Page views in the rear view

Ryan, San Diego, CA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:19:39 GMT

Not that I'm an evolutionary biologist, but I'll take a shot at your smell question. I think you are asking the wrong question though. Instead of asking what the evolutionary advantage is to losing our smell, you should look at it in terms of was there an advantage to keeping it? If there was no advantage, then there would be no selection pressure to keep it fine tuned, and over time, our sense of smell degraded. Of course, this is just an educated guess.

Page views in the rear view

Matt — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:03:35 GMT

On the topic of the smell... have you ever watched a dog? They are distracted by every smell that comes along. That also could explain why we have poorer eyesight and hearing that most of the animal kingdom. Fewer distractions so that we can focus our minds on a particular task.

Page views in the rear view

Michael, Halifax, Canada — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:03:52 GMT

Will said - "The idea that we lost some of our ability to smell in the course of evolution is odd to me. What would be the evolutionary advantage of not being able to smell as well? A willingness to make with more (smellier) partners?"

This is one of the fundamental aspects of evolution that confuses most people. People tend to think that evolution only makes changes that help the animal that is evolving. This is not the case. (What is helpful about evolving into prey?)
Evolution is merely the case of changes occurring in animals over long periods of time mostly due to changes in the surrounding environment. Sometimes these changes don't help and the result is that the animal becomes extinct (animals became extinct well before we started destroying their habitats; in fact, many species became extinct before humans ever came around). Other times these changes have totally unrelated consequences that are actually incredibly helpful. This is the case when you talk about humans loosing the ability to smell (or at least loosing the ability to smell well).

Humans and modern apes have a common ancestor. This ancestor was pretty much a monkey that lived in a tree. One day the monkey decided to leave the tree and wandered out into the plains. Eventually the monkey learned that if it stood on its hind legs, and balanced there, it could see much farther across the plains. This is helpful when you are prey and walking around in the middle of open grass lands (I.E. you can see predators coming from farther away then if your face was closer to the ground, and you can also see food sources more easily. In fact, on the plains you will see these things much farther away than you could ever smell them). Eventually the monkey evolved to stand upright all the time; this was a helpful evolutionary step since it increased the chance that individuals of the species would survive long enough to mate. The side effect to this was that the monkey stopped smelling as much, mostly because the monkey's face was now much farther from the ground (and the ground, for those of you that have never seen a dog on the trail, is where the scent is). Eventually, since the monkey didn't use his sense of smell as much, the sense of smell regressed to the point today where our sense of smell is laughable when compared to that of a dog or many other animals.

Now, standing upright had another advantage other than being able to see farther; it leaves us with two limbs free (I.E. we no longer use our arms and hands to walk). This lead to humans being able to use, and create, tools. This eventually led to an increase in brain size in humans; there was more we could do with our bodies so our brains had to increase in size to handle it all. The fact is that humans owe their large brains, and their spot on the top of the food chain, to the monkey that left the tree. (So, if you had the choice, would you take the large brain or the good sense of smell?)

Now, I'm not the best at explaining this sort of thing, and there are probably scientists out there that would laugh at my feeble explanation, but that is the basic idea; that is why we have traits that we acquired through evolution that are not necessarily advantageous.

Oh, one thing I was wondering is how proponents of Intelligent Design explain these evolutionary leftovers? Leaving unnecessary body parts around, especially body parts that can cause a lot of problems (like the appendix or the extra sinus cavities) doesn't seem very “intelligent”, does it? (And no, that is not meant to be inflammatory. I don’t know how many times I have left comments on this blog that never show up because they were deemed ‘inflammatory’. That is only an open call to proponents of Intelligent Design to offer up an explanation of these leftovers that makes as much sense as the evolutionary explanation.)

