Aye, the males get pregnant; embarrased to say that i didn't know that.
The Beryllium Isotope and the Fine Tuning of the Universe
- Thread starter Mihajlovic
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
weirdos
Wolverine said:
Dead easy. Talk about allopatric speciation in seahorses in the way you would talk about any geographically isolated form of speciation. To get an A say that sympatric speciation may have also occured due to size specific breeding habits in some seahorse species attributed to males brooding the young. If you mention disruptive selection (where large and small individuals survive better than intermediate sized individuals) then your lecturer will give you an A+ and want to dry bum you.
Wolverine said:
That might have made it harder to answer the question.
What kind of a fecking animal is a seahorse anyway?
fecking oddballs
fecking oddballs
There are weirder things n'all
That one looks a bit like a white question mark in a blue box
How weird
I can see it now. It looks a bit like a minge that's come loose and evolved.
There was some sort of jellyfish on a David Attenborough programme once, which looked like a fecking jukebox
There was some sort of jellyfish on a David Attenborough programme once, which looked like a fecking jukebox
It is actually two minges ... erm ... leafy seas dragons.
When I went to Malta, the dive guide said "Ve have too zeahorzes *** are very beautiful in der cave".
I thought he meant two types of seahorses.
He did. And he also meant 2 seahorses.
In a cave the size of a large sitting room. Pitch dark. With coral, rocks and other crap.
Cue 6 divers bobbing around with torches trying to spot 2 creatures the size of my little finger.
We found them in the end though, but not before someone ran out of air...
I thought he meant two types of seahorses.
He did. And he also meant 2 seahorses.
In a cave the size of a large sitting room. Pitch dark. With coral, rocks and other crap.
Cue 6 divers bobbing around with torches trying to spot 2 creatures the size of my little finger.
We found them in the end though, but not before someone ran out of air...
Wibble said:
I thought sympatric speciation was unproven.
spinoza said:
spinoza said:
It probably is. Very hard to prove unless you are watching the speciation occur. They have shown that disrutive selection is likely in some species due to intermediate sized seahorses being less fit that smaller and larger ones but that only really proves that sympatric speciation is possible/likely/cockbiscuit.
The mere mention of the possibility and why would have an A level examiner cream their pants.
The key to the Allopatric speciation in a marine species question is being able to explain how geographic isolation can occur in such an inteconnected environment.
The gentic origins of this model of parental care is somewhat murky so at least the question wasn't about the origins of the male brooding pouch.
nickm said:
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science
Mihajlovic said:
bollocks
Kinell.
What utter kelvinism.
Not science, not published and not peer reviewed except in the sense that other utter Kelvin's hi-fived the inventor of this gibberish.
What utter kelvinism.
Not science, not published and not peer reviewed except in the sense that other utter Kelvin's hi-fived the inventor of this gibberish.
This is the only one that might qualify
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004):
However, if you read it, which Mihajlovic clearly hasn't done, all it says is that if you took a random string of amino acids, there's a 1 in several trillion chance it would form a functional enzyme.
Obviously, since evolution is not a chance mechanism, it's not really that relevant to evolutionary biology. Not to mention that there is no mention of intelligent design in the paper at all.
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004):
However, if you read it, which Mihajlovic clearly hasn't done, all it says is that if you took a random string of amino acids, there's a 1 in several trillion chance it would form a functional enzyme.
Obviously, since evolution is not a chance mechanism, it's not really that relevant to evolutionary biology. Not to mention that there is no mention of intelligent design in the paper at all.
So, how many of these have you read?Mihajlovic said:
feck me things were deep back in 07, just re-reading this and I have no idea what's going on.
Sorry for the wait for a reply.
I've been busy
Sympatric speciation in animals isn't proven exactly because evidence of previous genetic divergence doesn't flag what sort of speciation was responsible, not exactly. With species like seahorses where the males brood the young modelling does show that sympatric speciation would produce the evolutionary patterns observed. This isn't of course doesn't prove that this was the case to a degree that you would state that is was beyond plausible.
Bugger. I did answer it. At least I didn't contradict myself.
If you think sea horses are crazy, what about sea dragons? Honestly a real thing:
Leafy dragon. Beautiful things. I've seen a few in the wild. Stunning.
I saw them for the first time at the Monterray Aquarium last year, so not in the wild sadly. Still, beautiful creatures.
Comical aren't they?
If anyone decides to use them as the source for anything regarding science, they have already lost the discussion. It betrays ignorance on the topic.
I just read their wiki, holy shit they're stupid
Good thing Danny wasn't around in 2007, eh Silva?
Thread title sounds like a Dan Brown novel.
They make less sense than a Dan Brown novel.
They are whole new universe of stupid.
They are whole new universe of stupid.
The jury is in and it is now proven
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-darwin-puddle-species-emerge-geographic.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700518/
I fecking hate Science and Nature. Highest rated journals, but the quality of papers is so much worse than corresponding top journals (or in CS conferences) in particular fields. The machine learning/statistics part of the publication was nuts, no way in hell would have passed in top ML conferences. I guess the prize to pay for inter-science articles though (combine different fields, but be bad in some/all of them).
I don't feel it provided too much value, but at the same time, much better articles have shown this happening in more primitive forms, and there is already a mountain of proof.
can anyone explain from the op's post, which physical quantites are being referred to?
I bow to your knowledge of machine learning as I know next to nothing about it.
One issue with most journals is that their pool of reviewers come from a particular discipline. Biologists will have biology and multivariate biostats skills but probably no machine learning expertise for example.
When we first discussed this many years ago the proof was largely modelling agreeing with outcomes that made it possible but not really proven (if I remember correctly - which I may not).
I think it is more that they need to be lite in specific sciences, in order to appeal to everyone. Additionally, they cannot go too much into details cause the reviewers might be totally clueless in that scientific discipline. While I get the point of them (and the popularity of them talk for itself), they look quite unprofessional to me (even those who are pure machine learning / computer vision are quite meh and have long given up on them).
To me, those journals look more like science popularizers, rather than really being true science.
In terms of fine tuning of the universe, it is absolutely fascinating how incredibly small differences during the first tiny fractions of a second of the event we term the Big Bang would have resulted in a completely outcome.
However, it is now believed that our universe is not unique or singular.
It is far more likely that there could be an almost infinite number of universe's being born; some of which become viaible and develop and some which don't.
And because of the almost infinite number, we just happen to exist in one where the conditions were as they are and contain galaxies, stars, planets
and us.
However, it is now believed that our universe is not unique or singular.
It is far more likely that there could be an almost infinite number of universe's being born; some of which become viaible and develop and some which don't.
And because of the almost infinite number, we just happen to exist in one where the conditions were as they are and contain galaxies, stars, planets
and us.