Depends how you’re using “why”. In Russian, they actually have two words for why, one of which implies teleology, and one which doesn’t, and merely requests some explanation for a phenomenon. I wish we had that in English.
In this case, it’s such a general question you can’t do much better, but you could, for example, talk about why oxygen-carrying proteins pretty much always incorporate an ion of something, in a merely cause-and-effect way. (And I actually don’t know the answer to that one)
The answer to the question, “How did this evolve?”, is the same as the answer to a non-teleological “why”. People just need to learn to use “how” because “why” is such a loaded word.
When using “how” in this sense and “why” in the non-teleological sense, they have the exact same meaning (at least to my ear), but then the “how” version isn’t ambiguous.
If I say to myself, “How did this evolve?”, the question feels good. It feels clear, and my mind leaps into thinking about the function of the mineral in the body and the chain of evolutionary steps that could have caused it.
If I say to myself “Why did this evolve?”, I just can’t get the teleology sense of the word out of my head. If someone didn’t want a teleological answer, why did they say “why” when “how” is clearly better? So I assume they mean why.
I feel like even if I answered their question, the next one would be, “Yeah, but why?” Making me feel like I wasted my time explaining the “how”.
That’s might be an option too, I guess, but in some situations it’s a different question. If I make a mistake and you ask “how”, you might just get more details. If you ask “why” I might respond with “I was tired”, which doesn’t really imply teleology. As I understand it почему would be more specific to cause rather than just means, but then again my Russian is pretty basic. The word “how” would be как, and it even works as an intensifier the same way.
Animals whose biology that used the metals reproduced more successfully is the explanation. It could longer lives, better reproductive outcomes, or a ton of other reasons but it all comes down to reproduction.
Well, genes, if we want to get really technical. Otherwise you can find counterexamples where genes are detrimental to the organism, but manage to spread anyway do to some quirk.
Generally they don’t impact the reproduction rate enough.
Let’s take reproductive cycles as an example of there being no single benefit or negative. Some species reproduce in mass quantities and that works for them, while others are slower. The fast one having genes that slow reproduction would probably die out because their adaptation of mass reproduction is what keeps them around. A slower reproducing species won’t necessarily benefit from higher rates as they might overpopulate their range. So what looks like a detriment could just be a thing that neither benefits nor is a detriment depending on the complex context of the species and where they live.
And sometimes detriment are offset by other benefits, like sickle cell anemia having some terrible outcomes but it also protects against malaria so in the context of somewhere with a high rate of malaria it is beneficial to survive to a reproductive age, which would explain it sticking around.
Ah, so you haven’t heard about this thing. It’s not really lucky 10,000 territory, but it’s still cool.
There are situations, where in sexually reproducing organisms, an unambiguously bad gene can spread through the population, just by ensuring it’s more likely to appear in the next generation. As long as it’s not so bad it kills the species off, you’re still likely to observe it a lot in a future population. We’ve actually harnessed this idea technologically, with genetically modified mosquitoes that crash their local population by skewing all offspring malewards.
That is one example of ‘not detrimental enough to impact reproduction’ which I meant in the context of a population and not an individual, but I guess that my wording wasn’t clear enough.
Theoretical biologist here. I’m going to push back on that just a bit. I think that you might have mentioned Selfish Gene, too. That was not the best book even at the time of publication (most biologists had a number of problems with it oversimplifying in a way that’s probably similar to what anthropologists think about Guns Germs and Steel). It also has been getting worse the more we learn.
Evolution acts on the phenotype, not the genotype. It affects the gene makeup of the population through differential reproduction rates. “Fitness” can be measured as a value relative to the rest of the population specifically by using the number of offspring. So what I’m saying here is that all factors that affect phenotype, whether genes or other factors, affect evolution.
So, of course genes are important. But you have epigenetic factors, too. link here You also have extensive non-coding regions that regulate transcription. You have rna editing. And so on.
If you’re interested, I would highly recommend a book called How Life Works by Phillip Ball. It was just published in November and is an outstanding summary of how much our understanding of life has evolved (heh) in the last 20 years or so.
Well, you would know a lot better. And thanks for the reading recommendation.
What are your thoughts on viruses as a form of life? Asking what natural selection is in exact terms is pretty closely related to asking what life is, since life is probably some subset of things that can do natural selection.
Personally, I do think of viruses as a form of life, and although it’s not universally held by any means, I think there’s a growing consensus around the idea.
That’s probably as minimalistic as I would go, though. I mean, you can make a similar argument to some extent about prions, but prions are too close to being “just chemistry” for me.
