X-rays reveal hidden leg of an ancient snake
This is a 3-D reconstruction from synchrotron X-ray images of the previously hidden second leg of Eupodophis. The bones are artificially colored to highlight the internal structure of the bone and show how the snake's leg grew. Credit: A. Houssaye
(PhysOrg.com) -- A novel X-ray imaging technology is helping scientists better understand how in the course of evolution snakes have lost their legs. The researchers hope the new data will help resolve a heated debate about the origin of snakes: whether they evolved from a terrestrial lizard or from one that lived in the oceans. New, detailed 3-D images reveal that the internal architecture of an ancient snake's leg bones strongly resembles that of modern terrestrial lizard legs. The results are published in the 8 February issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.
The team of researchers was led by Alexandra Houssaye from the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) in Paris, France, and included scientists from the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble, France, where the X-ray imaging was performed, and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, where a sophisticated technique and a dedicated instrument to take the images were developed.
This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This movie from computer graphics images illustrates the fossil Eupodophis descouensi and the 3-D model of the snake leg reconstructed using synchrotron-radiation computed laminography. Credit: P. Tafforeau/ESRF
Only three specimens exist of fossilised snakes with preserved leg bones. Eupodophis descouensi, the ancient snake studied in this experiment, was discovered ten years ago in 95-million-year-old rocks in Lebanon. About 50 cm long overall, it exhibits a small leg, about 2 cm long, attached to the animal's pelvis. This fossil is key to understanding the evolution of snakes, as it represents an intermediate evolutionary stage when ancient snakes had not yet completely lost the legs they inherited from earlier lizards. Although the fossil exhibits just one leg on its surface, a second leg was thought to be concealed in the stone, and indeed this leg was revealed in full detail thanks to synchrotron X-rays.© Alexandra Houssaye / MNHN
The high-resolution 3-D images, in particular the fine detail of the buried small leg, suggest that this species lost its legs because they grew more slowly, or for a shorter period of time. The data also reveal that the hidden leg is bent at the knee and has four ankle bones but no foot or toe bones."The revelation of the inner structure of Eupodophis hind limbs enables us to investigate the process of limb regression in snake evolution," says Alexandra Houssaye.
This is a photograph of Eupodophis descouensi, a fossil snake from the Cretaceous Period (95 million years ago) of Lebanon. The black scale bar at the bottom right equals 1 cm. Credit: A. Houssaye
The scientists used synchrotron laminography, a recent imaging technique specially developed for studying large, flat samples. It is similar to the computed tomography (CT) technique used in many hospitals, but uses a coherent synchrotron X-ray beam to resolve details a few micrometers in size--some 1000 times smaller than a hospital CT scanner. For the new technique, the fossil is rotated at a tilted angle in a brilliant high-energy X-ray beam, with thousands of two-dimensional images recorded as it makes a full 360-degree turn. From these individual images, a high-resolution, 3-D representaton is reconstructed, which shows hidden details like the internal structures of the legs."Synchrotrons, these enormous machines, allow us to see microscopic details in fossils invisible to any other techniques without damage to these invaluable specimens," says Paul Tafforeau of the ESRF, a co-author of the study.
Provided by European Synchrotron Radiation Facility
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
30 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
30 comments
-
Research team claims to have found evidence Lake Cheko is impact crater for Tunguska Event,
18 comments
-
What would stain as translucent on light-coloured fabric?
2 hours ago
-
How do I identify different bacteria on culture plates?
12 hours ago
-
Why Do Dogs do Strange things...
May 25, 2012
-
What does exophillic and endophillic mean in terms of mosquito and their control?
May 24, 2012
-
Semen stains glows under black lights (uv light)?
May 23, 2012
-
Question on Human Chromosome 2
May 23, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say
(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives may do more harm ...
Other Sciences / Social Sciences
May 24, 2012 |
4.1 / 5 (13) |
101
Ancient Bethlehem seal unearthed in Jerusalem
Israeli archaeologists have discovered a 2,700-year-old seal that bears the inscription "Bethlehem," the Israel Antiquities Authority announced Wednesday, in what experts believe to be the oldest artifact ...
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 23, 2012 |
3.5 / 5 (14) |
23
Oldest Jewish archaeological evidence on the Iberian Peninsula
German archaeologists of the Friedrich Schiller University Jena found one of the oldest archaeological evidence so far of Jewish Culture on the Iberian Peninsula at an excavation site in the south of Portugal, ...
