A science nerd thread.

[Arete]

Capitalism is the human form of survival of the fittest...

That statement asserts that higher income=higher fecundity or in simpler terms the higher your rate of capitalistic success, the more offspring you both produce.

Given that the mean population growth rate is lowest in developed nations and highest in the least developed nations I assert that the notion that capitalism represents the entirety of reproductive fitness in humans to be totally false. If it were true you would see the opposite trend.

 

[Binaural]

I’m currently working on a project about species delimitation and it reminded me of a heated conversation I had with a fellow scientist –

Him: “So it’s a new species?”
Me: “Yes”
Him: “So how do you tell them apart?”
Me: “You can’t. They look identical.”
Him: “So they can’t hybridize?”
Me: “No, they interbreed.”
Him: “Then it’s not a new species. Fucking gel jockeys (derogatory term for lab based biologist)…”

I was a bit taken aback by a relatively educated person’s utter lack of understanding of the general lineage concept of species… in that all a species needs to be a species is the long term maintenance of an independent evolutionary history and the “operational secondary characters” like reproductive isolation, physical differences, genetic differentiation, different ecology etc and so are simply things which can assist us in discovering and recognizing species.

Therefore it’s interesting rather than problematic that there can be two groups of organisms with identical distributions that freely interbreed and look identical, but have maintained different evolutionary trajectories. I’m always concerned/amused by the heated reaction I get from amateur enthusiasts and on-the-ground type biologists like park rangers/environmental consultants upon the suggestion that the two organisms can be considered species – with no possible way for a field guide to provide a method of distinguishing them in the wild.

It the possibility of indistinguishable species really that challenging for the general community (or at least the section of the community who might give a toss about how many species of lizard/frog/fish there are in a given area)?

The problem is that for most laypeople, the classification of the living kingdom can be pretty complex and it's very helpful to have relatively clear rules for classification. A species is one of the few classifications that most people feel they can get a clear handle on, because criteria such as "cannot interbreed" is a crystal-clear distinction that allows us to distinguish two otherwise similar-looking animals. People don't get so worked up about the distinctions between family, class etc because by that point the differences between types are obvious to all.

Myself, I recognize that even though the concept of a species is an attempt to quantize a continuum of animal types, I'm sympathetic to people who want hard-and-fast rules for distinguishing species from each other. After all, it does seem a tendency to think in types and categories is fundamental to how humans use their minds, and our education does not really try and press this paradigm out of us.

 

['Ross]

That statement asserts that higher income=higher fecundity or in simpler terms the higher your rate of capitalistic success, the more offspring you both produce.

Given that the mean population growth rate is lowest in developed nations and highest in the least developed nations I assert that the notion that capitalism represents the entirety of reproductive fitness in humans to be totally false. If it were true you would see the opposite trend.

What about life expectancy/Death rates? That is what I would attribute with survival.

 

[Arete]

Population growth rate = recruitment rate - mortality rate.

The developing world is growing faster than the developed world and therefore the level of genetic input into the next generation is higher for human populations with lower levels of capitalistic success than human populations with high capitalistic success.

Therefore capitalistic success is not equitable with reproductive fitness and hence not equitable with selective criteria.

Binaural - I guess my driving point is that in managing biodiversity, it doesn't matter if we can't tell species apart, what matters is that the organisms can tell each other apart and have done so for periods of time relevant to evolutionary processes. By ignoring things you can't tell apart, you oversimplify the systems you work with and thus potentially make big mistakes in managing them.

 

[Arete]

Potentially good news for the gulf of mexico

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/news/environment-news/nsf-oil-blue-crabs-vin.html

 

[RYDA]

 

[Bermshot]

Fecund is the new word right!?

 

[for those about to rock]

I have decided to take a gap year this year and, subsequently, I have been trying to find something to do other than working. Just now, I have found this which should keep me ocu-pi-ed. I currently know Pi off by heart to two decimal places. Maybe, just maybe, I will reach the 1,000,000 decimal places on that page.