Page views in the rear view

CindyW, Redmond, WA — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:03:54 GMT

I believe that the new Director's Cut of Bladerunner will be playing in theatres at the same time that a new DVD set is released. The DVDs will have all three versions of the movie. Adam Savage (of Mythbusters fame) wrote a wonderful article about the special effects. You can find it online here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4218376.html?page=1

Page views in the rear view

JISAAC — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:31:17 GMT

MAN FLOATS 193 MILES USING BALLOONS AND CHAIR.
I READ THIS ARTICLE AND ALL OF THE OTHER ONES ABOUT THIS GUY. WHY DOES NOT ONE MENTION THE MOVIE "DANNY DECK CHAIR"? ITS A GREAT LITTLE PEICE ABOUT A MAN IN AUSTRALIA DOING EXACTLY THAT, MINUS THE GPS.

Page views in the rear view

John — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:54:10 GMT

I had upper jaw surgery several years ago and I absolutely can not smell skunk. (For those in the Mid-West, I can't smell corn growing in a field as I drive by, either.)

While not being able to smell skunk is typically a good thing, we had a family of skunks move into the far end of our back yard one year. I stumbled across them several times without knowing they were there. Fortunately, I was never sprayed.

Page views in the rear view

Randall K, St. Louis, MO — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:34:22 GMT

Will, I have to ask, would you have made a similar negative remark about Brian Williams or Lester Holt?

Page views in the rear view

Chris, Boston, MA — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:51:48 GMT

Oh, come on Randall -- I've been thinking that exact thing about Blitzer for years! I especially enjoy how he stops sentences to take an ill-timed breath: "Good evening John, Welcome......<wait for it>......to our show"

But since you brought it up, what's with Brian's mouth? Will, does it appear to slant at a 45% angle in person? On second thought, don't answer that...

Page views in the rear view

Hamilton Davies, Miami, FL — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:45:23 GMT

The T-Rex is kind of cool, but the original, Tri-Magnum was featured in Mechanix Illustrated magazine, February 1983. A lot cooler looking and cheaper too!
http://rqriley.com/tri-mag.html

Page views in the rear view

Clint, Chicago — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:18:03 GMT

Balloon guy ... Will, you're thinking of Larry Walters, who floated to 16,000 feet above California in 1982. Here's the wikipedia ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Walters

And John, I grew up in rural Kentucky and live in Illinois, and I had no idea growing corn had a smell. Now I wonder what else evolution has stolen from me.

Page views in the rear view

Dennis McClain-Furmanski, Dalworthington Gardens, Texas — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:36:36 GMT

You can find more evolutionary left overs by looking at things in pre- and post-natal development. It's called recapitulation theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") and means that stages of a species' evolution appear in stages of its babies' development. A human baby retains a reflex inherited from our aboreal ancestors. When a tree dwelling infant would fall from its mother, if it could grasp branches on the way down, it might survive. This reflex survives in human babies. If you place your fingers in a young baby's hands, it'll grasp your fingers strongly. You can then lift it entirely into the air and it will hang from your hands. It might still have trouble holding its head up and certainly can't walk, but its hands and arms are strong enough to hold its own weight. This ability is lost by about age 3 months. Not only is this a great testable hypothesis of evolutionary theory (why else would a baby have this, then lose it?), it's a great way to scare the heck out of new parents. The babies seem to enjoy it as much as I do.

Page views in the rear view

Dave E — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:56:31 GMT

Hairy armpits and crotches make for less chafing, doncha think? Sounds pretty useful to me.

Page views in the rear view

Will Femia — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:20:07 GMT

OK, since Chris replied to Randall before I did, now I'm on the spot. I definitely realized as I wrote that criticism of Wolf Blitzer that it could look like a petty swat in the cable wars (which I loathe), but the fact of the matter is that I really can't bear to listen to Wolf.

In the office I have a TV on my desk. There are times when my cable colleagues are doing wall to wall celebrity bimbo coverage or those all day politics horserace theme days when I want to put on CNN just to keep the news vibe flowing but if it's Wolf, I can't keep it on. I don't mind saying I can listen to Cooper or Paula Zahn or Larry King. It's not the station, it's the voice.

