Celebrating science

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








insidestory.org.au/here-comes-the-sun/

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

Harrow said..

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.

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?

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.

Select to expand quote

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 ?

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..
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 ?

Yeah. He's the crocoduck guy -- what he's asking is where are the crocodiles turning into ducks. Fossils etc to Comfort are irrelevant because they don't show crocodiles turning into ducks before our eyes. His definition of "kind" is designed to throw up this fallacy.

PZ Meyers? They were desperate, weren't they.

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

petermac33 said..

What a stupid question and a stupid video. As others have noted it doesn't pass a simple logic test - he is demanding an example of a "change of kinds" within a very short time-frame, but evolutionary theory and fossil records etc says that such things occur over longer time frames. The theory says "A happens in X time" and this turkey thinks he's found a flaw because he wants A to happen in a shorter time.

It's like if I said "a good chocolate cake should be baked for 25 to 27 minutes" and someone said "unless you can show me a good cake baked within 5 seconds, you are wrong". Or it's like if I said "you can drive from Sydney to Melbourne in 10 to 24 hours" and someone says "unless you can drive from Sydney to Melbourne in 12 minutes, you are wrong".

The only reason the academics appear confused is probably because (1) the producer has edited it that way; and (2) they are stunned by the stupid and illogical nature of this ridiculous question and this idiotic smartarse.

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.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

What a stupid question and a stupid video. As others have noted it doesn't pass a simple logic test - he is demanding an example of a "change of kinds" within a very short time-frame, but evolutionary theory and fossil records etc says that such things occur over longer time frames. The theory says "A happens in X time" and this turkey thinks he's found a flaw because he wants A to happen in a shorter time.

Chris, Chris, Chris, I can see where you are still going wrong. You are applying logic to it, and if there is one thing these people are not good at its logic.

Even if you could show them a fish that turned into a duck, they would then claim that it was somehow rigged. You cannot win!

Once you accept that you can never win against these people its less stressful and you can enjoy the 'fun' of winding them up sometimes or if you are even crazier, you can still try and talk them through logic... as long as you are not really expecting to win them around.

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

petermac33 said..

Pete, if some obnoxious wanker shoved a microphone in your face and put you on the spot by saying "show me some observable evidence that the Earth is flat" what would you say?
Also remembering that he'll only show your initial reaction and edit out any thought out answers.

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.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..



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.

Is it coincidence that you picked 10,000 years?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

The book examines many examples, including the classic examples: Lactose tolerance, the Kalahari bushmen and the Ashkenazi Jews. DNA analysis has allowed all sorts of theories to be nailed down.
The mutation for Lactose tolerance took off in the Steppes. and independently in Africa, It supported many times the population compared to an equivalent number of beasts raised for just meat. Cattle rustling went along with it so genes for aggression spread with it.

They reckon the bow and arrow made the bushman not the other way around. With the bow you didn't need to be huge to bring down game. A lightweight frame runs more efficiently.

And then there were the money lenders, smart ones made more money, had bigger families and then kept it in the family.

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/

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

FormulaNova said..



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.

Is it coincidence that you picked 10,000 years?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

The book examines many examples, including the classic examples: Lactose tolerance, the Kalahari bushmen and the Ashkenazi Jews. DNA analysis has allowed all sorts of theories to be nailed down.
The mutation for Lactose tolerance took off in the Steppes. and independently in Africa, It supported many times the population compared to an equivalent number of beasts raised for just meat. Cattle rustling went along with it so genes for aggression spread with it.

They reckon the bow and arrow made the bushman not the other way around. With the bow you didn't need to be huge to bring down game. A lightweight frame runs more efficiently.

And then there were the money lenders, smart ones made more money, had bigger families and then kept it in the family.

Ian, I just picked 10,000 years from the mention in Imax1's post.

I do have that book at home, and I have even read it I wouldn't be surprised if I bought it after you mentioned it even...

Agriculture no doubt allowed people to expand, including the domestication of animals.

Are there particular racial groups these days that can't digest lactose (after childhood of course), i.e. is it confined to certain areas? You would expect that its come from a group where cows or other milking animals did not exist, or maybe not. I wonder if this is also a situation where the genes to allow lactose tolerance opened up the opportunity to domesticate dairy animals or vice versa. Which came first? The animals were domesticated, or the gene to digest mik?


I just wonder, now, is there any pressure for evolution? What are people dying of early that can be identified? Nothing?

Two lactose intollerant people can happily have children and survive fine without worrying about food resources.

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

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."

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

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

See, this is where this sort of stuff gets interesting... the social aspects of this come into play.

Okay, presuming the sexual pressure towards taller men, does this translate to women finding taller men that will raise children with them? Maybe, maybe not.

Is it likely that ALL women will have this option available to them? Not likely. If it was, we will all (already) be running around as giants and gradually getting taller to a point where it was something else that was stopping it.

So, you end up with almost everyone in society that wants to, having children, and you will get the same variation. Short women are going to have just as much breeding capability as anyone else, and short men will find themselves selected as a mate for other reasons, even if it came down to supply versus demand.

Sexual selection towards taller men is only one of the attributes that are going to be included for selection of a mate. I agree that it is one, but then lots of other factors come into it. Reliability? Income producing potential? Lack of aggression? Aggression? Physical fitness? Intelligence?

Also you have to counter the breeding potential of taller women? Does this turn out to be a negative that then affects future generations?

It would be interesting to see if there was one consistent trait that people select against in modern society.

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

azymuth said..
Celebrating science

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

insidestory.org.au/here-comes-the-sun/

You could instead join the Liberal National PArty and celebrate coal fired power generation tech. It's so 1850's.

Or you could team up with Kamikuza and celebrate 1950's tech with nuclear power.

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

holy guacamole said..
Or you could team up with Kamikuza and celebrate 1950's tech with nuclear power.

Right, cos there have been no advances in reactor design since the fifties

Say, when was the first windmill developed? That's some cutting edge science there...

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

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...

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...

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

NotWal 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 ?

Yeah. He's the crocoduck guy -- what he's asking is where are the crocodiles turning into ducks. Fossils etc to Comfort are irrelevant because they don't show crocodiles turning into ducks before our eyes. His definition of "kind" is designed to throw up this fallacy.

PZ Meyers? They were desperate, weren't they.

last i looked crocs were still crocs. worked it out very early ,didn't need to evolve further. cool beasts