Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
How to make fire using the Neanderthal inside you?I've practised it a few “decades” ago and it's really easy to do. Of course, with practice you can make a fire as easily as by using a lighter.Ingredients- a flint stone- a piece of marcasite- dry tinder fungus- dry grassHow to proceed?- hit the marcasite with the flint stone above the fungus- hit until a spark falls on the fungus- once the spark falls onto the dry fungus, blow softly it until smoke comes out and the fungus starts burning- when enough fungus is burning, insert it inside a kind of nest made of dry grass and keep blowing slowly from under until flames start- once it's on fire, keep “fuelling” it until the requested size to start cooking your mammoth steakA short vdo from Maine showing it: Flint on Marcasite
Eight and an half of sleep per night is what the Nasa schedules for space-travelling astronauts.However, a study by Harvard Medical School has found many astronauts suffer serious levels of sleep deprivation that could be putting their lives in danger.In space no-one can hear you snore
I'm more an early bird kind; and I prefer this part:
So you were born to feel 'nice'? Instead of doing things and experiencing them? Don't you see the plants, the birds, the ants and spiders and bees going about their individual tasks, putting the world in order, as best they can? And you're not willing to do your job as a human being? Why aren't you running to do what your nature demands?
However does it imply that you have to be an night owl? I often go to bed around 8.30 PM ::)Napoleon and Margaret Thatcher are known as short sleepersSix for a man, seven for a woman, eight for a fool
In both case, moths and elephants, it is not about evolution but more about natural selection.The genes didn't evolve but a change in the environment allowed an increase of a specific gene already present but originally in a very small proportion.When you consider a whole specie, some individual may carry a different gene (tuskless one in this case). Normally that tuskfree gene is a disadvantage for reproduction and therefore it doesn't spread much and if the environment doesn't change, it even should slowly disappear.But if the environment is changing (i.e. poaching), the targeted elephants are those carrying tusks. The number of these elephants is decreasing, allowing the tuskless males a better chance for mating and to transmit their tuskless gene; hence the increase in the percentage of that tuskless gene pool. The speed for that change should depend on the number of male capacity to reproduce, the number of individuals (the smaller the group, the faster the spread); so few decades or less, seem to be enough for that increase (both for moths and elephants) even if it still remains marginal in proportion.No evolution here but a different environment therefore natural selection.
A similar decline in elephants with tusks has been seen in Uganda, which experienced heavy poaching in the 1970s and 1980s, the report says.
(from the second source ABC Science)My update in italicized characters
Alright, both Ski and Phid are close enough to the explanation.The study was made on Asian elephants in China: the tusk-free gene is increasing because of poachers targeting the elephants with tusks. Because tuskless male elephants survive and can reproduce (at the same rate as before) but as there are less male elephants with tusks therefore the percentage of the tusk-free gene pool becomes more important than normal.The link with Kettlewell's moths is that they both were used to illustrate Darwin's theory of natural selection. However both studies are criticised by some.Asian elephants studyStudy criticism
ok, so you found out about Bernard Kettlewell. What would be the link between that experiment and the Asian elephant? Hint: - these elephants are not eating lot of moths 😛 - these elephants are not trying to find "camouflage" on tree trunks What is the link between the moths (Kettlewell) and the elephants?
Male elephant behaviour didn't change: no increase of frenzy or lust, no seed dating different than normal.As Ski said: only male elephants have tusks which enhance their chance for reproduction and survival.The tusk-less gene is more an impairing feature.
Phid' analysis is really accurate and relevant; if any clothe was used on these sculptures, I don't think we will be aware of it without serious evidence but it might be possible though. Anyway, I still don't understand the reason for an outcry about the "dressed" sculpture. (I saw much more worst in modern art)
Part 3About armours, the one of Henry VIII which weighs 42.6 kg (94lb) about twice as much as normal armour for war http://www.armouries.org.uk/visit-us/leeds/leeds-galleries/tournament-gallery/henry-viii/single-object/23In action:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPKrAfww79ULast but not least: "How to mount a horse in armor and other chivalric problems" by the MET Museum of Arthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4
Part 2About the weight and other technical equipment (like the saddle), few links and images from which I've learned a lot ...Heavy ? http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#weight_bSaddle (see part 2) http://www.mcbishop.co.uk/arma.htm#2
Part 1
The topic was on ancient weapons and armor. One of the things they discussed was the use of armored cavalry (cataphracts) by the Romans. Not just partially-armored, but armored to look like medieval knights, including helmet with faceshield. To their credit, they did provide textual and pictorial sources which seemed to support such a conclusion.
It also depends on what kind of medieval knights it looked like; the evolution of armours during the Middle Ages was quite important. (see attachment)However, after few investigations, it seems that indeed the Roman army had units of heavily armoured cavalry, known as the cataphractarii and the clibanarii, covered from neck to foot by a combination of scale and/or lamellar armour for the torso and laminated defences for the limbs (see manica), and their horses were often armoured also. Cataphracts carried a long, heavy lance called a contus, c. 3.65 m (12 ft) long, that was held in both hands, a cavalry sword (spatha), which was much longer than the infantry gladius to provide greater reach and a long dagger. These cavalry units were part of the Ala(e) who were specially trained and were heavily protected, with chain-mail or scale body armour, a cavalry version of the infantry helmet (with more protective features) and oval shield.So, yes, it might be possible that some Roman cavalry units were looking vaguely "similar" as medieval knights (just like any kind of such armour can look similar)You have here a description from Ammianus Marcellinus (4th century AD)http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/prose/ammianus.htmlAnother link about the Equitatus and Auxiliaryhttp://www.unrv.com/military/roman-cavalry.php
I wanted to reply but each time I'm trying to post, it's cancelled ….update : my reply in several shorter parts ...
