Science rocks !!

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..
3 mins quantum computer vs 10,000 years supercomputer and an awesome proposal for world's largest solar farm in Tenant Creek;

Now we're all going to need to remember 100-digit passwords.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Now according to my fuzzy recollection of quantum physics, spooky action at a distance and all that, doesn't the simple act of remembering those 100 digits change the state of the 100 digits stored in your smart phone?

Don't you have to be looking at them? A watched pot never boils and all that?

Forget passwords. Use threats.

I haven't studied computer science for long enough, I'm not a quantum physicist, I'm not an engineer ... I don't even have a billion dollars. I'm just not qualified enough to appreciate whether this rocks or not ... could we get a billionaire quantum physicist computer engineer scientist to tell us? Crikey, does one of those even exist?

/sarcasms

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

petermac33 said..

Ha, Ray Banana Man Comfort has his own definition of "kind". It's the one that is too great to directly witness the change of, lolz. To be fair it fits the notion implied in Genesis.

However fossils are observable evidence for evolution. Comparative genomics are more observable evidence. The fact that every birth is accompanied by about 100 mutations on the genome begs the question how could there not be evolution ?

Also at one stage the interviewer says "there are 14 different types of species, can you tell me when one has changed from one to another..."
where did he get the idea there are only 14 species?

Select to expand quote

Beersy said..

NotWal said..

petermac33 said..

Ha, Ray Banana Man Comfort has his own definition of "kind". It's the one that is too great to directly witness the change of, lolz. To be fair it fits the notion implied in Genesis.

However fossils are observable evidence for evolution. Comparative genomics are more observable evidence. The fact that every birth is accompanied by about 100 mutations on the genome begs the question how could there not be evolution ?

Also at one stage the interviewer says "there are 14 different types of species, can you tell me when one has changed from one to another..."
where did he get the idea there are only 14 species?

It's as if he's fixated on the idea that one type turns into another type - as if reptiles all turned into birds and all birds turned into mammals. Bizarre and ignorant.

A crocodile won't turn into a duck . Crocodiles and ducks evolved on different branches from a common ancestor way,way back.
An example is us . A chimpanzee is very close to us , so people presume we evolved from the chimp. It's not what happened . Our early ancestors and the chimps early ancestors evolved on completely different branches going way back to a very small tree dwelling animal. This small animal is where two , ( or more ) seperate paths came from. So we evolved alongside the chimp , not from it .
This does not happen quickly in front of our observable eyes . But a finch can slightly. In the last couple hundred observable years , we have changed . We are on average two inches taller and skinnier in shape not fat , ( not me ).
If half of us humans were completely separated on different sides of the earth and not allowed to interbreed , Just imagine how much we will change differently in ten thousand years let alone one hundred million.

Select to expand quote

Imax1 said..
In the last couple hundred observable years , we have changed . We are on average two inches taller and skinnier in shape not fat , ( not me ).
If half of us humans were completely separated on different sides of the earth and not allowed to interbreed , Just imagine how much we will change differently in ten thousand years let alone one hundred million.

I would argue that this change in average human height is just an example of better nutrition and better health care, not evolution. If there were some specific bias towards only letting tall people breed, then I would agree, but there is not.

Well, just to be the devil's advocate, even ten thousand years may not result in much change if there is no driver to change. If Australian Aboriginals have been in Australia for 40 thousand years, and there has been no pressure to change, why would they? If they were dark skinned when they arrived, nothing here would encourage that to change. On the other hand, if they were light skinned, it probably would have created a benefit to being dark skinned.

I wonder, is there any example of a group of people in the world that have adapted in recent times to a change in environment? We have reached a point in our development where we can compensate for a lot and still thrive in areas where other animals cannot use those same tools.

As an example, if you were to move a human race to the Arctic, they can use fire, they can hunt, they have clothes, and over thousands of years they can find a diet that works for them. Therefore there really is no need for them to adapt to anything. They are using their intelligence to adapt their lifestyle, not their bodies.

I think we have seen the last of evolution of humans as there is just no evolutionary pressure on us.

So the NT gov't is building the worlds largest solar farm at Tennant Creek and the power generated is going to Darwin and SINGAPORE.
Well f..k me so much for replacing coal with solar for Australian consumption. Should not be surprised they sold the port to the Chinese . Mind you having lived in TC it's not much good for anything else these days .Even caravanning web sites advise not to stay there. I can imagine the compensation to the local aboriginal communities ,that is unless they take up residence under the panels.
www.katherinetimes.com.au/story/6285081/plans-for-worlds-biggest-solar-farm-at-tennant-creek/

I think there may be a sexual selection pressure towards taller men.

More people are voting for dicks like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and ScoMo.

Clearly, we are not witnessing evolution in humans but devolution to a semi-erect, clueless ape species.

