Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[bobAlike]

Just lol, I can't add anything else.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-21923218

It's a lol story aright Andrew, but it actually makes me feel a bit sad and angry too.

How do they expect children to look after themselves when they become adults?

Childhood is about learning, and that includes learning not to throw flapjacks and to avoid flying flapjacks.

You are so right Tom. When I was 11 someone threw a protractor accross the school field it must have travelled at least 60 yds before it hit me in the eye.
Without that experience I would never have learnt about the dangers of throwing and/or being hit by those dangerous semi-circles.

BTW that is a true story and if you look into my eye you'll see some of the iris missing.

It's either a level, or you're angle-shooting...

You're coerrect to a certain degree

[AndrewT]

I thought Boshi's comment would be a bit too acute for the more obtuse minds of Blonde, but Bobalike's response shows my reflex assumption was wrong.

[bobAlike]

I thought Boshi's comment would be a bit too acute for the more obtuse minds of Blonde, but Bobalike's response shows my reflex assumption was wrong.

The sine of the times my friend.

[VBlue]

My step-daughter also got struck in the face by a protractor at school - just near the eye and could have caused eye-damage had it been an inch more accurate.  We left it to the school to sort out, called Holly 'Holly Potter' for a while due to her scar, and she became a legend at school as she had been seen by all with said blood spilling down her face and a piece of plastic sticking out the side of her head.

Got a lot of FB friend requests after that incident

[RED-DOG]

Just lol, I can't add anything else.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-21923218

It's a lol story aright Andrew, but it actually makes me feel a bit sad and angry too.

How do they expect children to look after themselves when they become adults?

Childhood is about learning, and that includes learning not to throw flapjacks and to avoid flying flapjacks.

You are so right Tom. When I was 11 someone threw a protractor accross the school field it must have travelled at least 60 yds before it hit me in the eye.
Without that experience I would never have learnt about the dangers of throwing and/or being hit by those dangerous semi-circles.

BTW that is a true story and if you look into my eye you'll see some of the iris missing.

It's either a level, or you're angle-shooting...

 

[RED-DOG]

My step-daughter also got struck in the face by a protractor at school - just near the eye and could have caused eye-damage had it been an inch more accurate.  We left it to the school to sort out, called Holly 'Holly Potter' for a while due to her scar, and she became a legend at school as she had been seen by all with said blood spilling down her face and a piece of plastic sticking out the side of her head.

Got a lot of FB friend requests after that incident

Such is the way that heroes are made.

I became more popular when I tried to climb a concrete wall and slipped but was prevented from plummeting to the ground by a strand of barbed wire that became entangled with my bottom lip.

True story. I have the scar to prove it.

PS- can everyone please tell us about their scars and the history of their origin?

[bobAlike]

Surprisingly I have a chunk of iris missing after a playgorund protractor incident.

[RED-DOG]

Surprisingly I have a chunk of iris missing after a playgorund protractor incident.

Is this the same story or a better one involving a girl called Iris?

[VBlue]

My old man grew up on a farm in Galicia and as a boy was not allowed to use the axe.  So when he stuck it in his shin chopping wood, he bandaged it himself for fear of reprisal.  It was only discovered by his Mother when he was getting into bed.  Good 4 inch scar or so to show for it.

[kinboshi]

Aye, oystercatchers nest up round here (in the uplands of Scotland) regularly Kin. Lovely birds with a distinctive peep call. Big tasty eggs for a weeish bird (from my bad youth as a birdnester). Well camouflaged on stony river banks usually, although there's a pair nests on a factory roof nearby & fight off the gulls - almost a full time job.

My favourites among the inland waders are the Curlew (called a whaup here for it's call) which has the best camouflaged eggs, and the woodcock - which you never see till it whizzes out the trees near you.
Oystercatchers nest:

Click to see full-size image.

Curlew nest:

Click to see full-size image.

Just incredible how nature adapts to surroundings.

I can't even begin to imagine what great force manages all that sort of thing.

WARNING: BORING SCIENCE STUFF

Natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.  It's a very simple theory, but the effects are amazing and appear to be the work of a designer (as many will assert they are).

Nothing 'manages' it though.  Random mutations happen constantly. Many are caused by things like radiation (in the ground, from the sun, or from cosmic rays affecting the chemical structure of the DNA in cells.  If they are beneficial mutations, and they are passed on in their genes, they might continue in the offspring. 

What is beneficial?  Well, a beneficial mutation is one that means the organism has a better chance of passing of reproducing.  So it might be something that makes them faster, stronger, 'sexier', more immune to disease, etc.  It's environmental factors that shape the natural selection, and this is non-random.  It's obviously a lot more complex than this, but a furry rabbit might be more suited to a cold climate than a non-furry one.  If the climate cools dramatically, the non-furry rabbit might struggle to survive (and pass on its genes) and over time the population of non-furry rabbits can die out, whilst the furry one continues to survive, reproduce (with other rabbits who have the furry gene) and prosper. The rabbit didn't 'choose' to have a lot of fur.  A random mutation (or more accurately, a series of random mutations) would have happened over time affecting generations of rabbits - the net change is that they have longer fur.  In another part of the world, the climate might get warmer.  The furry rabbits have no benefit here having such fur, and in fact there is a penalty to pay for having it.  Growing fur means energy is required, and they must therefore eat more or devote more of their energy intake on growing the fur. The non-furry rabbits don't have this 'overhead'.  So instead they don't need to eat as much, or maybe their energy intake can be devoted to growing stronger muscles, etc., and so they are better adapted to the local conditions.  In this environment they don't need long-fur, and they might be better suited to avoid predators and pass on their genes to their offspring than their furry cousins, whose population dies out. 

