Name one or more favorite scientific facts! - Page 14

Cheetah · 18th January 2019, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

You spend your free time predicting the relative nutrient densities of vegetables?

It's NOT an easy hobby.
Did you look at that table? If I was given that list and asked to arrange it in order of its "ranking of nutrient score", I would have been waaayyyyy off.
Never in my life would I have imagined the orange losing convincingly to the iceberg. In what kind of sick world does a carrot beat a strawberry? Strawberries should be top of the list.

3point14 · 19th January 2019, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

It's NOT an easy hobby.
Did you look at that table? If I was given that list and asked to arrange it in order of its "ranking of nutrient score", I would have been waaayyyyy off.
Never in my life would I have imagined the orange losing convincingly to the iceberg. In what kind of sick world does a carrot beat a strawberry? Strawberries should be top of the list.

Is this by individual foodstuffs? I.e. one orange v one iceberg? Or by volume?

Cheetah · 19th January 2019, 03:21 AM

Did you miss the link?

Quote:

Because preparation methods can alter the nutrient content of foods (2), nutrient data were for the items in raw form.

Second, a nutrient density score was calculated for each food using the method of Darmon et al (10). The numerator is a nutrient adequacy score calculated as the mean of percent daily values (DVs) for the qualifying nutrients (based on a 2,000 kcal/d diet [11]) per 100 g of food. The scores were weighted using available data (Table 1) based on the bioavailability of the nutrients (12): nutrient adequacy score = (Σ [nutrienti × bioavailabilityi)/DVi] × 100)/17. As some foods are excellent sources of a particular nutrient but contain few other nutrients, percent DVs were capped at 100 so that any one nutrient would not contribute unduly to the total score (3). The denominator is the energy density of the food (kilocalories per 100 g): nutrient density score (expressed per 100 kcal) = (nutrient adequacy score/energy density) x 100. The score represents the mean of percent DVs per 100 kcal of food.

3point14 · 19th January 2019, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Did you miss the link?

Totally missed the link.

Cheetah · 19th January 2019, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

Totally missed the link.

Honestly, how does an iceberg beat an orange? I always thought they were just water with stringy bits.

3point14 · 19th January 2019, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Honestly, how does an iceberg beat an orange? I always thought they were just water with stringy bits.

That is utterly, utterly counterintuitive to me also.

Myriad · 19th January 2019, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Honestly, how does an iceberg beat an orange? I always thought they were just water with stringy bits.

Because the score being applied is nutrients per energy content. Fifty Calories (a whole small head) of iceberg lettuce has more nutrients than 50 Calories of orange (one orange).

Cheetah · 19th January 2019, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Myriad

Because the score being applied is nutrients per energy content. Fifty Calories (a whole small head) of iceberg lettuce has more nutrients than 50 Calories of orange (one orange).

Off course, thanks.
So a head of lettuce beats a cup of strawberries beats an orange, approximately. A better deal.

The table can be a bit misleading since I have no idea how much of what vegetable makes 50 Calories.

50 Calories of watercress seems to be 12.5 cups.
I am actually still amazed by the evil iceberg.

SusanB-M1 · 19th January 2019, 09:24 AM

I have learnt - the hard way! - a useful scientific fact this year: that old people tend to lose potassium and that bananas and beetroot are good sources for it.

Trebuchet · 19th January 2019, 01:38 PM

According to Wikipedia, the Indian Elephant is more closely related to the Wooly Mammoth than it is to the African Elephant.

Venom · 19th January 2019, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

You spend your free time predicting the relative nutrient densities of vegetables?

Wouldn't be the worst use of my free time.

Delvo · 19th January 2019, 07:00 PM

Something I was reminded of while pondering earlier posts about predator size & locomotion, although it's not necessarily related to that original topic...

Look how each of these critters is turning a foot sideways while walking. They don't always do it, but they can, and sometimes they do. But why... not only why do they do it, but why do they even have the ability? Other animals their size or bigger get by just fine without this; it even seems like it might generally be in conflict with the strength & stability you'd normally expect from a big animal's limbs.