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 25, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (4) |
12
Dollars and sense: Why are some people morally against tax?
As the U.S. presidential election campaigns heat up, the economic debate is dominated by bailouts, austerity and, inevitably, taxation. Now a new study published in Symbolic Interaction asks why tax is such an important issue ...
Other Sciences / Social Sciences
May 23, 2012 |
3 / 5 (2) |
12
Oldest art even older
New dates from Geißenklösterle Cave in Southwest Germany document the early arrival of modern humans and early appearance of art and music.
Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
May 24, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
6
Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice
(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...
Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.
Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend
(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update)
SpaceX's Dragon cargo vessel smells like a new car, said astronauts at the International Space Station after opening the hatches Saturday following the spacecraft's landmark mission to the orbiting lab.
SpotterRF debuts Radar Backpack Kit (w/ Video)
(Phys.org) -- SpotterRF has announced a special radar backpack kit designed to enhance situational awareness for soldiers on the ground. The company says its special radar is designed for warfighters as part ...
Australia hails surprise super-telescope decision
Australia has hailed a surprise decision giving it a role in a radio telescope project aimed at revolutionising astronomy, vowing to draw on its decades of experience in space science.


Feb 07, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (31)
So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
Feb 07, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (20)
Feb 07, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (20)
As to the hundreds of religious texts, I don't know of any that specifically address the matter of snakes once having legs; do you?
Feb 07, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (12)
Feb 07, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (15)
Feb 07, 2011
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (14)
How is it interesting and what's it parallel to?
Past, present and future.
Who gives a crap? Are we to take away from your verse that snakes also eat dust? I understand dust isn't very nutritious, so 'all the days of your life" would be very small indeed. Ergo, snakes should be extinct by now. Yes, very 'interesting', not.
Feb 07, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
Don't go looking for snakes you might find them
Don't send your eyes to the sun you might blind them
Haven't I seen you here before?
Oh, watch the puppets dancing
Yeah, see the clowns fall down...
- Metallica
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (11)
Serpents travel on their belly or rib cage, and because of the nearness of their head to the ground, their flickering tongue appears to be `licking the dust`.
The freedom from violence and hurt amid Jehovah's restored people is illustrated by the `serpent's food being dust.` (Isa 65:25)
At Micah 7:17 all the nations opposing God's people are foretold to be obliged to `lick up dust like the serpents.` (See also Am 9:3)
In Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt the serpent was the symbol of fecundity and of sex goddesses; two serpents intertwined were used to denote fertility through sexual union, and because of the repeated shedding of the serpent's skin, it was used as a symbol of continuing life.
The well-known characteristics of a serpent are referred to in various texts: its gliding motion (Job 26:13), its bite and its hiding place in stone walls (Ec 10:8, 11; Am 5:19), also its being cautious (Ge 3:1)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (10)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (13)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
As unfortunate as it is that the only user posting in apparent support of my own post registered his/her account this morning (February 8, 2011, 3:47 am), it's not a "sock puppet" account.
I didn't register with my real name in 2009 just to create throwaway accounts to my own harm (it would make me a liar) just to try and "prove" that I have "support" on a science blog. I could care less if 100 real people came in here and started posting in my favor. What I came here to say, has been said. If I wanted to debate, I would stay on Reddit (user: Gargan_Roo).
Thanks for the false accusation though.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Another proof of evolution and evidence for anyone but a fool that creationism is not only not true, but if there IS a god it's an insult to him to twist his words to suit yourself. It's they who are more likely to go to hell. If there is a hell, I think there is a particularly hot place waiting for creationists and fundamentalists because they are the worst misinterpreters of the bible and abusers of the word of god. Lucky for you there isn't a hell.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1.5 / 5 (8)
But every possible observation is compatible with Design: "It was made that way!"
"Eh? Why?"
"To trick people into thinking evolution is true."
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (11)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
So then why aren't they talking to us like they used to.....
Oh yeah, because the Bible, when taken literally, is entirely full of bullshit. I'd rather not have an invisible, invincible, wrathful dictator watching everything I do in life and convicting me of thought crime so he can lock me in his basement and light the house on fire for all of eternity, thank you very much.
Most people wouldn't be happy with the notion of living in North Korea, but at least when you die, you're free of North Korea. Why do you want to live in an eternal North Korea?
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
THE EVOLUTION OF FLIGHT (a.k.a. HOW TO WING IT)
from UC Berzerkley:
ht_CUT_HERE_tp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (9)
Joking or are you really this ignorant?