Viruses on the other hand cooperate and compete in complex ecosystems, which in my opinion magnifies the complexity of a virus as an element of a complex adaptive system. They don’t have a metabolism as such (which is why so many don’t consider them living), but their ability to conduct theft of resources of more complex and obviously living systems makes me push them to group of living things.
One of the nearest things about biology is that there’s always an exception to the rules and examples, and the simplifications we make when teaching bio 101 are really best learned as rules of thumb. Things like what a “gene” really is, the operation of selection, and even what constitutes a “species” can lead to some really interesting discussions.
A few fields are a bit like that. I remember my chemistry teacher in high school saying something similar.
As mostly a math person, it kind of bugs me. There definitely is one set of rules that a field obeys, and while it’s usually necessary to simplify I’d really like to know how not to. Sure, water is mostly incompressible, but it’s not exactly so, and that’s how sound works and can translate to other mediums. And then once you get down to small scales, high energies or low pressures you start seeing the individual water molecules being relevant and doing all kinds of different things. Those factors were always there, even if they weren’t relevant.
Sorry, maybe that’s a bit of a rant, but all that to say I’m sure you can find a consensus on these questions eventually.
Creep is the mechanism you refer to. Yes absolutely scientists can replicate creep in the lab. You too can at home by leaving butter on the counter and watching it bend under its own weight at room temperature after a few days.
At about 1/2 or 2/3 of the melting temp and above, materials start to behave kind of funny.
The glass transition temperature of quartz is 1200°C, and according to the charts I could find, is outside crust and upper mantle temperature ranges. (That is just based on averages, I believe. Heat from friction may be in a different category.)
Edit: The melting temperature is ~1700°C. It probably starts to get malleable around 1200°C. I was confused about the term “glass transition” due to some of my hobbies and likely does not apply.
Other silicon-type rocks (like gypsum; opposed to quartz) have wildly different glass transition temperatures in the 200°C range. That seems feasible to bend in a lab and could be in-scope.
Hmm. I’m going to have to look up how you model glass bending, if that’s how it works. I wonder if you could do this in a garage setting, even. I’m not surprised a calcium mineral is less resistant to it, they seen less hardcore in general or something.
Glass is a weird one since it’s an amorphous solid.
Excuse, me though. I might be mixing up my definition of “glass transition”. It’s a term used for plastics (and other amorphous solids) when they start to becomes malleable.
In the above case, I think I tried to apply it to quartz which is incorrect. The temperature ranges are still in the ball park of my intent.
Neat! That’s a very specific, chain-like example, though, so not really in the spirit of the question even if correct to the letter. I’m also not sure what it does in the actual plastic deformation regime.
It is loosely defined from my perspective, but I am curious about harder rocks, like granite. Your standard everyday rock tends to be much more brittle and may not have a high metal content. (It will likely have iron in one form or another though.)
Most metals and rocks are crystals in their “normal” state, so I see what you are getting at.
Your username is basically the notation for a crystal oscillator, so it’s gotta count. (Damn the rules!) Quartz is a rock that bends for a commercial purpose, so thats a really good answer, actually.
In these cases the rock may be hot, but it’s not molten. I was even just reading that many rocks will not have any internal stresses from being bent because of the forces and the time that is involved.
Nope. The mantle is mostly solid. It’s just so huge and, under intense pressure and heat, bendy, that it still facilitates moving continents and ocean plates.
No. Rabies is destroying neurons, causing the symptoms. The hydrophobia is not literal fear of water (like phobias so often aren't) but a result of your brain being fried to the point where you have issues swallowing. If it were an issue of hydration, just IV fluids would be a given, and you would probably want IV access anyway.
The “cure” for rabies is to treat it with a vaccine prior to symptoms appearing. The rabbies vaccine is 100% effective and you will not become symptomatic if you treat soon after the bite. The Milwaukee protocol has been tried and it’s a last ditch effort for people who didn’t get the vaccine shortly after the bite and are now showing symptoms. They don’t even know if the Milwaukee Protocol is what prevented death or if the people it worked on were somehow resistant to rabies.
Because unless you’re living and working in a high risk environment, there’s no need for a human to go get a rabies vaccine because they can just avoid mammals that are acting strangely. It’s not like it’s airborne, you have to get a penetrating bite from a symptomatic animal to get it, so when that happens you just go to the doctor. You’d still likely get the vaccine even after a bite even if you had been previously vaccinated.
Vets and people who work in animal shelters often get the rabies vaccines beforehand. But even if you have been vaccinated previously, you still have to get it again if you are bitten.