Aside from the fact that none of the big Carnivorans have been so big for more than a few million years, so they're still new at it and might still have more adapting left to do for their new size, there's a deeper explanation: the Carnivoran ancestor was not only smaller but also a tree-climber, like a weasel/ferret/marten, and turning feet sideways is nifty for grabbing branches when you're that small. So the peculiar way the big meat-eating beasts walk on land now is partially based on their still being pretty close to just a scaled-up weasel without a tree.

Trebuchet · 19th January 2019, 07:31 PM

And it's a front foot turning inwards. Turning my hands inward is significantly more comfortable than turning them outwards.

Cheetah · 19th January 2019, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Look how each of these critters is turning a foot sideways while walking. They don't always do it, but they can, and sometimes they do. But why... not only why do they do it, but why do they even have the ability?

They are all predators that grasp their prey.
If you have evolved to grab and pull something towards you, having the flexibility to turn your hands/paws to face inwards, is necessary.
If you look at a mole, digging and scooping earth to the sides, their paws face outward.
In animals such as horses, antelope and deer that are built mostly for running the joints are much less flexible and bend basically straight backwards.
Dogs are somewhere between cats and runners.
Lots of animals sometimes use their front appendages to pull food towards their mouths, so have much more flexibility turning their front paws inward than outwards.
In general hind legs are much less multipurpose and mostly optimized for pushing straight back, so much less flexible in that way.

quadraginta · 19th January 2019, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Why the mantis shrimp is my new favorite animal.

That's all very nice, but how do they taste?

Cooked up for a po' boy or in a gumbo, for example.

Cosmic Yak · 20th January 2019, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

I am actually still amazed by the evil iceberg.

So was the Titanic.

Ziggurat · 20th January 2019, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Aside from the fact that none of the big Carnivorans have been so big for more than a few million years, so they're still new at it and might still have more adapting left to do for their new size, there's a deeper explanation: the Carnivoran ancestor was not only smaller but also a tree-climber, like a weasel/ferret/marten, and turning feet sideways is nifty for grabbing branches when you're that small. So the peculiar way the big meat-eating beasts walk on land now is partially based on their still being pretty close to just a scaled-up weasel without a tree.

Big cats and bears still climb trees. They also grapple prey. That grappling takes advantage of the inward twist of the paws, so it's still important, it's not vestigial.

Trebuchet · 20th January 2019, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

That's all very nice, but how do they taste?

Cooked up for a po' boy or in a gumbo, for example.

Like chicken. Everything tastes like chicken.

Elagabalus · 20th January 2019, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Something I was reminded of while pondering earlier posts about predator size & locomotion, although it's not necessarily related to that original topic...

Look how each of these critters is turning a foot sideways while walking. They don't always do it, but they can, and sometimes they do. But why... not only why do they do it, but why do they even have the ability? Other animals their size or bigger get by just fine without this; it even seems like it might generally be in conflict with the strength & stability you'd normally expect from a big animal's limbs.

Aside from the fact that none of the big Carnivorans have been so big for more than a few million years, so they're still new at it and might still have more adapting left to do for their new size, there's a deeper explanation: the Carnivoran ancestor was not only smaller but also a tree-climber, like a weasel/ferret/marten, and turning feet sideways is nifty for grabbing branches when you're that small. So the peculiar way the big meat-eating beasts walk on land now is partially based on their still being pretty close to just a scaled-up weasel without a tree.

Cats also have a 'dewclaw' for climbing that weasels don't have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_anatomy#Claws

Cats also employ a "pacing" gait a trait they share with camels and giraffes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_anatomy#Legs

It is said that one reason why humans find bears appealing is that the bears hind leg resembles a human leg - the bear walks on a complete foot, not just on the toes of an elongated foot such as the felids or canids.

So it looks like a "guy in a suit".

Myriad · 20th January 2019, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

So it looks like a "guy in a suit".

Are you telling me there are bears that aren't guys in bear suits?

Venom · 20th January 2019, 02:07 PM

That's cool and all, but how do you explain this?

arthwollipot · 20th January 2019, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

A disturbingly large number of my favourite scientific facts come from XKCD. For example, that Tyrannosaurus Rex is more closely related to the sparrow than to the stegosaurus.

Dave

And closer in time to us than to stegosaurus too.

Cheetah · 20th January 2019, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

That's cool and all, but how do you explain this?

That's not a wild animal.
No wild animal will be able to survive in the wild with only one leg, no feet and no hands, or maybe one hand. It's difficult to see.