The other part of the question is whether I feel free enough to criticize NBC people the way I did Blitzer. I don't watch enough of Brian Williams to be annoyed by his speaking mannerisms and his scripts are infinitely more clever than what Wolf is made to say. I don't think Lester's voice is annoying at all. I know some people think his mouth looks like it's smiling, but that doesn't bother me either.

I don't think I'd get in trouble for criticizing an NBC personality, but you may be right that I'd act with more restraint because of the possibility that I could actually run into the person in the building at some point.

I can also say that meeting someone completely changes how their show comes across. I've told the story before of how meeting Chris Matthews not only changed how I think of him and the show but how I understand the way shows are cast. Watching Hardball used to be an hour of me shouting at the TV. Now I have a much more neutral view of the show.

But when I shout at the TV it's because I don't agree with the content for some reason, not because of what the host sounds like. (Sorry, I'm kind of thinking out loud here.)

So the short answer is that Wolf is pretty unique for me in how much his voice bothers me but yes, I was probably harder on him in that sentence than I would be with someone I may have to work with in person. But I emphasize that that's different than feeling unable to express my opinion if I disagree with the on air people. I feel completely free in that respect.

Page views in the rear view

Darrell, Foxboro, MA — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:16:55 GMT

Why do otherwise respectable websites (like the one above speaking of evolutionary leftovers), magazines, tv shows, and even newspapers continue to reference Wikipedia as if it is a reputable source?? As a college professor, I find this not only incredibly annoying, but also very difficult to fight against as my students are being taught by the mainstream media that Wikipedia is a good source (which it is not). Wikipedia is great for finding out who was in Footloose or to get a general and fundamental idea of how nuclear reactors work, but there is no accountability and content is often inaccurate (though it is often cleaned up eventually). Argh! I propose some kind of boycott on any and all websites that treat Wikipedia as a real source. Anyone else with me?

Page views in the rear view

Randall K, St. Louis, MO — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:06:30 GMT

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You pretty much covered it. I just hope you'll still harp on him when you move to CNN, or he makes it to the NBC family. :-)

Page views in the rear view

Dave K — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:07:14 GMT

About your comment "a pot of gold at the end in the form of bigger breasts and penises" if there was a connection linked to penises, I missed it. Was this a matter of being fair? I know there's a lot of "advertisements" regarding the "male member," and while I am flooded with local advertisements for breast enhancement surgery, there is no compareably effective male procedure and none mentioned in the article, so why state it that way?

Page views in the rear view

Will Femia — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:29:37 GMT

Darrell, I had that exact thought and I had it again when I got to the end of the piece and he lists the sources but doesn't include the wikipedia link. But to play devil's advocate, it could be that he used material from wikipedia that he knew was correct and simply borrowed the text. Being a man of good habits he credited the source of his quote - but not the source of the information.

Page views in the rear view

Will Femia — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:44:21 GMT

Dave, your point is well taken. My thought process was more along the lines of "sex sells" and from there I broke it down into boobs and penises. I'm going to leave what I wrote because there's no denying the interest of penises in the biggering of boobs, but your comment stands as a valid criticism.

Page views in the rear view

Steph Greenberg, Mar Vista, CA — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:52:39 GMT

That "Future of the Web" thing isn't so bad on the prophesy thing. The fact that the future of '94 largely happened around 1998 makes it ironic. That's when Digital closed its doors, after selling its last assets to Compaq.

For a futuristic viewpoint, they were pretty conservative, but other than thinking they'd still be in existence themselves, they were dead on. In 1994, none of that was obvious to most people outside the computer business, science fiction writers like William Gibson or Neil Stephenson, and their readers.

I'm also pretty certain that a lot of the people who brought ideas up in their companies for what the web was about to do, had read that type of cyberpunk science fiction and were bent on making it happen in their lifetimes.

There's still a really deep mine of ideas in 1980s novels like, Neuromancer, Islands in the Net, and the novella, True Names, let alone more contemporary science fiction. A company visionary doesn't have to be that visionary with source material like that.

