Happy Atheist Forum

General => Science => Topic started by: Tank on June 16, 2018, 06:23:51 AM

Title: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Tank on June 16, 2018, 06:23:51 AM
Watched the program and it was very interesting. This is the 'reveal' at the end.

"Anatomist Alice Roberts embarks on an audacious scientific stunt - to rebuild her own body from scratch, editing out errors left behind by evolution; to create the perfect body.

Watch Can Science Make Me Perfect? With Alice Roberts on the BBC: https://bbc.in/2y7ocel Can Science Make Me Perfect?

With Alice Roberts | BBC"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1LdcagaqMc
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Arturo on June 16, 2018, 06:48:44 AM
What the fuck? hahaha
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Tank on June 16, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Quote from: Arturo on June 16, 2018, 06:48:44 AM
What the fuck? hahaha
It is isn't it. They changed a lot of things internal and external. But nothing in nature could improve on our brains, arms and hands.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 08:22:49 AM
Interesting project!

Not sure about the legality of my watching it if the video was sourced from a BBC site! 

Though foreigners may watch certain BBC TV output without a UK licence I am not allowed to do so in the UK. I am not allowed to view the BBC iPlayer TV output - radio is OK, no licence needed for that. It seems that I can watch BBC stuff put out by other, non-BBC channels, though their own legality in broadcsting it might be suspect.

I can watch anything placed in the public domain, like on Youtube, by the BBC themselves, in their own channel.

You may be leading me astray, Tank!

:grin:

I can watch repeated stuff from other channels via the Internet, "4OD" for eg.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Recusant on June 16, 2018, 10:17:33 AM
I guess you aren't quite old enough to qualify for a free licence, Dave?

Anyway, that appears to be the official BBC YouTube channel, so given that clip is viewable from the UK, no problem.

The ideas aren't too bad. I expect the mammaries are inside the pouch. Speaking of which, the artists who created that mock-up fudged things a bit. The pouch should be much larger--the "child" doesn't appear to have much of a body at all, which allows an unrealistically streamlined appearance for their "mother."
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 10:32:44 AM
Quote from: Recusant on June 16, 2018, 10:17:33 AM
I guess you aren't quite old enough to qualify for a free licence, Dave?

Another 16 months to go.

Its not the cost though, I got fed up with only watching about 0.5% of the output - once you disregard all the programme content I had no interest in (95% of sports, 75% of cooking, all fashion/lifestyle, all soaps, most films, most quizzes, all (un)reality, repeats, more repeats . . .) that left, basically, science, some politics, some docus, the more intelligent/comedic quizzes. If l was lucky that was maybe 2 or 3 hours a week that I might put my book down for.

To start with I was allowed to watch the iPlayer and catch favoured progs. But, even then, I so often just did not bother. I am also not much of a video fan, seems the "printed page" is more my thing.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Good points!
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 11:57:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Good points!

The tail might be useful, especially with opposible digits on the end!  But could the fur not be problematic in hot, humid and wet environments? Could build in the waterproofing/thermal insulating under thatch of some animals. The ability to lift the fur, a little for extra warmth or more for drying . . . Just so long as it stops growing at a given (shortish) length and we don't shed!

Pattern trimming, sculpting, bleaching and dyeing could become another $billion branch of the fashion industries  :grin:
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Bluenose on June 16, 2018, 01:07:53 PM
I assume they re-designed the eye so that the retina is in front of all the wiring, unlike the vertebrate eye which has it all ass-backwards.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Recusant on June 16, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 11:57:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Good points!

The tail might be useful, especially with opposible digits on the end!  But could the fur not be problematic in hot, humid and wet environments? Could build in the waterproofing/thermal insulating under thatch of some animals. The ability to lift the fur, a little for extra warmth or more for drying . . . Just so long as it stops growing at a given (shortish) length and we don't shed!