Ziggurat · 20th January 2019, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Cheetah

That's not a wild animal.
No wild animal will be able to survive in the wild with only one leg, no feet and no hands, or maybe one hand. It's difficult to see.

One leg, no hands, no feet? You didn't prove that's not a wild animal. You proved it's a woolly snake!

a_unique_person · 20th January 2019, 10:40 PM

Nvm

Cheetah · 20th January 2019, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Venom

Put that up against the pistol shrimp's claw snap and it's more than three times as fast!

Wow.

Did you know there is a pistol shrimp with a bright pink claw?

It is the Pink Floyd pistol shrimp, Synalpheus pinkfloydi.

The genus Synalpheus is also unique as it contains the only known eusocial aquatic species .... in the world.

They live inside a few specific sponges, in colonies of up to 350 individuals with only one breeding queen.
It is believed they evolved eusociality because they are fortress defenders.

Quote:

Crespi (1994) argued that three conditions must be met to explain most cases of fortress defense: a coincidence of food and shelter in an enclosed habitat, a high value of food-habitat resources that renders inhabitants vulnerable to predatory attacks, and the ability to defend the resource effectively. The strong selective pressures of enemies on kin-structured aggregations may promote evolution of specialized defenders that raise their own and the breeders' inclusive fitness by defending the colony.

How cool is that, these shrimp living in, and defending their fortress form invaders, ruled by their queen.

Apart from insects and the shrimp the only other eusocial animals are Naked mole-rats and Damaraland mole-rats.

They are one of the weirdest most amazing animals ... in the world.

They are the only eusocial mammals. They have a queen, up to three reproductive males and division of labor amongst the workers.

They are unique in that they defy the Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality. At least as far as they have been studied.
The law just states that there is an age related component to mortality rates that increases exponentially as you get older.
From a glass half empty perspective, the older you are, the less likely it is you will get much older.

Adult Naked mole-rats seem to have about a 1 in 10000 chance of dying in any year, irrespective of how old they are! In fact, it even seems to get a little lower the older and presumably more experienced they get.

Not only are they eusocial and don't seem to age, they are also cute,

can swivel around their front teeth independently
1/4 of their muscle mass is in their jaw muscles
they always show their teeth when smiling, their lips close behind their teeth
they can run as easily and fast backwards as forwards
are very resistant to cancer
can live with very little oxygen, up to 5 hours with 5%, showing no distress and carrying on as usual, or 18 mins with nothing
they are resistant to certain types of pain
they also do not thermoregulate but are thermoconformers.

SusanB-M1 · 21st January 2019, 12:25 AM

And there are people who have taken the trouble to study these various species, and that of course means that someone has discovered them in the first place, and then find out about their life ccycles. And then we have the privilege of being able to read all about them. We are so lucky.

dasmiller · 21st January 2019, 08:14 AM

Just a nitpick:

Originally Posted by Cheetah

Adult Naked mole-rats seem to have about a 1 in 10000 chance of dying in any year, irrespective of how old they are!

That's one in 10,000 chance of dying in a day, not year. Okay, it's nitpick to us, but if I were a naked mole rat, it would probably be a big deal to me.

Things like naked mole rats remind me of now non-alien most science fiction aliens are.

RecoveringYuppy · 21st January 2019, 08:29 AM

The article Cheetah cited about the mole rat claims it's an exception to some biological law of aging. There may be such a thing but it's not like some exceptions aren't already known:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_senescence (also includes link to article about theories of aging).

MEequalsIxR · 21st January 2019, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Just a nitpick:

That's one in 10,000 chance of dying in a day, not year. Okay, it's nitpick to us, but if I were a naked mole rat, it would probably be a big deal to me.

Things like naked mole rats remind me of now non-alien most science fiction aliens are.

I don't think that's nitpicking at all. A one in 10,000 chance a year implies they can live live 10,000 years. A one in 10,000 chance per day works out to about 28 years which seems a bit long lived but not unreasonable.

Cheetah · 21st January 2019, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

Just a nitpick:

That's one in 10,000 chance of dying in a day, not year. Okay, it's nitpick to us, but if I were a naked mole rat, it would probably be a big deal to me.

Things like naked mole rats remind me of now non-alien most science fiction aliens are.

