Wandering Adventure Party

I clicked through to see what “restrict their vision” means. It’s a bit click baity for me and the content wasn’t too interesting. Pretty bird though

Many animals try to win a mate by displaying spectacular ornamentation – such as the famous tail of male peacocks. However, these impressive traits can have negative consequences, even hindering movement or making individuals easier for predators to find.

Up to now, researchers have not found any major differences in how males and females see in terms of their visual fields. However, for the first time ever, the new findings reveal that the cranial feathers of male golden (C. pictus) and Lady Amherst’s (C. amherstiae) pheasants are so much more exaggerated than their female counterparts that this impedes their ability to gather information from the world about them.

This effect is most extreme in the vertical axis, where the males have a field of view 30° or 40° less in golden and Lady Amherst’s pheasants respectively.

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

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):

Domesticated silver fox - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

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

*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

I’m surprised the article doesn’t mention the six decade long silver fox domestication experiment:

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x

They bred the tamest foxes from each generation and started seeing shortened snouts and floppy ears. Although there is some dispute about the initial population from a study in 2019. To my understanding the researchers with the dispute question the existence of domestication syndrome though, so the experiment would still align with the article. And I think there is some dispute over the neural crest cell explanation mentioned in the article too.

In that case you might like the PBS Eons video on the domestication of house cats (and it touches on some of the generalised processes):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CYPJzQppANo

I would guess that either the author at popular mechanics just found it / just dug it out of their reading list or one of the authors of the paper reached out as part of promoting their research?

I think a year ago as someone learning biology from Khan Academy and reading about endosymbiosis and reading what I could about LUCA theories with some chemistry background then whats written here just seems like a likely possibility. The paper doesn’t seem like strong evidence and it seems like there is a lot of guess work for early life. The teams making artificial cells are doing interesting, scary work there.

But I’m no expert here, I was just pointing out the source material and a summary

Downvoted.

This article points to another article:

Security Verification

(phys.org)

And this article points to the study:

Just a moment...

(www.pnas.org)

The phys.org article is decent, unlike the one linked in the OP, but the information isn’t as huge as the title would suggest. The core of it is basically these two paragraphs:

The study revealed that early life preferred smaller amino acid molecules over larger and more complex ones, which were added later, while amino acids that bind to metals joined in much earlier than previously thought. Finally, the team discovered that today’s genetic code likely came after other codes that have since gone extinct.

The authors argue that the current understanding of how the code evolved is flawed because it relies on misleading laboratory experiments rather than evolutionary evidence

I think most modern biologists would agree this was probable even if it wasn’t codified yet

It’s not just uncomfortable though, it’s hugely time consuming. And like, I think we’re getting to the point where more collective time has been spent explaining the world is not flat than the human hours it took to find out the world is round. If the person happens to be knowledgeable then they can kill a lot of time through out “what about X?” arguments (like missing links for evolution) and that requires someone with a lot of knowledge to slowly explain, so the approach also biases towards locking up the most knowledgeable people instead of them being more free to do other things (in the evolution example, maybe biology research).

I guess I’m not arguing against the empathy first communication, just lamenting how effective the flood the zone strategy is.

Aligning on a purpose is important. I’d argue that being aware of how on board people are for that purpose is important too. I recently tried to say that the family chat should have less influencer posts since we don’t all agree on the positions and it causes friction. Boy was that a shit show

got personal stories about my loved one’s descent into MAGA

You and me both. It’s a bit terrifying how much of this has momentum outside the US. The supporters of South Korean president that ordered military rule wearing MAGA hats, or how often the talking points pop up outside the US, especially during US election cycles, from the “free thinkers”.

who does actually do a great job of prescribing the best advice for trying to engage in debate theatrics: Stop and move on.

Thinking of my personal experience, I get that, especially on the mental health front. Thinking of societal / political implications though, doesn’t that just give time to scatter information that’s hard to dislodge? A lot of what I’ve heard is the importance of prebunking, like what’s written in The Debunking Handbook (2020).

Let me know if you’d like to hear the synopsis in my own uneducated words, I in no way expect anyone to watch all that bullshit

I’ll save this post and get back to it. I also have a long boring flight coming up soon.

Do you have links to more effective strategies?