Pattern trimming, sculpting, bleaching and dyeing could become another $billion branch of the fashion industries  :grin:

I like the idea of a useful tail, but I'd go in the other direction with the excellent ideas of (1) fur (2) with consciously controlled horripilation (https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/horripilation). The fibers of the hair should be composed of a molecule like kevlar, and the conscious control of the fur should extend to laying it down against the skin in such a way as to create a full-body flexible suit of armor that would also serve as a space suit. Not so easy to trim and sculpt, but otherwise rather useful. While we're at it, eliminate the need for the skeleton and muscles to be under constant gravity to remain healthy.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 02:37:51 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 16, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 11:57:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Good points!

The tail might be useful, especially with opposible digits on the end!  But could the fur not be problematic in hot, humid and wet environments? Could build in the waterproofing/thermal insulating under thatch of some animals. The ability to lift the fur, a little for extra warmth or more for drying . . . Just so long as it stops growing at a given (shortish) length and we don't shed!

Pattern trimming, sculpting, bleaching and dyeing could become another $billion branch of the fashion industries  :grin:

I like the idea of a useful tail, but I'd go in the other direction with the excellent ideas of (1) fur (2) with consciously controlled horripilation (https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/horripilation). The fibers of the hair should be composed of a molecule like kevlar, and the conscious control of the fur should extend to laying it down against the skin in such a way as to create a full-body flexible suit of armor that would also serve as a space suit. Not so easy to trim and sculpt, but otherwise rather useful. While we're at it, eliminate the need for the skeleton and muscles to be under constant gravity to remain healthy.

If you want armour why not scales?
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Recusant on June 16, 2018, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 02:37:51 PMIf you want armour why not scales?

Eh, because I'm a mammal (and yes, I know so it the pangolin), and because I think fur is better for heat regulation.  ;D
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 03:16:05 PM
Quote from: Recusant on June 16, 2018, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 02:37:51 PMIf you want armour why not scales?

Eh, because I'm a mammal (and yes, I know so it the pangolin), and because I think fur is better for heat regulation.  ;D

But, with emu legs and all why be fussy about being 100% mammalian. Er, looking at the model they had does "mammalian" fully apply?  :thoughtful:

And you could temperature regulate with scales if they had the same musculature as hairs.

PS, interesting evolutionary dilemna here: if the scales are defensive do you raise them prior to possible aggression, or in anger, to make yourself look bigger - only to have to slam them down if actual aggression looks probable?

Would they flap up and down in conflict situations?

There must be a good CGI animation thing here! May actually be, I don't game or anything.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Bad Penny II on June 16, 2018, 03:30:03 PM
I'm tired of carrying around this bulky human head.
Couldn't we borrow some avian bio and make it more compact?


I like Alice.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Tank on June 16, 2018, 04:17:04 PM
Quote from: Bluenose on June 16, 2018, 01:07:53 PM
I assume they re-designed the eye so that the retina is in front of all the wiring, unlike the vertebrate eye which has it all ass-backwards.
Yes. And the heart of a dog which has multiple redundant blood supplies. The throat so we can't choak. A modified chimp pelvis and lower spine to alleviate back problems etc   
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 08:12:06 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 11:57:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Good points!

The tail might be useful, especially with opposible digits on the end!  But could the fur not be problematic in hot, humid and wet environments? Could build in the waterproofing/thermal insulating under thatch of some animals. The ability to lift the fur, a little for extra warmth or more for drying . . . Just so long as it stops growing at a given (shortish) length and we don't shed!

Pattern trimming, sculpting, bleaching and dyeing could become another $billion branch of the fashion industries  :grin:

I was thinking short, water-proof fur, like an otter.  And I want it because I don't want to have to do any more clothes shopping, but I suppose, given human nature, the impulse to fashion would quickly make fur a nuisance too. 

Still want that prehensile tail, which doesn't need to have a hand at the end of it -- it just needs to be strong and flexible enough to wrap around objects and pick them up.

I do think the people who made Alice 2.0 really should have stuck to mammalian improvements.  And while the pouch is very practical, shouldn't that have made the hips a good deal wider?  Doesn't really look like she has room to carry a growing baby in there.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 08:20:21 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 08:12:06 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 11:57:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Good points!