Thanks!
I got that completely wrong.

Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR

I don't think that's nitpicking at all. A one in 10,000 chance a year implies they can live live 10,000 years. A one in 10,000 chance per day works out to about 28 years which seems a bit long lived but not unreasonable.

The oldest seems to be 35 vs the common mouse at 4.

MEequalsIxR · 21st January 2019, 12:34 PM

It would be cool if cats could live 35 years.

My anecdotal observation is a mouse discovered by a cat instantly has a much shorter life expectancy. I read somewhere mouse is a cat delicacy. Plus it makes a fun toy first.

Trebuchet · 21st January 2019, 12:48 PM

Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food!

(Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.)

Giordano · 21st January 2019, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR

It would be cool if cats could live 35 years.

My anecdotal observation is a mouse discovered by a cat instantly has a much shorter life expectancy. I read somewhere mouse is a cat delicacy. Plus it makes a fun toy first.

Scientific fact: the words "beef," "lamb," "chicken, "salmon," etc. on a cat or dog food package indicate only the species of one of the ingredients. By no means do they indicate the part(s) of the animal the ingredient came from, its physical appearance before processing, or our expectation of what should be considered "meat."

In fact the same is true on packages of human food...

A related scientific fact I absolutely find difficult to believe: there are people who enjoy eating "head cheese."

Steve · 21st January 2019, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food!

(Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.)

It's not the flavor, it's the thrill of the hunt.

Trebuchet · 21st January 2019, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food!

(Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.)

Rats, I left out the punch line: When was the last time your cat brought you home a tuna?

William Parcher · 21st January 2019, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

Scientific fact...

Not really. More like explaining a recipe or something. It seems unconventional to say that it's a scientific fact.

Is it also a scientific fact that the word "recall" has two letter l's?

RecoveringYuppy · 21st January 2019, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food!

(Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.)

George Carlin I think:

https://www.tcnj.edu/~hofmann/Carlin.htm

I met a women at the supermarket once using that joke.

MEequalsIxR · 21st January 2019, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food!

(Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.)

I suppose one of the cat food companies could make bird flavored cat food on a lark.

Ziggurat · 21st January 2019, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR

I suppose one of the cat food companies could make bird flavored cat food on a lark.

Please tell me you intended that pun.

18th January 2019, 11:13 PM	#521
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot You spend your free time predicting the relative nutrient densities of vegetables? It's NOT an easy hobby. Did you look at that table? If I was given that list and asked to arrange it in order of its "ranking of nutrient score", I would have been waaayyyyy off. Never in my life would I have imagined the orange losing convincingly to the iceberg. In what kind of sick world does a carrot beat a strawberry? Strawberries should be top of the list.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

19th January 2019, 03:12 AM	#522
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,409	Originally Posted by Cheetah It's NOT an easy hobby. Did you look at that table? If I was given that list and asked to arrange it in order of its "ranking of nutrient score", I would have been waaayyyyy off. Never in my life would I have imagined the orange losing convincingly to the iceberg. In what kind of sick world does a carrot beat a strawberry? Strawberries should be top of the list. Is this by individual foodstuffs? I.e. one orange v one iceberg? Or by volume?
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,409	__________________ Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

19th January 2019, 03:21 AM	#523
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Did you miss the link? Quote: Because preparation methods can alter the nutrient content of foods (2), nutrient data were for the items in raw form. Second, a nutrient density score was calculated for each food using the method of Darmon et al (10). The numerator is a nutrient adequacy score calculated as the mean of percent daily values (DVs) for the qualifying nutrients (based on a 2,000 kcal/d diet [11]) per 100 g of food. The scores were weighted using available data (Table 1) based on the bioavailability of the nutrients (12): nutrient adequacy score = (Σ [nutrienti × bioavailabilityi)/DVi] × 100)/17. As some foods are excellent sources of a particular nutrient but contain few other nutrients, percent DVs were capped at 100 so that any one nutrient would not contribute unduly to the total score (3). The denominator is the energy density of the food (kilocalories per 100 g): nutrient density score (expressed per 100 kcal) = (nutrient adequacy score/energy density) x 100. The score represents the mean of percent DVs per 100 kcal of food.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

19th January 2019, 03:32 AM	#524
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,409	Originally Posted by Cheetah Did you miss the link? Totally missed the link.
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,409	__________________ Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

