Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • After having my own comprehensively washed and fucked in 2011 I would never actively wish that on anyone.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - puppy

1
Not free for sinners [the poor], well, not for a year anyway:-

Stoddard, M. C., et al. (2017). "Avian egg shape: Form, function, and evolution." Science 356(6344): 1249-1254.
   
Quote
Avian egg shape is generally explained as an adaptation to life history, yet we currently lack a global synthesis of how egg-shape differences arise and evolve. Here, we apply morphometric, mechanistic, and macroevolutionary analyses to the egg shapes of 1400 bird species. We characterize egg-shape diversity in terms of two biologically relevant variables, asymmetry and ellipticity, allowing us to quantify the observed morphologies in a two-dimensional morphospace. We then propose a simple mechanical model that explains the observed egg-shape diversity based on geometric and material properties of the egg membrane. Finally, using phylogenetic models, we show that egg shape correlates with flight ability on broad taxonomic scales, suggesting that adaptations for flight may have been critical drivers of egg-shape variation in birds.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1249.abstract

"Cliff Notes" version in the same journal:-
Spottiswoode, C. N. (2017). "The most perfect thing, explained." Science 356(6344): 1234-1235.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1234.short

Science Gaily write-up:-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170622143053.htm



2
Nowak, M. A., et al. (2017). "The general form of Hamilton's rule makes no predictions and cannot be tested empirically." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
   
Quote
Hamilton's rule asserts that a trait is favored by natural selection if the benefit to others, B, multiplied by relatedness, R, exceeds the cost to self, C. Specifically, Hamilton's rule states that the change in average trait value in a population is proportional to BR−C. This rule is commonly believed to be a natural law making important predictions in biology, and its influence has spread from evolutionary biology to other fields including the social sciences. Whereas many feel that Hamilton's rule provides valuable intuition, there is disagreement even among experts as to how the quantities B, R, and C should be defined for a given system. Here, we investigate a widely endorsed formulation of Hamilton's rule, which is said to be as general as natural selection itself. We show that, in this formulation, Hamilton's rule does not make predictions and cannot be tested empirically. It turns out that the parameters B and C depend on the change in average trait value and therefore cannot predict that change. In this formulation, which has been called "exact and general" by its proponents, Hamilton's rule can "predict" only the data that have already been given.
[FREE]:-
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/15/1701805114.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/15/1701805114.full.pdf
3
It's all lies of course, why else give it away?  ;)  :whyyou:

Foster, G. L., et al. (2017). "Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years." Nature Communications 8: 14845.
   
Quote
The evolution of Earth's climate on geological timescales is largely driven by variations in the magnitude of total solar irradiance (TSI) and changes in the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. Here we show that the slow ∼50 Wm−2 increase in TSI over the last ∼420 million years (an increase of ∼9 Wm−2 of radiative forcing) was almost completely negated by a long-term decline in atmospheric CO2. This was likely due to the silicate weathering-negative feedback and the expansion of land plants that together ensured Earth's long-term habitability. Humanity's fossil-fuel use, if unabated, risks taking us, by the middle of the twenty-first century, to values of CO2 not seen since the early Eocene (50 million years ago). If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14845

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845.pdf

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/extref/ncomms14845-s1.pdf

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/extref/ncomms14845-s2.xlsx

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170404/ncomms14845/extref/ncomms14845-s3.xlsx

Cliff notes version:-
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170404124402.htm

So noffink to worry about! Phew!
4
Introductions / Well, i am back----woof!
Like the new TR.