Science Saturday Open Thread

 141 replies

Last we covered a big question that I felt was overrated in “Are we alone?”, and this week we’ll begin to address another big question that is overrated.

Where did we come from?

Yet again this is one that we have a good answer to, which is evolution. Technically there’s only one part to evolution, but the way most people think about it it’s actually two separate ideas.

  1. How species change over time.
  2. The mechanism by which this change happens.

Only the first one is technically evolution, but the second one is what Darwin discovered and was really the key to figuring out natural history, and what we’ll focus on this week.

Reading AG is the height of evolution.

This mechanism that Darwin discovered and described in On the Origins of Species is called “natural selection”. Let’s take those two words separately.

First up is “selection”. When an animal reproduces it passes on some of it’s characteristics onto it’s offspring. Tall people will have taller kids, people with curly hair will have kids with curly hair, etc.

So if a certain trait increases the chances of that animal surviving and reproducing, more of those animals will have that feature.

For example, take rabbits living in the arctic. Some rabbits have lighter hair than others. Those with lighter hair are harder for predators to spot, and are less likely to be eaten. Those that survive are able to pass on their genes.

Over time the rabbit population will have lighter and lighter hair, until they’re all white.

Perfectly adapted to his environment.

But these characteristics aren’t always preexisting in the population. Sometimes there are mutations, which are changes in these traits that aren’t from the parents. We now know these come from errors in DNA replication, but DNA hadn’t been discovered back when Darwin was alive, so he didn’t know exactly how this happened.

Most of the times these mutations are harmful and thus are selected against. But occasionally they’ll introduce a new, positive trait to the population, which will spread over the generations as it’s selected for.

So that’s “selection”, “natural” simply means that it happens naturally. There is nothing actively guiding this process. The “selection” is only due to the environment being better for certain traits.

There are other forms though. As you can imagine, if there’s a natural selection, there’s also artificial selection. This is when this process is guided by somebody or something. This is usually humans selecting plants or animals to fit our needs.

There’s all sorts of examples of artificial selection. Here in Missouri a prime example is corn. Corn, as it existed before humans, was crappy, having just a dozen or so kernels. Of course corn now is huge with tons of kernels.

From the University of Utah, corn is much better now than it used to be.

Another type is sexual selection, which is really a form of natural selection. This is when traits are passed down to one gender because the opposite gender prefers it. This is usually females selecting traits in males.

An example of this is in bird species the males are colorful and bright, while the females are brown and demure. This is because the female birds prefer the colorful males, while the males will mate with any old female.

It’s easy to tell which one’s male.

That’s about it for the selection part of evolution. I’ll do more evolution posts in the future going into more depth on the change over time part.

141
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
16 Comment threads
125 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
25 Comment authors
QuackTasticBerserkerMasterChiefKCChefCHIEFSandSABRES Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Science Saturday – Arrowhead Guys

[…] couple weeks ago I did part 1 of who knows how many about evolution. In that post I talked about natural selection. This week we’re going to start on how species change over […]

MasterChief
MasterChief

Wustl, for the last article, I’d love to get taeks on the FUTURE of evolution. I’ve often wondered what we and other species will be like in the distant future. If we get lucky enough not to kill ourselves, what would our descendents look like in 20 million years?

Sudden
Sudden

It’s worth remembering that evolution isn’t as commonly stated “survival of the fittest” it’s an adaptation to the environment. Given that the current environment is rapidly descending into a hellscape of simulacra and hyperreality that is fundamentally dehumanizing, any evolution is likely to reflect that in the monstrosities we become (and already has on a techno social level).

Also worth noting that evolution/devolution is likely to occur side by side and be influenced by economic and class variables rather than geographically determined so I remain convinced we’re heading towards a Wellsian eloi/morloch duality.

Berserker
Berserker

Ehhhh I don’t know if the social media generation is ALL bad anti-progress. For example, I just watched two young kids, Zion Williamson and Tacko Falls, pretty astutely diagnose and summarily dismiss the psychotic lying media asswads who tried to start a fight between them. So, some young people are fairly capable with human relations, or at least with handling shitty humans.

As far as economic and class variables determining evolution… well, we’ll just have to hope that those economic and class variables are mostly determined by ability, rather than by inheritance or, even worse, by politicians and wannabe social engineers.