The efficacy of vaccines usually declines over time after administration. The immune system starts to “forget” how to fight a pathogen it doesn’t encounter. It doesn’t completely forget, but it puts the treatment data way back in the archives. So when it encounters the real deal, it can take quite a while to boot up production of antibodies. It also varies by the type of disease.
This is fine for some slow diseases ( which is why sometimes a single vaccination can suffice ), but can be risky if the disease progresses faster than the immune system can ramp up the defenses.
Administering the vaccine as soon as possible after suspected exposure to deadly or highly contagious diseases simply helps the immune system to get the necessary blueprints to get in the fight quicker.
Administering the vaccine before any exposure at regular, long intervals is done to decrease the baseline risk. Sometimes you don’t know you have been infected. Many diseases are not only transmitted by dramatic, obvious vectors. In those cases, it’s definitely better to have some old defense than none at all.
In addition to what Senshi said, if you have recieved the full course of vaccines (4-5 doses spread over a month), any future bites need only 1-3 doses. Also the time within which you have to take the first dose increases from 24 hours to 2-3 days, which can be quite useful to vets in remote places.
The Milwaukee Protocol is a treatment plan that is essentially a more advanced version of what you’re asking. The patient is put in a medically induced coma and then given antivirals and IV fluids, which avoids the issue of hydrophobia.
and didnt they use it on that girl that survived cause she didnt report the bite until it was too late, so it was either try something dangerously crazy like Mulwaukee Protocol, or just die miserably?
I guess whether this protocol should be abandoned, rather than iterated on to improve its chances of success, to me, depends on the effect the coma has on the patient's quality of life while the protocol is attempted. It's arguably more humane to put someone in a medically induced coma while they're still sane. If the protocol fails, the patient is at least not conscious while their brain is deteriorating.
Unlikely. Rabies kills by infecting brain cells. This means they’re converted into virus factories instead of doing brain things. That also causes swelling as an immune response, which further damages the brain. Both of these result in coma and death. Eliminating hydrophobia and increasing water consumption would not really help treat an infection (at least any more than treating any infection, which is to say, not very much on its own).
It also illustrates a funny bit of the logic of multicellular non-clonal creatures: the germ line is the species. The other 99.9…% of you is just a fancy delivery mechanism, so it makes sense to add something seemingly super impractical to the anatomy if it slightly helps the sex cells.
Late but… The USA failed to regulate 5G well enough. It would have forced telecoms to use steeper frequently filters that are more accurate like what is used in the rest of the responsible world. The 5G frequency band butts up against the hydrogen band used by weather satellites. (IIRC) The study that the FCC commissioned said something like a failure to isolate and protect the hydrogen line would set back US weather forecasting accuracy to around the level it was in 1970. As usual, the red jihadist party had absolutely no qualms about such a technological setback, took their political bribes, and failed to regulate to protect the hydrogen line. In their defense, radio is magic, and sky wizard didn’t have any objections via thoughts and prayers.
You are seeing the exhaust plume while it is still dense enough to reflect enough light from the sun.
There are several massive thermal layers in the atmosphere that effectively make isolation barriers at various heights. That is why the exhaust on the left appears unique in structure within a certain boundary. The upper layers of the atmosphere get really hot before getting really cold again. Like commercial jets fly in the cold part, but it gets hot, then cold above that. The rocket plume on the right is in that upper cold region; the outer most puffy/sparse/low Earth orbit region. You can tell because of how enormous the exhaust plume is expanding when there is very little atmospheric pressure to contain it.
There is very little atmosphere way up there and certainly not enough to produce Rayleigh scattering. If there was enough to produce Rayleigh scattering the exhaust plume would be hard to see with very little contrast against the background, but without, it makes a much higher contrast view against the mostly empty void of LEO space.
Exhaust products and a small amount of either O^2^ or unburnt. IIRC SpaceX is a fuel rich cycle, so mostly +unburned fuel.
Think of it kinda like you’re seeing an isolated atmosphere made by the rocket suspended in a place nearly without atmosphere. It is like a cloud of atmosphere in space where there is no atmosphere.
It’s mostly in the sun which is super hot without the filter of an atmosphere and how it buffers temperature. As soon is the particles are below the shadow of the Earth, they get super cold and likely freeze.
The rocket is clearly not at orbital velocity yet and that stuff is going backwards fast, so it will all deorbit fairly quickly.
You’re not seeing turbulent flow quite like what happens on the ground or what is seen in other parts of the exhaust plume because there is not very much pressure in the surrounding region to create the Eddy currents that make the mixing/chaotic flow patterns seen within another medium. I don’t think it is entirely linear flow, but it is much closer to linear flow than what happens in a thick atmosphere.
askscience
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.