The tail might be useful, especially with opposible digits on the end!  But could the fur not be problematic in hot, humid and wet environments? Could build in the waterproofing/thermal insulating under thatch of some animals. The ability to lift the fur, a little for extra warmth or more for drying . . . Just so long as it stops growing at a given (shortish) length and we don't shed!

Pattern trimming, sculpting, bleaching and dyeing could become another $billion branch of the fashion industries  :grin:

I was thinking short, water-proof fur, like an otter.  And I want it because I don't want to have to do any more clothes shopping, but I suppose, given human nature, the impulse to fashion would quickly make fur a nuisance too. 

Still want that prehensile tail, which doesn't need to have a hand at the end of it -- it just needs to be strong and flexible enough to wrap around objects and pick them up.

I do think the people who made Alice 2.0 really should have stuck to mammalian improvements.  And while the pouch is very practical, shouldn't that have made the hips a good deal wider?  Doesn't really look like she has room to carry a growing baby in there.

If you want otter type waterproof fur that will be double layered and need regular oiling and cleaning (if genetic you would also have oil glands for that purpose!)

QuoteUnlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not have a thick layer of blubber and rely upon their water-resistant fur for insulation. The sea otter is covered in dense fur that consists of two layers. ... Sea otters have a specialized gland that secrets oil to enhance the water-repellent quality of the fur.
http://www.otterproject.org/about-sea-otters/biology-of-the-southern-sea-otter/

Example is one type of otter but, IIRC, it applies to all. Take longer than doing your make-up to fix!
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:30:21 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 08:12:06 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 11:57:37 AM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 10:37:16 AM
I don't think it counts as a perfect body without a prehensile tail, or at least fur.
Good points!

The tail might be useful, especially with opposible digits on the end!  But could the fur not be problematic in hot, humid and wet environments? Could build in the waterproofing/thermal insulating under thatch of some animals. The ability to lift the fur, a little for extra warmth or more for drying . . . Just so long as it stops growing at a given (shortish) length and we don't shed!

Pattern trimming, sculpting, bleaching and dyeing could become another $billion branch of the fashion industries  :grin:

I was thinking short, water-proof fur, like an otter.  And I want it because I don't want to have to do any more clothes shopping, but I suppose, given human nature, the impulse to fashion would quickly make fur a nuisance too. 

Still want that prehensile tail, which doesn't need to have a hand at the end of it -- it just needs to be strong and flexible enough to wrap around objects and pick them up.

I do think the people who made Alice 2.0 really should have stuck to mammalian improvements.  And while the pouch is very practical, shouldn't that have made the hips a good deal wider?  Doesn't really look like she has room to carry a growing baby in there.

But the hips don't need to be wide if all you have to do is give birth to something the size of a large jelly bean. The pelvis can be narrower and that supports the spine better. And marsupials are mammals they feed their young with milk.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 08:47:03 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 08:20:21 PM
Example is one type of otter but, IIRC, it applies to all. Take longer than doing your make-up to fix!

Everything in my life takes longer than make-up as I don't wear any.  And having to take care of oily fur still seems much less annoying than shopping.

Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:30:21 PM
But the hips don't need to be wide if all you have to do is give birth to something the size of a large jelly bean. The pelvis can be narrower and that supports the spine better. And marsupials are mammals they feed their young with milk.

It's the growing baby in the pouch that concerns me.  Given the size of the kid's head in Alice 2.0's pouch, there doesn't seem to be enough room in her lower body for the rest of the kid plus her organs and skeleton.  If she had fur, as I'm suggesting, the kid could just ride on her back or shoulders while holding onto it.

And before Dave brings up how oily that fur is, I believe otter pups cling to their mother's fur with no problem, even while gliding about in the water.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 08:50:29 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 08:47:03 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 08:20:21 PM
Example is one type of otter but, IIRC, it applies to all. Take longer than doing your make-up to fix!

Everything in my life takes longer than make-up as I don't wear any.  And having to take care of oily fur still seems much less annoying than shopping.