After all, how hard can it be?

 

[Arete]

Global temperature increase lead to intensifying monsoonal rainfall, with a lag time of 3 000 years in the LGM:
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 301, 256 (2011).

Abstract
Our understanding of the continental climate development in East Asia is mainly based on loess–paleosol sequences and summer monsoon precipitation reconstructions based on oxygen isotopes (δ18O) of stalagmites from several Chinese caves. Based on these records, it is thought that East Asian Summer Monsoon (EASM) precipitation generally follows Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer insolation. However, not much is known about the magnitude and timing of deglacial warming on the East Asian continent. In this study we reconstruct continental air temperatures for central China covering the last 34,000 yr, based on the distribution of fossil branched tetraether membrane lipids of soil bacteria in a loess–paleosol sequence from the Mangshan loess plateau. The results indicate that air temperature varied in phase with NH summer insolation, and that the onset of deglacial warming at ~ 19 kyr BP is parallel in timing with other continental records from e.g. Antarctica, southern Africa and South-America. The air temperature increased from ~ 15 °C at the onset of the warming to a maximum of ~ 27 °C in the early Holocene (~ 12 kyr BP), in agreement with the temperature increase inferred from e.g. pollen and phytolith data, and permafrost limits in central China.

Comparison of the tetraether membrane lipid-derived temperature record with loess–paleosol proxy records and stalagmite δ18O records shows that the strengthening of EASM precipitation lagged that of deglacial warming by ca. 3 kyr. Moreover, intense soil formation in the loess deposits, caused by substantial increases in summer monsoon precipitation, only started around 12 kyr BP (ca. 7 kyr lag). Our results thus show that the intensification of EASM precipitation unambiguously lagged deglacial warming and NH summer insolation, and may contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms controlling ice age terminations.



Conclusions
The application of the MBT/CBT proxy on paleosol–loess sequences from the Mangshan loess plateau has resulted in a continuous, high-resolution air temperature record that provides an insight in the climate development of eastern Asia during the last 34,000 yr. The record shows that the onset of deglacial atmospheric warming is similar in timing with previous continental temperature records from e.g. Antarctica and Africa, and that air temperature varied in phase with Northern Hemisphere summer insolation. However, deglacial intensification of the East Asian Summer Monsoon, based on loess proxy records obtained from the same paleosol–loess sequence and δ18O speleothem records, clearly lagged that of warming by > 3 kyr. Intense soil formation (i.e. development of the Holocene paleosol S0), depending on both higher temperatures and available moisture, even lagged deglacial warming by ~ 7 kyr. Our data and new MBT/CBT-derived temperature records may give us the opportunity to better understand the driving forces of deglacial warming and the monsoon system in eastern Asia.

 

[S.]

Global temperature increase lead to intensifying monsoonal rainfall, with a lag time of 3 000 years in the LGM:
Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 301, 256 (2011).

Even as a nerd I find that very hard to read. Any chance of an abstract in plain english?

 

[Nerf Herder]

Capitalism is the human form of survival of the fittest...

That statement asserts that higher income=higher fecundity or in simpler terms the higher your rate of capitalistic success, the more offspring you both produce.

Given that the mean population growth rate is lowest in developed nations and highest in the least developed nations I assert that the notion that capitalism represents the entirety of reproductive fitness in humans to be totally false. If it were true you would see the opposite trend.

I didn't read all the thread ... so happy to be correct额度 if my focus is too narrow

I argue that "Survival of the Fittest" doesn't relate to the number of children produced, but the degree of elevation in the quality of life that any progeny may benefit from their parents. With quality of life being measured by economic power (see below “。。。can money buy happiness”)

eg, a farmer in a developing nation, requires several children, as a hedge against infant mortality and or natural disasters, so that they can take care of them in their old age. The quality of life or the social/ economic station that the surviving progeny are likely to have in adulthood will be somewhat similar to that of the parents.

Some may advance, however, the majority do not.

