's ( largely through the NHS) to have it corrected :D
Nature is there to be interfered with (y)
;)
Click to expand...

Aye. :rolleyes:
Do away with knives & forks & we could save a fortune. :LOL:

It's more to do with not needing to use muscles in the jaw like we used to, to cut and tear off lumps of meat from a carcass.
 
OldCarlos said:
Do away with knives & forks & we could save a fortune. :LOL:
Click to expand...
What are they :thinking:
:D

OldCarlos said:
It's more to do with not needing to use muscles in the jaw like we used to, to cut and tear off lumps of meat from a carcass.
Click to expand...
And of course our canine teeth have been slowly retracting over the centuries and we no longer have need to grip our prey :D
 
Cobra said:
What are they :thinking:
:D


And of course our canine teeth have been slowly retracting over the centuries and we no longer have need to grip our prey :D
Click to expand...

The vegans are waiting patiently ;)
 
OldCarlos said:
b****x.
Click to expand...

I wish that you was right but unfortunately climate change is happening and future generations will have to deal with the mess that we have left for them as there's no real will to do something about it
 
LCPete said:
I wish that you was right but unfortunately climate change is happening and future generations will have to deal with the mess that we have left for them as there's no real will to do something about it
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, as it always has & will continue to do, I'm just very sceptical about man's contribution to it & how much difference we can make in the future. My biggest annoyance though, is all the money we are being taxed, the limitations which will imposed on us all & the vast amounts of money big business are/will make out of it all.
 
The only reason anything exists is to validate the concept of nothing.
 
OldCarlos said:
I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, as it always has & will continue to do, I'm just very sceptical about man's contribution to it & how much difference we can make in the future. My biggest annoyance though, is all the money we are being taxed, the limitations which will imposed on us all & the vast amounts of money big business are/will make out of it all.
Click to expand...

I am confused by this post. You say that taxes are increased, and also business will make a lot of money out of it? Not certain how both of these can both be true, unless the current strategy will act as an economic stimulus, which can only be a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top