CHIEFSandSABRES

I just read all the comments, and i’m very impressed everyone! Got some smart people in here, and very civil as well. AG gets a Good Job! sticker from me today!

pompano
pompano

Fuck you too 🙂

CHIEFSandSABRES

Even the angry children get stickers.

pompano
pompano

🙁

Leaf
Leaf

We are an uncouth bunch. Hence why we got kicked out of another place.

CHIEFSandSABRES

This is the place to be. I took the in-laws to Santa Fe NM this morning, and was wondering what the Science Saturday was going to be!

Sudden
Sudden

I really loathe these threads. It’s an endless pissing contest between people who fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent each other. Often times the side that claims the benighted throne of “science!” comes into it with animosity from some childhood trauma of a fire and brimstone preacher or observance of bad people prospering and good suffering or disagreements with the moral code to which the particular variant of faith common in their neck of the woods subscribed while being completely offended at the very notion of questioning/critically examining the theory and evidence for it even though that is the very root of the scientific method. And it’s not uncommon for the religious to question the claims of science solely because they wear their own blinders and have accepted scriptural (particularly old testament) doctrine as the divine word of God rather than recognizing that man’s fallen state renders any human translation of such divine inspiration at least fallible if not misleading.

It’s sad because the fundamental truth that both the most thoughtful church fathers and advanced theoretical physicists can get to is how incredibly indecipherable and incomprehensible the vastness of creation/the cosmos/whatever you care to call it is. We are fallen, our perceptions are limited, and our understandings are ephemeral. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make sense of the world as best we can so as to better navigate existence but we should have the humility to understand that just when we think we got it down, we find something new (quantum mechanics for example) that appears to completely blow our theses apart.

pompano
pompano

The more we learn the more we find out how little we actually know to be true/real.

Straybrit
Straybrit

Which is why we rarely claim any new advance in science to be a “law”. We’ve discovered that they are slippery things and are often superceded with new discoveries.

Berserker
Berserker

Which is why lots of people choose to stop learning.

Leaf
Leaf

Really the only one pissing on anything is you on this thread. For the most part, these discussions have been civil. And this week, surprisingly enough, yes been very little science v. religion.

Sudden
Sudden

Fair enough. We have forged a community here that is resilient and doesn’t allow itself to get too vitriolic other than chiefs related topics and occasionally politics. I sorta meant the above as a broader observation of these sorts of discussions. I should’ve clarified that it’s these kinds of threads/discussions that I dislike not this one in particular. It just seems to bring out a sanctimonious nature in people generally. And yet I recognize the irony that I’m being incredibly sanctimonious.

But that’s ok, because I’m right about how little I or anyone else know.

I think.

For now.

Leaf
Leaf

I hear ya. Not everyone is as civil as us. I was over at one of my science blogs today and for some reason I looked at the comments in a topic I knew was going to be controversial, and it was a complete “bash anyone that believes in a deity” fest. For a group that prides itself in being open minded and always pushing acceptance, they become extremely aggressive and close minded when in comes to religion.

Now for you science guys, this isn’t me taking sides. I know there are religious groups that are just as bad. Just pointing out an example I experienced today.

pompano
pompano

But the Babel fish is a dead gieaway, isn’t it ?

Straybrit
Straybrit

When religion makes testable predictions about the physical universe then I’ll start bothering with it. Up until then it’s faith and a personal matter, not an explanation of reality. String “theory” also belongs in this category, especially as it should be named string hypothesis as it makes no testable predictions.

Oh, and before we get further into the “it’s only a theory not a fact” argument, keep in mind what science means with the word theory. It means it’s the best explanation we have which has tested closest to observed reality. Note the user of the word tested. It doesn’t mean it’s just some random idea that can be cast aside as wrong because it doesn’t fit your world view. Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory.

QuackTastic
QuackTastic

Gravity is a law.