Further, as the majority are left behind, this acts as a drain on resources, therefore, they may actually be going backwards (removing technological advances, and focusing on economic and or social standing) ... eg, the father starts with 100 acres ... 2 sons manage to survive ... they then start adult hood with 50 acres ... therefore leading to a dilution of assets per survivor.

Conversely, due to life style choices, developed (western) nations have decreasing birth rates, and similarly given modern life style (stress, differing priorities, waiting longer before considering procreation etc) fertility rates have decreased. However Life expectancy has increased, and without sighting any support, I would see that developed nations have a longer sustained period of increasing wealth inter-generationally compared to developing nations (with measureable differences between Capitalist and Communist nations too).
So refering to

Capitalism is the human form of survival of the fittest...

I don’t think the statement relates to fecundity, (had to look it up) but instead refers to the likely rate of success for any progeny to progress (I wont define progress)

Below link isn't the article I read ... but its in a similar vein
http://www.thatsfit.ca/2010/07/08/money-can-buy-you-happiness/
In short ... due to the economic security that having money (or assets) provides, the lucky or successful have less to worry about and therefore are "Happier" whatever that might mean. So Capitalism is furthering survival of the fittest, or happiest, or securest, or ...

 

[Arete]

I didn't read all the thread ... so happy to be correct额度 if my focus is too narrow

I argue that "Survival of the Fittest" doesn't relate to the number of children produced, but the degree of elevation in the quality of life that any progeny may benefit from their parents. With quality of life being measured by economic power (see below “。。。can money buy happiness”)

In a biological sense, fitness is the ability of an organism to pass its genes on to the next generation. Thus, in the evolutionary sense of the word, population growth is the direct outcome of increased fitness. Individual quality of life has absolutley nothing to do with the evolutionary process that the term "survival of the fittest directly relates to, otherwise it would be "comfort of the fittest".

Think about it terms of birds in a tree. Say there's a pair of Galahs in a tree hollow with a chick. Another pair move into another hollow in the tree and have another chick. The resource allocation per individual has been halved, so intra-population competition is increased, but overall abunance of the species is increased, the recuitment rate per tree has doubled and resource utilisation for the species overall is more efficient. As such, 4 galahs per tree has a higher evolutionary success rate than 2 - even if over-exploitation means one of the two chicks dies, the habitat still had the same output it would have if one pair were there and it also produced a selective outcome through infoant survivorship.

The current over-allocation of resources per capita as displayed by western nations - whilst allowing for an increased comfort level per individual is (in a simplistic sense) a very poor strategy in terms of evolutionary success.

An aside - On a global scale humans are fast approaching a point by which an absolute resource potential will be met and there simply won't be enough food and water to sustain the current levels of population growth - at which stage biology suggests the enviroment will limit our population for us - locusts, mice, algae, deer, etc all spike in abundance in accordance with the available resources. Plenty of other organisms limit their populations voluntarily to prevent reaching such a point (e.g. kagaroos can hold pregnancies in stasis through droughts, plants can chemically supress the germination of seeds in the soil whilst the parent is alive, etc.)

What Rider of Fast is alluding to (I think) is social/economic darwinism. I.e. - capitalistic wealth accumulation is just a natural evolutionary process, therefore greed (for want of a better term) is natural and good. I'm simply pointing out that no - wealth accumulation is not equitable to evolutionary principles in that capitalistic success is not correlated with increased breeding potential - the fundamental measure of evolutionary success. The concept of social darwinism is not a logical extension of the scientific theory and not justifiable by the same principles.

 

[for those about to rock]

Well, after watching some videos, I have decided that I will open up for debate The Moon Landing. Given that the majority of the people who look at this thread are quite science minded, I assume everyone will have an opinion of whether Niel and Buzz got there. I, personally, would find it quite interesting to hear people's opinion to the fact and their reasons for believing whether they did or not.

Personally, I believe they made it. In the most simplest argument, surely someone would have leaked it if they knew it was a hoax.

Some might find that such a debate is unnecessary, however I feel it would be good to see what arguments we can all come up with.