This hypothesis is scientifically proven by votes.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..
www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/humans-are-still-evolving-and-we-can-watch-it-happen

"In the parents' generation, for example, the researchers saw a correlation between early death in men and the presence in their children (and therefore presumably in the parents) of a nicotine receptor allele that makes it harder to quit smoking. Many of the men who died young had reached adulthood in the United Kingdom in the 1950s, a time when many British men had a pack-a-day habit. In contrast, the allele's frequency in women and in people from Northern California did not vary with age, presumably because fewer in these groups smoked heavily and the allele did not affect their survival. As smoking habits have changed, the pressure to weed out the allele has ceased, and its frequency is unchanged in younger men, Pickrell explains."

At what point were these 'early deaths' happening? If it was say, over the age of 30, you would argue that it would have little effect on the gene being passed on or not, just because these people have most likely already had children.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/humans-are-still-evolving-and-we-can-watch-it-happen

"In the parents' generation, for example, the researchers saw a correlation between early death in men and the presence in their children (and therefore presumably in the parents) of a nicotine receptor allele that makes it harder to quit smoking. Many of the men who died young had reached adulthood in the United Kingdom in the 1950s, a time when many British men had a pack-a-day habit. In contrast, the allele's frequency in women and in people from Northern California did not vary with age, presumably because fewer in these groups smoked heavily and the allele did not affect their survival. As smoking habits have changed, the pressure to weed out the allele has ceased, and its frequency is unchanged in younger men, Pickrell explains."

At what point were these 'early deaths' happening? If it was say, over the age of 30, you would argue that it would have little effect on the gene being passed on or not, just because these people have most likely already had children.

If you've read the article you know as much as me. As you say, actually having bred would be the determining factor, but I'd guess they're talking about earlier than average life expectancy.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/humans-are-still-evolving-and-we-can-watch-it-happen

"In the parents' generation, for example, the researchers saw a correlation between early death in men and the presence in their children (and therefore presumably in the parents) of a nicotine receptor allele that makes it harder to quit smoking. Many of the men who died young had reached adulthood in the United Kingdom in the 1950s, a time when many British men had a pack-a-day habit. In contrast, the allele's frequency in women and in people from Northern California did not vary with age, presumably because fewer in these groups smoked heavily and the allele did not affect their survival. As smoking habits have changed, the pressure to weed out the allele has ceased, and its frequency is unchanged in younger men, Pickrell explains."

At what point were these 'early deaths' happening? If it was say, over the age of 30, you would argue that it would have little effect on the gene being passed on or not, just because these people have most likely already had children.

If you've read the article you know as much as me. As you say, actually having bred would be the determining factor, but I'd guess they're talking about earlier than average life expectancy.

Yeah, I read it after asking that question, but reading it again, it still doesn't quite make sense to me. I don't understand how one would 'weed' out a gene when it hasn't affected the person until after they have had children. Mehh, sometimes people jump to conclusions or articles are wrong, or the link is non-obvious.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..

FormulaNova said..

Kamikuza said..
www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/humans-are-still-evolving-and-we-can-watch-it-happen

"In the parents' generation, for example, the researchers saw a correlation between early death in men and the presence in their children (and therefore presumably in the parents) of a nicotine receptor allele that makes it harder to quit smoking. Many of the men who died young had reached adulthood in the United Kingdom in the 1950s, a time when many British men had a pack-a-day habit. In contrast, the allele's frequency in women and in people from Northern California did not vary with age, presumably because fewer in these groups smoked heavily and the allele did not affect their survival. As smoking habits have changed, the pressure to weed out the allele has ceased, and its frequency is unchanged in younger men, Pickrell explains."

At what point were these 'early deaths' happening? If it was say, over the age of 30, you would argue that it would have little effect on the gene being passed on or not, just because these people have most likely already had children.

If you've read the article you know as much as me. As you say, actually having bred would be the determining factor, but I'd guess they're talking about earlier than average life expectancy.

Yeah, I read it after asking that question, but reading it again, it still doesn't quite make sense to me. I don't understand how one would 'weed' out a gene when it hasn't affected the person until after they have had children. Mehh, sometimes people jump to conclusions or articles are wrong, or the link is non-obvious.

Not well written article, perhaps. As I read it: smokers passed on an allele for greater addiction, then their kids died off early ie. before passing it on.

I'm sure banana crocoduck man would rule out environmentally-driven evolution as it doesn't turn humans into something else quite as obviously as he'd like...

There was another article on that site that talks about Dutch average height increases. I think in other studies they have suggested that its most likely due to their consumption of protein in their diet. One thing I was reading was that its common to have a lot of protein in their breakfast meal, so that the suggestion was that the growth spurts they go through are bolstered by this supply of protein.

This other article on that site suggests that maybe taller Dutch men are having more children, which then increases that propensity in the population.

Maybe this same thing could have happened in the past with smokers? Maybe non smokers had larger families? As is pretty obvious, there are so many reasons that it would be hard to narrow it down to one specific one or at least one most likely.

We need volunteers to have twins and then raise them with cigarettes and different protein diets and only then we will know...