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (14)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (9)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (12)
I did give evidence in that no chemist can make life thus must have been designed by god/alien.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (10)
You cannot demonstrate your viewpoint whatsoever. Looking at the attempts of chemists, physicists, and biologists one can see that there is ultimate progression towards the goal, yet you empty headed troglodytes look at any misstep in these fields and immediately assume absolute proof of your silly human faith chain beliefs.
You don't even believe in a God, you believe in the stories told to you by your parents and authority figures. The human faith chain continues, to your detriment, and unfortunately to the rest of ours as well.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
How old are you?
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (10)
There's no way to logically debate the creationist view. To play devil's advocate, I could argue in favor of creationism by stating that god created the earth with a built-in 'historical record' including fosils that appear to be old already on the day they were created. God could have created life with a built-in history of apparent evolution as well. He could also have set in motion the process of continuing evolution, starting from the day he created it all.
You see, you can't use logic for something that is by definition outside of logic. If he could flood the whole planet in a few days, then it's only 'logical' to assume he could erase all traces of the flood afterwards.
I don't really buy any of that bible stuff, but you can't really argue against someone who really believes it, and it doesn't make any sense to try.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
This is the point where pointing and laughing works for me.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (7)
I don't even believe in ''God'' I think he alien and Jesus was Budhist.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
"So where did all the water go?"
"Sponges grow on the bottom of the ocean, right?"
"Yeah?"
"Well, how much deeper would it be if they didn't?"
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (7)
Or we can go with the most logical and supportable stance. I prefer the second option.
Even better. Your stance is laughable, even to people who believe in faciful bullshit.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
How about you develop that idea and get back to us.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (12)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
I would guess 14. I'd be appalled to find out you're an adult.
I admit it would be interesting to decode a gene and find out it translates to "EAT AT LUIGI'S!"
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
So, you state that you don't believe in "God". Then you say you wouldn't be surprised if proof of said ghod was found in DNA? I don't believe in any of the conventional ghods either, but it would definitely surprise me.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
Made by aliens not from heaven.scientists would have to debunk cause the god folk will say its him.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
13?
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (8)
close:). how old are you 40? that leaves you what, 30 more years till death if you're lucky:/
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Well at least he doesn't still wet the bed.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
You'll be 40 someday, and I honestly hope you make it there. And on a parting note, do remember this conversation when that day comes, and I honestly hope when you do so you feel embarrassed.
The unkindly thing would be to think that you wouldn't.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Give me a few more decades.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
Do I have to believe in you to get to heaven? Oh, and one small request. You know that day in the third grade? Can you change that one? You know the one.
Okay, kidding aside. I was taking my 14 year old daughter and her 15 year old 'boy friend' to dinner the other day. We were talking about the movie we saw the other day on netflix about Darwin (it was really good). The boy didn't know who Darwin was, and had very little idea what evolution was about. He essentially had heard of it on TV, but that's about it. That's scary.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
That's a good point, argued by many philosophers in the past. The reasoning is that no matter how much you can explain without god, you eventually hit a philosophical wall, beyond which there's no explanaition except 'something' meta-physical.
Feb 08, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
Huh, I had the same experience. Well, except EXACTLY OPPOSITE.
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (10)
What we think of as god may be the collective soul, not a being. Each of us has a piece of it while we live and it returns to the collective when we die (the white light). We don't truly die and we don't live on as an individual either. It could explain a lot of things, like the Akashic records, psychic phenomena, a disinterested supreme being, life, etc.
I had a vision once. I could see to the center of the universe and there was something there. There were threads of light coming from it, each connected to everyone and every thing. Is it true? Who knows. I do know that atheism makes as little sense as religion which is why I am agnostic.
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (7)
What? Why not?
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Ditto. Closely related question: Can we build a machine that is self-aware?
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
I'll see your ditto and raise you a ditto!
Yes, of course. Why not?
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
No. Which god? I sure am glad the Elder Gods don't exist and I also glad that the Jehovah of Genesis and Exodus does not exist. There MAY be a Jehovah but that version in the Bible doesn't fit the actual world we live in AND it is psychotic. If you can't stand that statement read about the Flood, the various massacres allegedly carried out by the command of Jehovah, and the alleged murder of all the first born in Egypt after Jehovah hardened Pharaoh's heart.No. Did it already and I still breath. Of course that is assuming you mean the Jehovah of Genesis. If you meant Ahuramazda I haven't looked into him that much.