19th January 2019, 03:40 AM	#525
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Originally Posted by 3point14 Totally missed the link. Honestly, how does an iceberg beat an orange? I always thought they were just water with stringy bits.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

19th January 2019, 03:43 AM	#526
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,409	Originally Posted by Cheetah Honestly, how does an iceberg beat an orange? I always thought they were just water with stringy bits. That is utterly, utterly counterintuitive to me also.
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,409	__________________ Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

19th January 2019, 04:42 AM	#527
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,288	Originally Posted by Cheetah Honestly, how does an iceberg beat an orange? I always thought they were just water with stringy bits. Because the score being applied is nutrients per energy content. Fifty Calories (a whole small head) of iceberg lettuce has more nutrients than 50 Calories of orange (one orange).
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

19th January 2019, 09:17 AM	#528
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Originally Posted by Myriad Because the score being applied is nutrients per energy content. Fifty Calories (a whole small head) of iceberg lettuce has more nutrients than 50 Calories of orange (one orange). Off course, thanks. So a head of lettuce beats a cup of strawberries beats an orange, approximately. A better deal. The table can be a bit misleading since I have no idea how much of what vegetable makes 50 Calories. 50 Calories of watercress seems to be 12.5 cups. I am actually still amazed by the evil iceberg.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

19th January 2019, 09:24 AM	#529
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,737	I have learnt - the hard way! - a useful scientific fact this year: that old people tend to lose potassium and that bananas and beetroot are good sources for it.

19th January 2019, 01:38 PM	#530
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,659	According to Wikipedia, the Indian Elephant is more closely related to the Wooly Mammoth than it is to the African Elephant.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

19th January 2019, 04:16 PM	#531
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,859	Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot You spend your free time predicting the relative nutrient densities of vegetables? Wouldn't be the worst use of my free time.

19th January 2019, 07:31 PM	#533
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,659	And it's a front foot turning inwards. Turning my hands inward is significantly more comfortable than turning them outwards.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

19th January 2019, 09:27 PM	#534
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Originally Posted by Delvo Look how each of these critters is turning a foot sideways while walking. They don't always do it, but they can, and sometimes they do. But why... not only why do they do it, but why do they even have the ability? They are all predators that grasp their prey. If you have evolved to grab and pull something towards you, having the flexibility to turn your hands/paws to face inwards, is necessary. If you look at a mole, digging and scooping earth to the sides, their paws face outward. In animals such as horses, antelope and deer that are built mostly for running the joints are much less flexible and bend basically straight backwards. Dogs are somewhere between cats and runners. Lots of animals sometimes use their front appendages to pull food towards their mouths, so have much more flexibility turning their front paws inward than outwards. In general hind legs are much less multipurpose and mostly optimized for pushing straight back, so much less flexible in that way.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB Last edited by Cheetah; 19th January 2019 at 09:53 PM.

19th January 2019, 10:42 PM	#535
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,139	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Why the mantis shrimp is my new favorite animal. That's all very nice, but how do they taste? Cooked up for a po' boy or in a gumbo, for example.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

20th January 2019, 01:59 AM	#536
Cosmic Yak Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand. Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by Cheetah I am actually still amazed by the evil iceberg. So was the Titanic.
	__________________ Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

20th January 2019, 08:15 AM	#537
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,015	Originally Posted by Delvo Aside from the fact that none of the big Carnivorans have been so big for more than a few million years, so they're still new at it and might still have more adapting left to do for their new size, there's a deeper explanation: the Carnivoran ancestor was not only smaller but also a tree-climber, like a weasel/ferret/marten, and turning feet sideways is nifty for grabbing branches when you're that small. So the peculiar way the big meat-eating beasts walk on land now is partially based on their still being pretty close to just a scaled-up weasel without a tree. Big cats and bears still climb trees. They also grapple prey. That grappling takes advantage of the inward twist of the paws, so it's still important, it's not vestigial.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

20th January 2019, 10:02 AM	#538
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,659	Originally Posted by quadraginta That's all very nice, but how do they taste? Cooked up for a po' boy or in a gumbo, for example. Like chicken. Everything tastes like chicken.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