Straybrit
Straybrit

Not in the last 100 years. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation basically says gravity works everywhere. Nothing about how it works. Einstein’s work first showed the theory of gravity.

pompano
pompano

There are laws of gravity, motion, thermodymamics etc
no unified theory yet

KCChef
KCChef

Woof … Paragraphs are your friend … That second sentence is STILL runnin’ On … : )

Sudden
Sudden

My loquaciousness cannot be constrained by your artificially constructed rules of grammar but continues onward into the vast ether of the infinite like a psychedelic-inspired stream of consciousness authored by Ken Kesey using a Ouija board to channel the spirits of an ancient elder tribal shaman reflecting on his coming of age pilgrimage into the jungle and using that experience to help shepherd along a young man in his tribe about to embark on a similar journey and currently wrestling with the complicated mix of fear, uncertainty, bold naivete, and the expectations of his father who has burdened his eldest son with the weight of responsibility for caring for his younger siblings because the father feels deep in his bones an ominous sign of his own looming mortality owing to a newly minted feud with a neighboring clan located just over the western hills that was once a reliable trading partner but has since become an adversary due to a catastrophic dispute whereby the the eldest son of the rival chieftain was killed by his own eldest son’s spear in what his son related to him was a complete accident but as no witnesses were there from the neighboring tribe the rival chieftain has interpreted as an act of war and vowed to avenge his own son’s death by first killing the father of his son’s murdered before then killing his son’s murderer himself and therefore causing the father great consternation both about his own health and even more so about his son’s well being on this long-standing tradition of leaving the safety of the tribe for 3 nights in the jungle as a coming of age introduction into manhood and when the father divulged all of this information to the tribal shaman the shaman told the father about his own eerily similar quest in his youth and so the father asked him to relay that story to his son in order to prepare him for the coming tumultuous journey upon which he is set to embark and which is currently being channeled not into the present but to some… Read more »

Sudden
Sudden

tl;dr version: periods are for women

Straybrit
Straybrit

From the evolution of species to the evolution of menus. Suggestions for sides to accompany ribs? Done beans (went down well), loath coleslaw. Considering garlic mashed potatoes. What’s “traditional” next state over where you have real BBQ?

Severely Concussed
Severely Concussed

Seasoned homestyle fries. Hands are covered in meat juices, so you get extra flavor on the fries and you don’t have to fuss with silverware.

Sudden
Sudden

Grilled leeks with romesco sauce is my go to accoutrement. Make sure to char the pepper used to make the romesco sauce

Straybrit
Straybrit

And damn good they were as well. Many thanks for the addition to my recipe collection

Sudden
Sudden

I’m kinda shocked you ended up doing it. It’s an off the beaten path recommendation because few people keep leeks around but it goes so perfectly with a well made rack of ribs. Learned the recipe from the head chef at a restaurant in Ghent. Such a simple but great side or appetizer.

BleedingRedAndGold

If I’m going all-out, I’ll make potato salad. Not at all a fan of jar mayo, so for that, I make my own mayonnaise. Makes a huge difference, at least for me. But then, I don’t stop there, since I like to mince a shallot or two, amongst other add-ins. So there’s one traditional side dish to consider.

Sudden
Sudden

Mayonnaise is such an easy thing to make and the difference between homemade Mayo and store bought dreck so profound that I don’t understand how anyone who fancies himself a culinary craftsman ever uses anything but a homemade version

BleedingRedAndGold

While I don’t make mayo very often, I agree with you on how easy it is. So much so that I still go with a whisk over a blender or food processor. The machines make it even quicker and easier, but with some things, I like to feel what I’m doing, if that makes sense.

Oh, and while I never thought of it that way before, “culinary craftsman” would describe me pretty well, if you believe that the craftsman bridges the gap between those who do things by following strict instruction and those who are literally artists.

Straybrit
Straybrit

Culinary Craftsman. Thank you. I’m appropriating that title.

BleedingRedAndGold

Seconding Severe’s idea, though I oven-fry potato wedges.

upamtn

Reading AG is the height of evolution

80 bazillion thumbs up for this jewel … I shall now read with rapt attention (to detail)

this coming from a follower of Richard Dawkins (and erstwhile Middle School “Bill Nye” the Science Guy type teacher {and bad science puns on a regular basis, as one would expect [I lost an electron! “Are you sure?” I’m POSITIVE!]})

upamtn

Grammar Police Alert: “Over time the rabbit population will have lighter and lighter hair, until their all white.”

Dude, seriously? the Language Arts Dept wants their certification back and they’re waiting patiently for you to return it

upamtn

ok, so … that’s it? Natural Selection in 2 minutes or less? cool … I am DOWN!

is it kickoff time yet?