More
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
Please do all of us, yourself included, a favor. Break up your posts a bit. Monobloc posts are hard to read. You might also read them over before posting. That one might have made sense with a rewrite.
Ethelred
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 4.4 / 5 (8)
Ethelred
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (9)
The Universe seems to be mathematicly valid so why shouldn't it exist? The Jehovah of Genesis is mathematically and logically contradictory so it can't exist. Assuming math and logic actually have meaning and if we don't assume that then we are just a Kantian Circle Jerk.
Ethelred
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Ethelred
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Er, I think you mean 34 Billion.
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Exactly.
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
I reiterate, if you think a machine can become self-aware you are a complete fool. How would you know if it was? Because it says it is? The concept only exists because each of us knows as individuals we are self-aware therefore we assume that all the rest of us are too. There is no test nor will there ever be for self-awareness. A machine is NOT like us and no matter how well it imitates life it isn't alive, can not become self-aware and will never be granted that status by any intelligent life form, just fools which there is no shortage of.
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (11)
So you are saying we could build a machine that by all appearances was just as intelligent as a human being and it wouldn't be self-aware. Then that would imply that we could build machines that were much more intelligent than we are and weren't self-aware.
And that, if there are greater intelligences in the Universe than humans, they may not be self-aware either. And that these greater intelligences would wonder why we make a fuss about it ... but if they weren't self-aware, could they wonder?
To declare complete ignorance on a matter directly means one has nothing further worth saying about it one way or another.
Yes. Just ask it. If you tell me you are self-aware, I have no more or less means of verifying it.
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (10)
Atheism has zero implication for self-awareness. Likewise, being self-aware does precisely nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a magical sky fairy.
You forgot to say "In my opinion", which makes it appear as if you are asserting fact. And even if you *meant* to assert a fact - you did not, of course. You provide no logical basis for your claim. Why should a machine not become self aware? I should think it inevitable, evantually.
"reserved for life"? "Reserved"? By?
What twaddle.
Plus ignorance and fear. And in the case of 'organised religion', the need of the ruling elite to control and supress the populace.
Amen, brother ;-)
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 4.9 / 5 (7)
Maslow disagrees, and he's the expert here, not you nor I.You are a machine. You're not made of steel and silicon but the rules that govern the function of machines are the very same rules that govern your function.
You are not special because you think so, and your "God" did not make you special. You are the worst kind of religous adherant, completely vacant of critical thought.No, control is the basis for religion. You may want to learn something about the various fields of science you feel comfortable taking a shit on before your next post.
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
You do realize that the flight stroke has been attributed to the grasping motion of certain predatory dinosaurs, right? We have fossil evidence of it. What is your mechanism again? Magic?
Feb 09, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
You might be right.
Not unless you've downed a can of Red Bull energy drink!
Feb 10, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Godel showed that the Universe is not mathematically consistent within itself. So you have to go 'outside' the Universe in order to find mathimatical consistency. By definition, 'outside the Universe' is metaphysical. I could also propose that your notion that the Universe can be described by math only goes to prove that the Universe is itself meerly theoretical.
Feb 10, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Unless he had a secret proof and that is reason he went wacko.
Reality is a punch in the nose. In other words it doesn't matter if it is just a bunch of numbers as those numbers would constitute reality.
There IS a spoon.
Ethelred
Feb 10, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Feb 10, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
I was being deliberately toung in cheek. My point is that it is possible to argue that you can't fully understand the universe while you are part of the universe. I was relating that to Godel's second theory which kinda says the same thing about math, paraphrased. No matter how you try to prove that the Universe is real, if you are part of the Universe then you're using circular reasoning.
Feb 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
More
Feb 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Ethelred
Feb 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
I know someone very religious who loves dinosaurs, but doesn't believe they exist because the bible 'proves' they couldn't have existed.
Just mention evolution, and they get all angry saying 'what a load of rubbish', when there is plenty of proof all around us.
Feb 11, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Feb 11, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
More
Feb 11, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
If you really do want to discuss the actual topic how about you
Say something new on the topic.
Read the post before you hit submit and make sure it said what you meant to say.
Break up the post with some whitespace. Hit the ENTER key TWICE not just once.
The main thing this article was doing was talking about a new technique for imaging fossils BELOW the surface of the rock.