I still find it interesting, that in this day and age, business schools don't require a class on reading science fiction for business ideas.

Page views in the rear view

Sarah H; Kansas City, Mo. — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:34:51 GMT

Am I the only one who thought of R.O.U.S.s when I saw the giant badgers story?
---
Buttercup: We'll never succeed. We may as well die here.
Westley: No, no. We have already succeeded. I mean, what are the three terrors of the Fire Swamp? One, the flame spurt - no problem. There's a popping sound preceding each; we can avoid that. Two, the lightning sand, which you were clever enough to discover what that looks like, so in the future we can avoid that too.
Buttercup: Westley, what about the R.O.U.S.s?
Westley: Rodents Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.
[Immediately, an R.O.U.S. attacks him]
---
You know, come to think of it, perhaps we could draw some parallels between the Fire Swamp and the war in Iraq. And that revelation is definitely a sign that I need more caffeine.

Page views in the rear view

Charlie - Wilmington, Delaware — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:38:47 GMT

re: James Hetfield and his “Taliban-like beard”.
just like the farce i depend on to keep my homeland secure. A BLOND taliban? get real.

Granted, any of us are capable of being a terrorist, but isn't it just like a terrorist to look like a normal person? Must. Search. Everyone.

Not having been there, and considering that you printed the entire piece from the "The Times", all we can say is that his friends put it down to his “Taliban-like beard”. So, his friends think that. Big deal.

Page views in the rear view

KW — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:40:57 GMT

I have a question for college professor Darrel...I would agree that Wiki is unreliable for certain forms of controversial information, but I'm not so certain that, taken collectively, our universities are much better on a percentage basis.

Page views in the rear view

kindjal, Carolina, Puerto Rico — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:54:16 GMT

Remember the street peddlers in Blade Runner? If I remember correctly one of them was selling grown eyes. Thinking about that post about the breast growth I wonder if where are living in some kind of cyberpunk future.

Page views in the rear view

Ben, Chicago — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:54:52 GMT

Re the "'No Sun link' to climate change" article, are we really to believe now that studies on the sun's output and effects on the last 20 years should let us extrapolate the sun's effect on our climate forever? If flies in the face of common sense that if the sun's energy output increases, our climate is unaffected. How are other planets in the solar system also experiencing warming then? Does man made CO2 float through space and polute the entire solar system? I'm not a 'scientist', just a rational person, and the article doesn't make a bit of sense.

Page views in the rear view

Dennis Lynch, Baltimore, Maryland — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:46:53 GMT

Regarding the sense of smell. Have you ever wondered what it might have smelled like in the first cities say 3000 years ago up to say 1890? Think open sewers and piles of trash! It was beneficial for at least some if not most humans to have a reduced sense of smell.

Page views in the rear view

Drew, KC — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:02:17 GMT

Cloning mammoths: I believe the problem is you currently need more than just the DNA to clone an animal. I read somewhere that you need certain intact cells that are destroyed when the mammoth is frozen. Personally, I still hold the dream of seeing a Jurassic Park of sorts in my lifetime. Even if it is just a couple wooly mammoths.

Page views in the rear view

Alex, Lawrence, KS — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:10:05 GMT

Dennis: Babies don't lose this ability at 3 months because of evolution, they lose it because of muscle atrophy. Monkey babies in the trees are constantly gripping their mothers, the trees, and food, and as such, the muscles continue to stay strong and grow as the monkey infant grows. Baby humans grip almost nothing, and the pre-developed grasp muscles you mention atrophy and weaken so they can no longer support a growing infant.
Not to mention that Haeckel's recapitulation theory is mostly debunked by modern evolutionary biologists.

Darrell: Wikipedia IS accurate, and getting more so. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-14-nature-wiki_x.htm

Page views in the rear view

George Hepburn, Palm Beach Gardens, fl — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:28:47 GMT

Balloon guy....bet ya he didn't get his luggage lost and they didn't confiscate his water bottle