BigRed
BigRed

Theory of evolution. That’s important to remember. Not fact. There are many, many “theories” and none can ever be empirically proven. No one was there in the beginning, whenever and however that was. No one knows how anything was created, formed, etc. We make guesses and assumptions on how we interpret the present world around us. It takes faith to believe in all theories of beginnings and how we got here. You cannot take the Scientific Method and prove any of it.

I’m a skeptic and I honestly don’t truly have a good idea of the answers to all of that. But I do know that evolution is not a proven scientific fact, yet a theory that takes faith to believe in just like any other origins theory.

BigRed
BigRed

I do believe in adaptation within species. That is easy to observe and prove. I have not yet seen enough evidence to convince me of the theory that we came from an ameba to a man over gazillions of eons.

pompano
pompano

Parts of our brains are indistiguishable from those of reptilians. There were bad rollouts and discontinued models along the way but speciaiation appears to be fairly well documented.

Dave B.
Dave B.

There’s a really good documentary about this available on YouTube…

BleedingRedAndGold

I think part of what makes people misunderstand evolution most often is that they have no concept of deep time. A million years, while they think they understand it, isn’t something they really have any feel for. It’s just numbers, which leads to people saying things about how evolution can’t work, it takes too much time for things to happen. Except that humanity hasn’t even been on the planet for a million years, or even half that amount of time.

So if you examine the fossil record, you can see how much we have changed from our ancestors over the last 200K years or so. Evolution seems to work plenty fast for us.

Or, of course, you could adopt the philosophy of this Devo lyric: “God made man from a monkey that looked like you”. 😉

pompano
pompano

indeed

BleedingRedAndGold

Always upvote for The Kinks.

MasterChief
MasterChief

The concept of “deep” time is why I enjoy geology. It’s impossible to really comprehend how long life has been around. Entire mountain ranges have risen and fallen (eroded completely), oceans have dried up, and continents have moved thousands of miles during the reign of life on Earth. Life has evolved much over this vast stretch of time. After each mass extinction, a new era of life explodes into something new. The diversity of life today is stunning but only a tiny fraction of those that ever lived.

MasterChief
MasterChief

How about the fact that we share so much of our genetic code with all life?

pompano
pompano

That as well.

tecmo_sb35
tecmo_sb35

We can observe trait selection in species with short life cycles. Fruit flies are the textbook example. The market of hybridized and GMO crops is centered around this.

Dave B.
Dave B.

“But they’re still fruit flies…” they’ll say.

If I were a scientist that didn’t believe in evolution my goal would be to scientifically demonstrate the physical and / or morphological barrier to speciation. This would completely falsify the ToE.

Dave B.
Dave B.

Evolution is actually a theory and a fact. Things evolve. Fact. We can witness this. The idea that we evolved from lower beings is a theory (though, a VERY well supported one).

If anyone has ever claimed that science has proven anything then they don’t understand what science is.

upamtn

toof

BigRed
BigRed

I do believe in adaptation within a species. We see it all around us. I do not argue that. I have a great dane and a lab mix. Both have traits that have changed through breeding/environment, etc. over time. But they’re both still dogs. Same with any species. Where I have the problem is when people say it is a fact that one species will evolve into another. That is a theory, and when people state it as a scientific fact and if you don’t believe it “youRe jUst sTuPid anD haTe scIenCe”, without a discussion….that get’s on my nerves. There is always room for discussion.

But, just like politics, people like to take the “team” approach with this issues as well. If you don’t wear our evolution jersey you’re a bible thumping science denier. And if you wear the God created everything/Intelligent design theory jersey, everyone else is a Satanic heathen. I’m sorry, but there are more options and better ways to have discussions on this topic.

BigRed
BigRed

From the few replies I’ve already seen in this, I not too sure it is possible with this group in this forum. Lol. So, if we’re gonna just yell from one perspective and shout down the other side, I’ll gladly stick to the Chiefs, wear their jersey, and shout for them on AG.

upamtn

wait, come back! you’re supposed to call us heathens …

BigRed
BigRed

The only heathens I know are Raiders fans…so…..

upamtn

LOL

pompano
pompano

heathen, felon..
same difference

pompano
pompano

Agreed.
The concepts are not contrordicotry, it’s how they’re approached.