20th January 2019, 11:43 AM	#539
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,906	Originally Posted by Delvo Something I was reminded of while pondering earlier posts about predator size & locomotion, although it's not necessarily related to that original topic... Look how each of these critters is turning a foot sideways while walking. They don't always do it, but they can, and sometimes they do. But why... not only why do they do it, but why do they even have the ability? Other animals their size or bigger get by just fine without this; it even seems like it might generally be in conflict with the strength & stability you'd normally expect from a big animal's limbs. Aside from the fact that none of the big Carnivorans have been so big for more than a few million years, so they're still new at it and might still have more adapting left to do for their new size, there's a deeper explanation: the Carnivoran ancestor was not only smaller but also a tree-climber, like a weasel/ferret/marten, and turning feet sideways is nifty for grabbing branches when you're that small. So the peculiar way the big meat-eating beasts walk on land now is partially based on their still being pretty close to just a scaled-up weasel without a tree. Cats also have a 'dewclaw' for climbing that weasels don't have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_anatomy#Claws Cats also employ a "pacing" gait a trait they share with camels and giraffes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_anatomy#Legs It is said that one reason why humans find bears appealing is that the bears hind leg resembles a human leg - the bear walks on a complete foot, not just on the toes of an elongated foot such as the felids or canids. So it looks like a "guy in a suit".
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 6,906

20th January 2019, 12:25 PM	#540
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,288	Originally Posted by Elagabalus So it looks like a "guy in a suit". Are you telling me there are bears that aren't guys in bear suits?
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

20th January 2019, 02:07 PM	#541
Venom Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 4,859	That's cool and all, but how do you explain this?

20th January 2019, 06:12 PM	#542
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 69,627	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers A disturbingly large number of my favourite scientific facts come from XKCD. For example, that Tyrannosaurus Rex is more closely related to the sparrow than to the stegosaurus. Dave And closer in time to us than to stegosaurus too.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

20th January 2019, 10:22 PM	#543
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Originally Posted by Venom That's cool and all, but how do you explain this? That's not a wild animal. No wild animal will be able to survive in the wild with only one leg, no feet and no hands, or maybe one hand. It's difficult to see.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

20th January 2019, 10:25 PM	#544
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,015	Originally Posted by Cheetah That's not a wild animal. No wild animal will be able to survive in the wild with only one leg, no feet and no hands, or maybe one hand. It's difficult to see. One leg, no hands, no feet? You didn't prove that's not a wild animal. You proved it's a woolly snake!
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

20th January 2019, 10:40 PM	#545
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 42,986	Nvm
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos Last edited by a_unique_person; 20th January 2019 at 10:52 PM.

20th January 2019, 11:41 PM	#546
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Originally Posted by Venom Put that up against the pistol shrimp's claw snap and it's more than three times as fast! Wow. Did you know there is a pistol shrimp with a bright pink claw? It is the Pink Floyd pistol shrimp, Synalpheus pinkfloydi. The genus Synalpheus is also unique as it contains the only known eusocial aquatic species .... in the world. They live inside a few specific sponges, in colonies of up to 350 individuals with only one breeding queen. It is believed they evolved eusociality because they are fortress defenders. Quote: Crespi (1994) argued that three conditions must be met to explain most cases of fortress defense: a coincidence of food and shelter in an enclosed habitat, a high value of food-habitat resources that renders inhabitants vulnerable to predatory attacks, and the ability to defend the resource effectively. The strong selective pressures of enemies on kin-structured aggregations may promote evolution of specialized defenders that raise their own and the breeders' inclusive fitness by defending the colony. How cool is that, these shrimp living in, and defending their fortress form invaders, ruled by their queen. Apart from insects and the shrimp the only other eusocial animals are Naked mole-rats and Damaraland mole-rats. They are one of the weirdest most amazing animals ... in the world. They are the only eusocial mammals. They have a queen, up to three reproductive males and division of labor amongst the workers. They are unique in that they defy the Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality. At least as far as they have been studied. The law just states that there is an age related component to mortality rates that increases exponentially as you get older. From a glass half empty perspective, the older you are, the less likely it is you will get much older. Adult Naked mole-rats seem to have about a 1 in 10000 chance of dying in any year, irrespective of how old they are! In fact, it even seems to get a little lower the older and presumably more experienced they get. Not only are they eusocial and don't seem to age, they are also cute, can swivel around their front teeth independently 1/4 of their muscle mass is in their jaw muscles they always show their teeth when smiling, their lips close behind their teeth they can run as easily and fast backwards as forwards are very resistant to cancer can live with very little oxygen, up to 5 hours with 5%, showing no distress and carrying on as usual, or 18 mins with nothing they are resistant to certain types of pain they also do not thermoregulate but are thermoconformers.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

