Dogs and Cats Are Creepily Evolving to Have the Same Face, Science Suggests
-
This post did not contain any content.
*bred to have the same face
I didn’t bother to read the article but the selection isn’t natural. And “some humans like the same look!” isn’t newsworthy
-
Wait until humans start to clone new humans. They will all look like barbie and ken.
I dream of a future where Digit clones are available for everyone (and the original has time for me)
-
*bred to have the same face
I didn’t bother to read the article but the selection isn’t natural. And “some humans like the same look!” isn’t newsworthy
Selective pressures from other species is a natural part of evolution.
So are humans. Just because we’re a powerful species doesn’t make us an exception to nature
-
Selective pressures from other species is a natural part of evolution.
So are humans. Just because we’re a powerful species doesn’t make us an exception to nature
That doesn’t void the point that converging is somewhat expected if the pressure is similar so this doesn’t seem newsworthy or particularly interesting
-
That doesn’t void the point that converging is somewhat expected if the pressure is similar so this doesn’t seem newsworthy or particularly interesting
Also, breeding then is just a special case of natural selection so the title adjustment is more accurate and seemingly still an improvement
-
That doesn’t void the point that converging is somewhat expected if the pressure is similar so this doesn’t seem newsworthy or particularly interesting
That’s a subjective evaluation, noteworthyness or level of interest depends on the reader, not the topic.
I personally find it as interesting as hearing how moths adapt their camouflage to match pollution or how a new species of lemur is emerging from deforestation.
These all seem to me like things it’s better to know, than to not know about.
Though in this case, I do have my doubts that the people doing the study and the journalist reporting it had the same Nobel goals.
-
I dream of a future where Digit clones are available for everyone (and the original has time for me)
I googled who Digit was and I don’t like that the most common result was a child from a kid’s cartoon
-
That’s a subjective evaluation, noteworthyness or level of interest depends on the reader, not the topic.
I personally find it as interesting as hearing how moths adapt their camouflage to match pollution or how a new species of lemur is emerging from deforestation.
These all seem to me like things it’s better to know, than to not know about.
Though in this case, I do have my doubts that the people doing the study and the journalist reporting it had the same Nobel goals.
Agreed it’s subjective and your examples are interesting. As much as I kind of want my time back from the OP and these comments, anyone who did find the article interesting might find it interesting that they domesticated some foxes and the same sort of flattened face thing happened (but there’s plenty of dispute there too):
-
Agreed it’s subjective and your examples are interesting. As much as I kind of want my time back from the OP and these comments, anyone who did find the article interesting might find it interesting that they domesticated some foxes and the same sort of flattened face thing happened (but there’s plenty of dispute there too):
I love the idea of a pet fox but I feel it raises serious ethical considerations…
But then I wonder if it’s that different to a pet dog or cat. And it is but its hard to name why!
-
That doesn’t void the point that converging is somewhat expected if the pressure is similar so this doesn’t seem newsworthy or particularly interesting
Just because it makes sense/is expected and has a pretty simple explanation doesn’t mean it’s worth doing science on and reporting on
You don’t personally have to find it interesting, there is still value in tracking this though.
-
I googled who Digit was and I don’t like that the most common result was a child from a kid’s cartoon
a but of searching later (as well as checking their bio), it seems like the “Digit” that they are referring to is a past moderator of the subreddit “wallstreetbets”.
-
a but of searching later (as well as checking their bio), it seems like the “Digit” that they are referring to is a past moderator of the subreddit “wallstreetbets”.
Very strange
-
Just because it makes sense/is expected and has a pretty simple explanation doesn’t mean it’s worth doing science on and reporting on
You don’t personally have to find it interesting, there is still value in tracking this though.
Hugely agree it’s worth the science and reporting on
My comments are for this channel, with the traffic it gets, a lot of articles are more interesting to me (almost any chosen at random from Nature), so to me that’s a down vote
