swansont

Since you apparently need this spelled out (and I really shouldn’t have to): you have shared a link saying that seafood is necessary for proper evolutionary brain development ca. 2mya. If we provisionally accept this (others have challenged it), it’s separate from the claim that we’ve lost 100cc of brain volume 40k years ago. Your assertion is that this loss is because “we” no longer have the same diet Where is the evidence that all humans stopped eating seafood? Your position requires this. If this loss of volume is an evolutionary disadvantage and is diet-related, why did the humans who lived on the coast and ate seafood suffer this loss? Shouldn’t people who eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? You presented evidence that surfer’s ear is present in ~half of 23 Neandertal fossils and an indeterminate number of others (only one is uniquely identified in your link) You didn’t show that it “disappears” from the fossil record.

What’s the evidence that the diet has changed? Did all humans stop eating seafood? Is there evidence that populations that eat a lot of seafood have bigger brains? The abundant presence of fish bones and shellfish remains in many African hominid fossil sites dating to 2 million years ago implies human ancestors commonly inhabited the shores, Is this any different in the last 40k years?

Ever notice how people who had previous incarnations were always someone of note?

They aren’t http://research.atmos.ucla.edu/weather/C110/Documents/tmp/basic_wxradar/navmenu.php_tab_1_page_3_4_2_type_text.htm Consider a situation in which an intense thunderstorm is close to the radar. Attenuation occurring in the heavy precipitation core of the closest storm can cause precipitating areas downrange to appear less intense. In severe cases of attenuation, some precipitation occurring downrange may not be displayed in the image at all.

But you’ve presented no evidence of this. You presented other evidence that has no bearing on this claim.

Perhaps if you actually employed the scientific method… It’s not enough to show that some features could have arisen from an aquatic existence. You need to show that they must have, and it has to cover all features. The math says that bipedalism arose before that. “the discovery of “Lucy” (Johanson et al. 1982), a 3.2-million-year-old (Ma) Australopithecus afarensis skeleton that was very ape-like above the neck but possessed a suite of characters related to bipedalism throughout the rest of the skeleton. Then came the 3.7-Ma Laetoli footprint trail—an exquisitely preserved moment in time when two or more hominins walked bipedally across an ash-covered landscape” https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0257-6

Shouting doesn’t actually help your case. AAH is rather more than ancestors spending some time in the water; it’s that this is responsible for evolutionary changes to our physiology. Showing that they spent some time in the water is insufficient to show this. Put another way, given that humans need access to fresh water, it’s not all that surprising that hominids would live nearby and bathe or swim. Noting that Neandertals got swimmer’s ear and thus may have fished is irrelevant; AAH claims that bipedalism was a result of life in the water, and human ancestors were bipedal far earlier. It’s not evidence that any features evolved as a result

From your source: They found that the length of time that individuals spent surfing was proportional to the presence and severity of the exostoses. In surfers with external ear canal exostoses, 61.1% had surfed for ten years or less but in surfers who had surfed for more than ten years, 82.4% had severe exostoses. Mann further noticed in his study that the severity of external auditory canal exostoses was also influenced by the frequency of water exposure and he found an incidence of 64% in individuals swimming three times a week. You only have to go swimming three times a week to get the rate discovered in the fossil record. Surfing > 10 years gave a greater rate. No, since semiaquatic ≠ aquatic and the topic is the aquatic ape hypothesis, not the semiaquatic ape hypothesis

If that’s all you know, does that mean all the rest is made up by you (i.e. you don’t know it?) Maybe you could answer instead of dodging the question.

Is it your position that surfers/swimmers who develop this condition are aquatic mammals?

! Moderator Note Split; questions not connected to the topic under discussion should be in separate threads

We’re six pages into a discussion of heat engines and you don’t know what the cold reservoir is? It’s whatever connects with the plate opposite the hot reservoir.

Yes, I said no ice. This seems to be confusing to you. If you measure how much the temperature goes up, you can see how much heat has flowed in. You do this just with ambient air, to see what its contribution is. Then you do it with the engine.

I did. YOU said ice water. I explained why that’s not a good idea. After you said it. Then you come up with a way to track the heat flow into the cold reservoir.

0 is easy to replicate. The goal is to change only one parameter at a time, e.g. doing work vs not doing work Having ice water means tracking how much energy goes into melting the ice

There are. The lab description, and the writeup done by the students. But you’d have to take the class to have access. I’m sure someone will get right on that, right after you publish the torque values for every bolt you’ve tightened. Go take a physics class.

Why would we do this? It’s an analog to the light clock, and the photon does not have an inertial frame of reference. The light clock is used to show the difference between someone at rest with respect to the photon launcher and an inertial frame where there is relative motion. Anything else is a distraction. The ball itself is not in an inertial frame, so this is pointless..

College students do similar experiments every year in introductory physics classes. It’s not noteworthy, so nobody is going to publish these results.

Which is why you do a control experiment, which measures the effect of the surroundings.

Which is why you do a control run, with the engine not running. No, that wouldn’t be the same. It might make the experiment harder, since the engine doesn’t actually do much work. But as long as you document all the pertinent detail, go ahead

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not your blog. Preaching is not allowed here

Put a container of cold water on the cold reservoir surface. A small plastic bag, perhaps. Enough to cover the plate. You want a known (and fixed) thermal capacity, but not so big that the temperature change is hard to measure. (I just put ice chips directly on it when I was showing off my stirling engine on a hot day to get it to run, but I wasn’t doing a controlled experiment)

Now? Can you give a link to any recent peer-reviewed proposals? It looks to me like they were considered ca 100 years ago but the notion that these were a separate species was abandoned long ago https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/four-species-of-homo-youve-never-heard-of-part-ii-156735412/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskop_Man

! Moderator Note Please stop doing this. One might as well be asking the proverbial “man on the street” It doesn’t belong in these discussions

I second the “bollocks” diagnosis. There’s no science in the article back up these claims That, in particular, is crap. As for the notion that observing an entangled vs unentangled photon, the article doesn’t say why this matters. The human eye only weakly detects light polarization*, and one can’t tell if the photon was entangled simply by detecting it. *see Haidinger’s brush https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidinger's_brush