:lol:
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 08:47:03 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 08:20:21 PM
Example is one type of otter but, IIRC, it applies to all. Take longer than doing your make-up to fix!

Everything in my life takes longer than make-up as I don't wear any.  And having to take care of oily fur still seems much less annoying than shopping.

Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:30:21 PM
But the hips don't need to be wide if all you have to do is give birth to something the size of a large jelly bean. The pelvis can be narrower and that supports the spine better. And marsupials are mammals they feed their young with milk.

It's the growing baby in the pouch that concerns me.  Given the size of the kid's head in Alice 2.0's pouch, there doesn't seem to be enough room in her lower body for the rest of the kid plus her organs and skeleton.  If she had fur, as I'm suggesting, the kid could just ride on her back or shoulders while holding onto it.

And before Dave brings up how oily that fur is, I believe otter pups cling to their mother's fur with no problem, even while gliding about in the water.

I think the lack of the baby's body comes because the head was a bit of an after thought. If you watch the whole program the lower abdomen was finished quite early on and didn't have a head popping out. I do agree that there should be a bigger bulge below the head.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 16, 2018, 10:44:06 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 16, 2018, 08:47:03 PM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 08:20:21 PM
Example is one type of otter but, IIRC, it applies to all. Take longer than doing your make-up to fix!

Everything in my life takes longer than make-up as I don't wear any.  And having to take care of oily fur still seems much less annoying than shopping.

Quote from: Tank on June 16, 2018, 08:30:21 PM
But the hips don't need to be wide if all you have to do is give birth to something the size of a large jelly bean. The pelvis can be narrower and that supports the spine better. And marsupials are mammals they feed their young with milk.

It's the growing baby in the pouch that concerns me.  Given the size of the kid's head in Alice 2.0's pouch, there doesn't seem to be enough room in her lower body for the rest of the kid plus her organs and skeleton.  If she had fur, as I'm suggesting, the kid could just ride on her back or shoulders while holding onto it.

And before Dave brings up how oily that fur is, I believe otter pups cling to their mother's fur with no problem, even while gliding about in the water.

I think the lack of the baby's body comes because the head was a bit of an after thought. If you watch the whole program the lower abdomen was finished quite early on and didn't have a head popping out. I do agree that there should be a bigger bulge below the head.

Yeah, I can just picture the scene in the design studio, D-day minus three . . .

Marvin: "Hey, let's make her a marsupial."
Fred: "Great idea, but wtf didn't you think of that a couple of weeks ago! This is going to be one big bodge!"

I would like to think they had a good specification laid out before construction began, but it does look like a last minute bodge
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Sandra Craft on June 17, 2018, 12:59:22 AM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 10:44:06 PM

Yeah, I can just picture the scene in the design studio, D-day minus three . . .

Marvin: "Hey, let's make her a marsupial."
Fred: "Great idea, but wtf didn't you think of that a couple of weeks ago! This is going to be one big bodge!"

I would like to think they had a good specification laid out before construction began, but it does look like a last minute bodge

I don't know what a "bodge" is, but somehow I don't feel in need of translation.

I didn't even notice there was a full episode -- too distracted by the mistakes in the subtitles I think.  Full episode won't show outside England anyway. 
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Bluenose on June 17, 2018, 02:17:41 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 17, 2018, 12:59:22 AM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 10:44:06 PM

Yeah, I can just picture the scene in the design studio, D-day minus three . . .

Marvin: "Hey, let's make her a marsupial."
Fred: "Great idea, but wtf didn't you think of that a couple of weeks ago! This is going to be one big bodge!"

I would like to think they had a good specification laid out before construction began, but it does look like a last minute bodge

I don't know what a "bodge" is, but somehow I don't feel in need of translation.

I didn't even notice there was a full episode -- too distracted by the mistakes in the subtitles I think.  Full episode won't show outside England anyway.