BleedingRedAndGold

Yell? Look, I know my reply wasn’t short, but that’s characteristic of me, everyone knows that. I laid out what I had to say as dispassionately as possible, and while I disagreed with what you said about what is known, I didn’t roll out any insults, not even against religions. I just laid out some available facts that falsified the statement. Disagreement is allowed here.

Perhaps I came off as lecturing, but I tend to do that when trying to teach something. Better that than being preachy about my position.

tecmo_sb35
tecmo_sb35

Dogs that came from….wolves?
Either domestic dogs are a new species developed from selective reproduction,
Or they are still the same species as a wolf. We see this as a ‘sub species’ because dogs and wolves still can reproduce, but in time they may not. Like a fox and a wolf.

upamtn

same genus, different species

Canis Lupus (Wolf) diff species from Canis Familiaris (Dog, the species which is not to be confused with BREED and that’s where you get “Man Made” selection)

tecmo_sb35
tecmo_sb35

Right, I was giving Red an example where one species (familiarus) evolves from another (lupus).
To your comment, familiarus is still in the species grey area because they can produce fertile offspring with lupus.
When they are truly a new species the lupus hybrids will be sterile, like a mule.

pompano
pompano

“Evolution” does not belie a creator, it’s merely an attempt to understand the mechanism, for lack of a better word

upamtn

not saying you’re technically incorrect, but technically it’s just as correct to say that everything that’s happened since the Big Bang, and for us specifically, since a few billion years ago and the first hiccup of “life” on Earth, has all been a happy “accident” … IOW completely natural with no “creator” involved

pompano
pompano

Agreed, a “creator” in not necessary IMHO. But it cannot be disproven, and what was there before the large explosion.? Is our “universe” the only one?
My mom was taught in school that the Milkey Way was the “universe”.
We need, and are gathering more information/data.

WaywerdSon
WaywerdSon

Species do not evolve into other species. Thats a fallacy. Due to random genetic errors occasionally an individual is born with a difference from what the norm for that species is. Usually it aint good and the individual dies. If its beneficial, that individual goes on to make more copies of individuals with that same difference. At that point it can be said that a new species has arisen, The original species is still in exisitence. If the new species outcompetes the original species for the same territory/foodsources/water sources etc, it may eventually displace or eliminate the original species. Or the 2 species may coexist for eons as related but distinct animals.

IrezumiChief
IrezumiChief

I feel like the word “evolve” was corrupted by people. What we witness is adaptation. If you go to the Galapagos Islands, where Darwin went while studying evolution, he claimed that the finch were “evolving”…The finch by the ocean had grown long beaks, and lived off fish, while other finch on the island, up the mountain, had shorter stout beaks, used for eating nuts etc….He claimed this was evolution. However, it is not. This was proven later by taking the samples of DNA and RNA. It proved the birds had not “evolved” at all. The coding of the species was the exact same. It’s why biologists can’t stand to discuss this topic with physicists because all of their BS goes out the window against solid scientific proof. Evolution claims species are changing. They are not. They are adapting to environments. 2 very big differences. Also, even though it is still taught in school to this day, one of the “species” in human evolution, the Piltdown man, was an absolute complete fraud. They don’t tell the kids this, but a quick google search of “Piltdown man fraud” will verify it. Fact is, we live in a digital world. It has been proven time and time again, through physics and super strings…

MasterChief
MasterChief

Not sure I can agree with that.

pompano
pompano

I hope their still not teaching Piltdown Man, that was debunked years ago.

BleedingRedAndGold

*decades ago.

upamtn

Red, as noted below: evolution is fact, it’s observable, it happens … this has been verified over and over and over again, it happens on a daily basis

either you believe in science or you don’t …

BigRed
BigRed

See my reply to dave below. EDIT…above now. It moved when I refreshed. I can’t keep up with AG. Lol.

pompano
pompano

Gravity is also a theory, and electomagnatism.
All observable, calcuable, defined even.
All of sciece is essentially “theory”.
Some are supported well, others less so..