Over time the differences between the two populations of rabbits can become more apparent.  Other environmental factors will come into play, and the furry rabbits might all become white in colour (a random mutation that makes them more successful at hiding from predators in the snow), whilst the non-furry rabbits might lose all their fur and grow longer teeth more-suited to eating a particular diet.  If something happens that means the two populations come face to face with each other (a glacier melting, a river drying out, etc.) they might have become so different over thousands of generations that they can no longer breed with each other - they are in fact different species.

With the example of the Oystercatcher's eggs, the mutations and influence of natural selection are obvious.  If the Oystercatchers eggs were bright blue, they would be more visible to predators, and the eggs would risk being eaten, and the next generation of Oystercatchers would be lost.  What happened (over thousands of generations) is that a mutation in the DNA meant the eggs had a mottled shell, and this would have meant the ones that were best-suited for the environment, i.e. harder for predators to find, would have a greater chance of hatching and so the DNA would be passed on.  Over time, only Oystercatchers with mottled eggs that are camouflaged have survived and are able to pass on their genes.

The 'Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins is one of my favourite books and explains evolution and the mechanisms behind it so much better than I can.

[RED-DOG]

Thanks Tom. You going to Gala tonight/tuesday?

Yes, I will be there tonight, insha'allah.

You missed a great game on Sunday. Everyone was drunk.

Well, almost everyone....

[bobAlike]

Surprisingly I have a chunk of iris missing after a playgorund protractor incident.

Is this the same story or a better one involving a girl called Iris?

Same one but the protractonist protagonist was a girl named Tracy

[RED-DOG]

Aye, oystercatchers nest up round here (in the uplands of Scotland) regularly Kin. Lovely birds with a distinctive peep call. Big tasty eggs for a weeish bird (from my bad youth as a birdnester). Well camouflaged on stony river banks usually, although there's a pair nests on a factory roof nearby & fight off the gulls - almost a full time job.

My favourites among the inland waders are the Curlew (called a whaup here for it's call) which has the best camouflaged eggs, and the woodcock - which you never see till it whizzes out the trees near you.
Oystercatchers nest:

Click to see full-size image.

Curlew nest:

Click to see full-size image.

Just incredible how nature adapts to surroundings.

I can't even begin to imagine what great force manages all that sort of thing.

WARNING: BORING SCIENCE STUFF

Natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.  It's a very simple theory, but the effects are amazing and appear to be the work of a designer (as many will assert they are).

Nothing 'manages' it though.  Random mutations happen constantly. Many are caused by things like radiation (in the ground, from the sun, or from cosmic rays affecting the chemical structure of the DNA in cells.  If they are beneficial mutations, and they are passed on in their genes, they might continue in the offspring.  

What is beneficial?  Well, a beneficial mutation is one that means the organism has a better chance of passing of reproducing.  So it might be something that makes them faster, stronger, 'sexier', more immune to disease, etc.  It's environmental factors that shape the natural selection, and this is non-random.  It's obviously a lot more complex than this, but a furry rabbit might be more suited to a cold climate than a non-furry one.  If the climate cools dramatically, the non-furry rabbit might struggle to survive (and pass on its genes) and over time the population of non-furry rabbits can die out, whilst the furry one continues to survive, reproduce (with other rabbits who have the furry gene) and prosper. The rabbit didn't 'choose' to have a lot of fur.  A random mutation (or more accurately, a series of random mutations) would have happened over time affecting generations of rabbits - the net change is that they have longer fur.  In another part of the world, the climate might get warmer.  The furry rabbits have no benefit here having such fur, and in fact there is a penalty to pay for having it.  Growing fur means energy is required, and they must therefore eat more or devote more of their energy intake on growing the fur. The non-furry rabbits don't have this 'overhead'.  So instead they don't need to eat as much, or maybe their energy intake can be devoted to growing stronger muscles, etc., and so they are better adapted to the local conditions.  In this environment they don't need long-fur, and they might be better suited to avoid predators and pass on their genes to their offspring than their furry cousins, whose population dies out.  

Over time the differences between the two populations of rabbits can become more apparent.  Other environmental factors will come into play, and the furry rabbits might all become white in colour (a random mutation that makes them more successful at hiding from predators in the snow), whilst the non-furry rabbits might lose all their fur and grow longer teeth more-suited to eating a particular diet.  If something happens that means the two populations come face to face with each other (a glacier melting, a river drying out, etc.) they might have become so different over thousands of generations that they can no longer breed with each other - they are in fact different species.

With the example of the Oystercatcher's eggs, the mutations and influence of natural selection are obvious.  If the Oystercatchers eggs were bright blue, they would be more visible to predators, and the eggs would risk being eaten, and the next generation of Oystercatchers would be lost.  What happened (over thousands of generations) is that a mutation in the DNA meant the eggs had a mottled shell, and this would have meant the ones that were best-suited for the environment, i.e. harder for predators to find, would have a greater chance of hatching and so the DNA would be passed on.  Over time, only Oystercatchers with mottled eggs that are camouflaged have survived and are able to pass on their genes.

The 'Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins is one of my favourite books and explains evolution and the mechanisms behind it so much better than I can.

Truly excellent piece.

BTW- Never ever refer to science as boring.

Ps- I think I was a victim of a random mutation. I mean, consider the evidence...


it might be something that makes them faster, stronger, 'sexier'....  

[RED-DOG]

Surprisingly I have a chunk of iris missing after a playgorund protractor incident.

Is this the same story or a better one involving a girl called Iris?

Same one but the protractonist protagonist was a girl named Tracy

Lots of punny stuff itt today.

[bobAlike]

Surprisingly I have a chunk of iris missing after a playgorund protractor incident.

Is this the same story or a better one involving a girl called Iris?

Same one but the protractonist protagonist was a girl named Tracy

Lots of punny stuff itt today.

Subtle unlike normal