Ethelred
Feb 12, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Feb 12, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
And that would be when you are in heaven:)
Feb 13, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Ethelred
Feb 13, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (5)
If the rocks are supposed to be 95million years old, does that automatically make the snake 95m years old too? Is it possible that the rock itself is composed of particles that displays the calculated age of 95 million years but in fact the rock could be younger[or OLDER for that matter, difficult as it might be to conceive of that]?
Just a thought.
Feb 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Well the snake IS lithified within the rock. How the hell could it be younger than the rock? Some people claim there are not bad questions but That is a silly question considering the is no way you don't already know the answer.
Not really. In may cases the age of the rock is the YOUNGEST possible interpretation of the evidence.
More
Feb 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Ethelred
Feb 13, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Oh, they never lie. They believe every word of it. Morton's Demon just screens out all the inconvenient facts.
I have a higher opinion of deliberate liars.
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
_ttp://www.physorg.com/news193579481.html
They already have.
"life" is too vague a term. There are functioning nanobots that we call "DNA" and because they're powered on and functioning, we call them "life", but there's really nothing particularly special. Nanobots are just a collection of atoms arranged in a way to replicate themselves and perform a few other functions.
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
How about this? Whether we CAN or CAN'T make something is neither evidence FOR nor AGAINST the existence of a God?
Some things are just really difficult to make. But we've made both life AND microfibers, but neither has anything whatsoever to do with whether God exists or not.
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
That is not really life.
A life form has a local ecological process. For example cells have ATP, there are many processes involved, like protein proton diodes. In basic essence everything is a machine, including us. What makes us alive is the huge complex local ecological process in our body. In this way our earth can be seen as a living entity(read Gaia hypothesis).
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Evidence please.You're preaching to the choir... BTW, the software I write is also more than the sum of its parts (the subroutines and schemas for the databases).Our brains ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY ARE computers!A LOT of VERY intelligent people vehomently disagree with your completely unsupported statement. On what do you base your dramatic, insulting conclusion?Says who? Also, define "life"? That's a REAL challenge. Define life.Repeating your fallacy by calling those smarter than you doesn't improve your point nor does it make you look more intelligent... quite the opposite.
Continued...
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
You don't. The only machine you can prove to yourself that IS sentient is your own brain, but you can't prove it to anyone else. You can no more prove the guy standing next to you is sentient anymore than you can a complex AI system. Whether you can or can't is irrelevant.Exactly. What's your point?Now you switched topics from consciousness to "alive". Again, define "life".You've stated your opinion as if it's rock-solid fact, yet provided zero evidence whatsoever. Please back up your assumptions.
Continued...
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Look, you clearly have a strong opinion, but you just keep shouting what it is and give absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. Here's my evidence that suggests you're wrong:
1. Biological brains ARE computing devices (this is well known and accepted and I'm assuming you have no disagreement here).
2. Manufactured brains can (not necessarily "DO", but "CAN") carry out the same type of logic that biological brains do. You gave artificial neurons as an example.
3. It's logical to conclude that consciousness or sentientness is the side effect (or "emergent property") of said computing in bio-computers. There's no logical reason to say the same side effect would NOT be repeated in a manufactured brain.
Here's my challenge to you:
continued...
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Also every scienctific research has proved the gaia theory to be correct. There have only been a few people actually denieing the gaia theory and they had no arguments against it that could hold ground since the 1970's. Also the theory is a more global version of a microbiologist version of the definition of what life is(i think its described in the wikipedia article). This theory is much like the evolution and round planet theory, it makes sense to a small group of people, until alot later everyone grows to be wise enough to understand that the theory is correct and sciences proving it.
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
continued...
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Some of those may be able to increase their lift, a little, and some of their descendants a little more. Eventually, full flight, like bats.
Insect flight: As with all descendants, genetic mutation occurs somewhat randomly. Various shapes and sizes of appendages come about. Some of them may catch the wind. There may be some advantage in some of these. For those that have an advantage with this, the appendage will stay. More random variations on these appendages (size, shape, thickness, etc...) will occur. Those that provide an advantage stay. Some may be near a muscle. As the insect is thrown into the wind, movements of the muscle can change the orientation and/or shape of the appendage, giving it some kind of control. Another advantage. This continues on. This is one of many ways flight can evolve that doesn't require "falling to your death".
Feb 14, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Related issue: if our consciousness isn't a product of our brain machinery, then why do psychoactive drugs; selective brain damage; and the simple wear and tear of senility do so much to alter that consciousness?