A bodge is something done in a slap-dash, clumsy or inelegant fashion, it might work, but only just.  You know, he way evolution "designs" things. :)
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 17, 2018, 06:36:46 AM
Quote from: Bluenose on June 17, 2018, 02:17:41 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on June 17, 2018, 12:59:22 AM
Quote from: Dave on June 16, 2018, 10:44:06 PM

Yeah, I can just picture the scene in the design studio, D-day minus three . . .

Marvin: "Hey, let's make her a marsupial."
Fred: "Great idea, but wtf didn't you think of that a couple of weeks ago! This is going to be one big bodge!"

I would like to think they had a good specification laid out before construction began, but it does look like a last minute bodge

I don't know what a "bodge" is, but somehow I don't feel in need of translation.

I didn't even notice there was a full episode -- too distracted by the mistakes in the subtitles I think.  Full episode won't show outside England anyway.

A bodge is something done in a slap-dash, clumsy or inelegant fashion, it might work, but only just.  You know, he way evolution "designs" things. :)

Yet a "bodger" was a skilled 16C to 18C wood worker who made basic components for furniture and spokes for wheels, in a sort of "mix and match" way, things often had to be "adjusted" to fit. Bodged. He used a rustic treadle lathe, draw knives etc that those keen on the mechanisation/repeatability that the Industrial Revolution offered disparaged.

Bodgers still exist as craftsmen.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Bluenose on June 17, 2018, 10:45:26 AM
Quote from: Dave on June 17, 2018, 06:36:46 AM

Yet a "bodger" was a skilled 16C to 18C wood worker who made basic components for furniture and spokes for wheels, in a sort of "mix and match" way, things often had to be "adjusted" to fit. Bodged. He used a rustic treadle lathe, draw knives etc that those keen on the mechanisation/repeatability that the Industrial Revolution offered disparaged.

Bodgers still exist as craftsmen.

True that, it's interesting how words shift in meaning over the decades.  The word has lost its skilled component and nowadays a bodge, or especially a massive bodge as you put it is anything but a perfect solution.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 27, 2018, 10:33:45 AM
Last one on "bodge". As these things go, sometimes, ages later, something pops into my mind.

Maybe "bodge" used to mean  a "make-do fix" is a mispronounciation/misspelling of "botch"

botch
bɒtʃ/
informal
verb
1.
carry out (a task) badly or carelessly.
bungle, do badly, do clumsily, make a mess of, mismanage, mishandle, mangle, fumble;


I have certainly used and seen/heard used both for similar purposes.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Bluenose on June 27, 2018, 11:59:47 AM
In Australian English bodge and botch mean the same thing.
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Bad Penny II on June 27, 2018, 12:11:55 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodgies_and_widgies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodgies_and_widgies)
QuoteBodgies and widgies refer to a youth subculture that existed in Australia and New Zealand in the 1950s, similar to the rocker culture in the UK or Greaser culture in the United States. Most bodgies rode motorbikes but some had cars, many of which were hotted-up e.g. mag wheels, hot dog muffler, etc.

The males were called bodgies and the females were called widgies. Bodgies were often depicted in Australian media and folk-lore as louts. On 1 February 1951 the Sydney Morning Herald wrote on its front page:

    "What with "bodgies" growing their hair long and getting around in satin shirts, and "wedgies" cutting their hair short and wearing jeans, confusion seems to be arising about the sex of some Australian adolescents."
Title: Re: What evolution couldn't make ;)
Post by: Dave on June 27, 2018, 12:19:08 PM
Quote from: Bluenose on June 27, 2018, 11:59:47 AM
In Australian English bodge and botch mean the same thing.

Yup, language drift through (mis)usage until it becomes accepted:

Quotebodge
bɒdʒ/
verb BRITISH informal
make or repair (something) badly or clumsily.


Yet my late 19thC copy of Ogilvie's Dictionary (my oldest dictionary and one that bears surprising similarities to the first OCD) gives the definition of "bodge" as:

"To boggle, to stop"

And "botch" as similar to above.

The King's English Dictionary (c. 1930) has no "bodge" but for "botch" something similar to above however the primary definition is: "a large ulcerous affection".