21st January 2019, 12:25 AM	#547
SusanB-M1 Incurable Optimist Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,737	And there are people who have taken the trouble to study these various species, and that of course means that someone has discovered them in the first place, and then find out about their life ccycles. And then we have the privilege of being able to read all about them. We are so lucky.

21st January 2019, 08:14 AM	#548
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,362	Just a nitpick: Originally Posted by Cheetah Adult Naked mole-rats seem to have about a 1 in 10000 chance of dying in any year, irrespective of how old they are! That's one in 10,000 chance of dying in a day, not year. Okay, it's nitpick to us, but if I were a naked mole rat, it would probably be a big deal to me. Things like naked mole rats remind me of now non-alien most science fiction aliens are.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

21st January 2019, 08:29 AM	#549
RecoveringYuppy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,352	The article Cheetah cited about the mole rat claims it's an exception to some biological law of aging. There may be such a thing but it's not like some exceptions aren't already known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_senescence (also includes link to article about theories of aging).

21st January 2019, 10:48 AM	#550
MEequalsIxR Muse Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 535	Originally Posted by dasmiller Just a nitpick: That's one in 10,000 chance of dying in a day, not year. Okay, it's nitpick to us, but if I were a naked mole rat, it would probably be a big deal to me. Things like naked mole rats remind me of now non-alien most science fiction aliens are. I don't think that's nitpicking at all. A one in 10,000 chance a year implies they can live live 10,000 years. A one in 10,000 chance per day works out to about 28 years which seems a bit long lived but not unreasonable.
MEequalsIxR Muse Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 535

21st January 2019, 11:23 AM	#551
Cheetah Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,690	Originally Posted by dasmiller Just a nitpick: That's one in 10,000 chance of dying in a day, not year. Okay, it's nitpick to us, but if I were a naked mole rat, it would probably be a big deal to me. Things like naked mole rats remind me of now non-alien most science fiction aliens are. Thanks! I got that completely wrong. Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR I don't think that's nitpicking at all. A one in 10,000 chance a year implies they can live live 10,000 years. A one in 10,000 chance per day works out to about 28 years which seems a bit long lived but not unreasonable. The oldest seems to be 35 vs the common mouse at 4.
	__________________ "... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB Last edited by Cheetah; 21st January 2019 at 11:29 AM.

21st January 2019, 12:34 PM	#552
MEequalsIxR Muse Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 535	It would be cool if cats could live 35 years. My anecdotal observation is a mouse discovered by a cat instantly has a much shorter life expectancy. I read somewhere mouse is a cat delicacy. Plus it makes a fun toy first.
MEequalsIxR Muse Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 535

21st January 2019, 12:48 PM	#553
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,659	Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food! (Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.)
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

21st January 2019, 12:55 PM	#554
Giordano Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 17,646	Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR It would be cool if cats could live 35 years. My anecdotal observation is a mouse discovered by a cat instantly has a much shorter life expectancy. I read somewhere mouse is a cat delicacy. Plus it makes a fun toy first. Scientific fact: the words "beef," "lamb," "chicken, "salmon," etc. on a cat or dog food package indicate only the species of one of the ingredients. By no means do they indicate the part(s) of the animal the ingredient came from, its physical appearance before processing, or our expectation of what should be considered "meat." In fact the same is true on packages of human food... A related scientific fact I absolutely find difficult to believe: there are people who enjoy eating "head cheese."
	Last edited by Giordano; 21st January 2019 at 12:57 PM.

21st January 2019, 12:56 PM	#555
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 8,070	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food! (Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.) It's not the flavor, it's the thrill of the hunt.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

21st January 2019, 12:59 PM	#556
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 30,659	Originally Posted by Trebuchet Why don't they make cat food in flavors cats like? They ought to make mouse flavored cat food, or birdy flavored cat food! (Unabashedly stolen from Gallagher.) Rats, I left out the punch line: When was the last time your cat brought you home a tuna?
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.