 

[Bjorn]

I have decided that I will open up for debate The Moon Landing.

Maybe we should have a Conspiracy Theories thread.

I think the moon landing occurred because (among many other reasons) the radio telescope at Parkes NSW was instrumental in relaying the first moon landing images back to mission control. I think it would have been noticed if the dish was tracking a satellite rather than the moon.

Moon trivia: Apparently, the moon landing was carried out with less computing power than was in a mid '80s era pocket scientific calculator.

 

[Spanky_Ham]

Personally, I believe they made it. In the most simplest argument, surely someone would have leaked it if they knew it was a hoax.

Really? How about the fact you can see evidence of human occupation of the moon through the LRO images? Yes, only released in the past few years..... (first person to shout "photoshop" gets pigs poo in the eye!)

The fact that if you shine a f*ck off big laser at the moon, there will be one small part of the moon that reflects that sh*t right back in your eyes... That's the lunar ranging experiment from Apollo 15 and 11 the pig thinks (also the russians left a few reflectors up there too - admittely not dropped by human hand.... ) still being used to measure the distance from earth to moon

the fact that 10 other people after buzz and co walked on the moon surface... they brought shit back, took pictures of the earth rising? mmmmmmm......

and where do you think the amerikan government put those fwarking HUGE Saturn V launch vehicles after they launched - those enormous flame emitting HUMUNGOSAUROUS rockets that were launched in daytime and video of the launches broadcast on TV? Velcro them to the back of the clouds for a few weeks before dropping them back down in the ocean or recovery?

Yes, it never happened.... there's no clear proof or evidence....

Shall we play again.

s

 

[scblack]

Well, after watching some videos, I have decided that I will open up for debate The Moon Landing. Given that the majority of the people who look at this thread are quite science minded, I assume everyone will have an opinion of whether Niel and Buzz got there. I, personally, would find it quite interesting to hear people's opinion to the fact and their reasons for believing whether they did or not.

Personally, I believe they made it. In the most simplest argument, surely someone would have leaked it if they knew it was a hoax.

Some might find that such a debate is unnecessary, however I feel it would be good to see what arguments we can all come up with.

Thats not a debate, that is just nutbags crapping on about stuff.

Conspiracy theorists gone nutbag.

 

[scblack]

Moon trivia: Apparently, the moon landing was carried out with less computing power than was in a mid '80s era pocket scientific calculator.

A good few years ago now, they calculated the computer power they used was less than in a standard car.

These days they had less power than is contained in some car models KEY.

 

[martinpb]

- those enormous flame emitting HUMUNGOSAUROUS rockets that were launched in daytime
s

Apollo 17 was launched at night

But apart from that - i agree that if people want to talk conspiricy theories, they should start a new thread (and i'll join in helping Spanky point out the total balls you're spouting)

As for the original question - in the video of the launch of the luna return capsule, you can see the dust from the moon surface follow a balistic arc. That means the film was taken in vacuum, that would have had to have been a frigging HUGE vaccum chamber, and probably more difficult to build and maintain that it would have been to fly the moon missions.

There are a lot of other reasons, if it was faked, then the guys who did the special effects took extraordinary care to make sure things look like they are happening in a vacuum at 1/6 earth gravity ;-)

 

[Spanky_Ham]

Apollo 17 was launched at night

But apart from that - i agree that if people want to talk conspiricy theories, they should start a new thread (and i'll join in helping Spanky point out the total balls you're spouting)

damn, I forgot Apollo 17..... that launch was freakn cool (youtube is your friend)..... the pig stands corrected....

s

 

[J@se]

Apollo 11 launch

You guys might like this. I know I do! The narration is a bit boring though.

[video=vimeo;4366695]http://vimeo.com/4366695[/video]

This clip is raw from Camera E-8 on the launch umbilical tower/mobile launch program of Apollo 11, July 16, 1969. This is an HD transfer from the 16mm original. The camera is running at 500 fps, making the total clip of over 8 minutes represent just 30 seconds of actual time.