For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.Hobbes' Choice wrote: The existence of a trait is not evidence that it has selective advantage.
I knew a Jack Russell that used to freeze up. It was really shocking and potentially life threatening.
When animals freeze whilst being hunted is actually due to complete nervous shock and exhaustion. It's not nice.
Scientists can tend to see all traits through the lens of natural selection and this has often led to many stupid interpretations, such as the risible idea that giraffe's long necks has something to so with getting food from trees. This has been shown to be wrong from the simple observation that giraffe's get most of their food by grazing from the ground (in a most uncomfortable way.) , and rarely get food from trees being grass eaters.
It turns out that the long necks of giraffe's do in fact have a used - and when you see males compete for females by using their heads as mallets against each other you suddenly understand why short necked giraffe's never pass on their genes.
The ladies don't give a tickers cuss.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.Hobbes' Choice wrote: The existence of a trait is not evidence that it has selective advantage.
I knew a Jack Russell that used to freeze up. It was really shocking and potentially life threatening.
When animals freeze whilst being hunted is actually due to complete nervous shock and exhaustion. It's not nice.
Scientists can tend to see all traits through the lens of natural selection and this has often led to many stupid interpretations, such as the risible idea that giraffe's long necks has something to so with getting food from trees. This has been shown to be wrong from the simple observation that giraffe's get most of their food by grazing from the ground (in a most uncomfortable way.) , and rarely get food from trees being grass eaters.
It turns out that the long necks of giraffe's do in fact have a used - and when you see males compete for females by using their heads as mallets against each other you suddenly understand why short necked giraffe's never pass on their genes.
The fact is that no one really knows, in the case of giraffes. There are probably several factors, with sexual selection being one of them. The ladies do prefer longer necks.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The ladies don't give a tickers cuss.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.Hobbes' Choice wrote: The existence of a trait is not evidence that it has selective advantage.
I knew a Jack Russell that used to freeze up. It was really shocking and potentially life threatening.
When animals freeze whilst being hunted is actually due to complete nervous shock and exhaustion. It's not nice.
Scientists can tend to see all traits through the lens of natural selection and this has often led to many stupid interpretations, such as the risible idea that giraffe's long necks has something to so with getting food from trees. This has been shown to be wrong from the simple observation that giraffe's get most of their food by grazing from the ground (in a most uncomfortable way.) , and rarely get food from trees being grass eaters.
It turns out that the long necks of giraffe's do in fact have a used - and when you see males compete for females by using their heads as mallets against each other you suddenly understand why short necked giraffe's never pass on their genes.
It's what the guys do fighting for females. But the examples shows that assuming a function without the empirical observation can lead to nonsense interpretations. Zebra stripes are also the recipient of false interpretations. Fact is that they do not need them as similar herbivores do just as well without them.
I'm all in favour of evolution by natural selection. I'm just against the obsessive and overwrought application of it. Just because a theory is true does not mean you can apply it to everything.
Ignore the grating american accent and their commentary the image says it all- I could not find the Attenborough clip.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The fact is that no one really knows, in the case of giraffes. There are probably several factors, with sexual selection being one of them.Hobbes' Choice wrote:The ladies don't give a tickers cuss.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: But there are times when it works. As someone said on here, natural selection isn't about perfection. Humans can 'freeze up' too. It might help in certain circumstances. Whatever the giraffe's neck evolved for obviously helped its ancestors pass the gene on. The long neck must have pleased the ladies. No one disputes that scientists can be wrong sometimes when theorising, (least of all scientists). Everyone's free to theorise.
It's what the guys do fighting for females. But the examples shows that assuming a function without the empirical observation can lead to nonsense interpretations. Zebra stripes are also the recipient of false interpretations. Fact is that they do not need them as similar herbivores do just as well without them.
I'm all in favour of evolution by natural selection. I'm just against the obsessive and overwrought application of it. Just because a theory is true does not mean you can apply it to everything.
I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.Hobbes' Choice wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVYAqtKBVI
What's beautiful is also socially constructed. That means that Americans must find that NOISE attractive.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.Hobbes' Choice wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVYAqtKBVI
You mean the cross between a duck and a foghorn? Admittedly the men don't sound so bad although too high-pitched and unmanly-sounding, but some of the women would make your eardrums bleed.Hobbes' Choice wrote:What's beautiful is also socially constructed. That means that Americans must find that NOISE attractive.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.Hobbes' Choice wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVYAqtKBVI
What really grates is Hilary's tendency to say "Ahrm" all the bloody time.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You mean the cross between a duck and a foghorn? Admittedly the men don't sound so bad although too high-pitched and unmanly-sounding, but some of the women would make your eardrums bleed.Hobbes' Choice wrote:What's beautiful is also socially constructed. That means that Americans must find that NOISE attractive.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I know they fight. The ladies would naturally be attracted to the best fighter. The second one isn't available to me. As for that accent, I had to mute after two seconds. If sexual selection were based on accents then Americans would have become extinct years ago.
I, ahrm, see what you mean. Politicians do that when they are lying. It gives them more time to think of an answer. I don't know why shallow Americans make fun of her looks. She's a nice-looking woman. Perhaps they prefer Joan Rivers post her 42 facelifts. One American whose voice I really do like is Bernie Sanders. He has a very interesting accent. I like him too.Hobbes' Choice wrote:
What really grates is Hilary's tendency to say "Ahrm" all the bloody time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wul_iyB7224
What is lost in the panic?Harbal wrote:They say it's always best to remain calm in a crisis but most rules seem to have an exception. Are there any circumstances under which the best strategy would be to panic?
I looked this up and it seems that if a moose or elephant attack you, playing dead might give you a chance. So if you are unable to play dead but actually panic and faint, it might save you.Harbal wrote:They say it's always best to remain calm in a crisis but most rules seem to have an exception. Are there any circumstances under which the best strategy would be to panic?
No one loses it on government workers since they are practically perfect in every way.sthitapragya wrote:I looked this up and it seems that if a moose or elephant attack you, playing dead might give you a chance. So if you are unable to play dead but actually panic and faint, it might save you.Harbal wrote:They say it's always best to remain calm in a crisis but most rules seem to have an exception. Are there any circumstances under which the best strategy would be to panic?