IrezumiChief
IrezumiChief

Isn’t Gravity (or how it actually works) the theory? The answer to whether gravity is a law or a theory depends on what you are looking for. A statement of the apparent force between objects with mass, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, is a law. A hypothesis for how gravity works—for why it masses seem to attract each other at a distance—comes in Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. That’s the current Theory of Gravity.

pompano
pompano

Exactly, “theory” does not mean the underlying concept is unreal, unproven or untrue. It’s just not yet fully explained.
Newton’s Laws descride and predict how bodies move (or not), not why.

kguf
kguf

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

IS in fact, FACT

BleedingRedAndGold

Of course theory, but don’t confuse that with conspiracy “theories”. In science, a theory has some rigid guidelines it must adhere to, and if one fact invalidates it, that theory’s off the table until it is reconciled to cover /all/ the known facts, including the new one or replaced by a new theory. Contrast that with Truther-type “theories” that stand firm no matter the evidence against them, because there’s always an excu…er, “explanation” to cover that ground. Science accepts no excuses.

So what the theory of evolution does is describe the actual observation of how species change over time in the fossil record, and over the last couple decades, we have added the ability to “see” those changes in the genetic record, as well, through forensic DNA analysis. So while it’s “only a theory”, it’s the best theory science has at the moment, and it doesn’t need any non-quantifiable outside intelligences to happen, the way “intelligent design” does. To put it another way, evolution is a theory, but intelligent design doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis.

But I’m afraid you are incorrect if you say no one /knows/ anything about any beginnings. The echo from the Big Bang, for instance, is still directly observeable. The doppler shift from distant galaxies isn’t just observable, but measureable. The decay of radioactive materials over the course of time is another thing that can be measured, even down on the geological timescale. All things that humanity has discovered, and that’s only a fraction of what is /known/.

You can measure a given distance by triangulation, you don’t have to “prove” it with a gigantic tape measure before you know.

MasterChief
MasterChief

It’s the absolute best theory out there and seems to match everything we know about biology as well as paleontology.

BleedingRedAndGold

Lines up well with geology, too. No falsifiers there.

WaywerdSon
WaywerdSon

Another reason the females of most species tend to be somewhat less showy is camoflage while raising young. ITs usually the female that does the most of the child rearing (yes, i know there are lots of exceptions, and i am not assinging gender roles to birds) The more hidden, the less chance for predators to find them

upamtn

good point

Severely Concussed
Severely Concussed
upamtn

LOLOLOL … thank you!

zulu trader
zulu trader

so, are you saying that we evolved from pond scum?

WaywerdSon
WaywerdSon

some of us are more evolved than other. a few are still in the pond scum category comment image

upamtn

happily green’d

BigRed
BigRed

Man…that is uh….that is something there. Yikes.

IrezumiChief
IrezumiChief

Obvious Raider fan….

upamtn

when you think about it, that’s pretty impressive …

tecmo_sb35
tecmo_sb35

Evolution is all fun and games until it gets applied to humans.

Sudden
Sudden

Also you need to update the evolution graphic you have there to show the final stage of evolution as staring at a phone screen while on the shitter

upamtn

comment image

Sudden
Sudden

Worst Jets in America: the Boeing 737 Max or the New York Jets?

Nasrani
Nasrani

I’d have to argue for the F-35. It’s pretty bad. The YF-22/F-22 has demonstrated itself to be safer and superior in every way except cost, but because the military always goes with the lowest bidder, the F-35 won out and became mass produced.

Leaf
Leaf

The f-22 and the f-35 fill different roles. The f-22 is a stealth fighter specifically designed for the air force. It’s essential role is air to air combat. It replaces the F-117 and was designed to replace the f-15 as well, but as you pointed out, cost prevented a complete replacement. The F-35 is a stealth joint multi purpose fighter designed for the air force, navy, and marines. It’s role is more air to ground support. I can’t say exactly which aircraft in the navy and Marines it replaces, but in the air force it was designed to replace the f-16.

MasterChief
MasterChief

Like Leaf said, the F-35 is not meant to perform the same functions as the F-22. The F-35 is certainly not bad and in fact, will be one of the best ever at what it does. It will be used as a part of networked team with capabilities allowing it to hit targets, both ground and air, often without ever being detected. It’s networking capabilities will be used not only to perform attacks on it’s own, but it will actually share data to everyone to get a more complete picture of a battle situation. Add in other abilities in certain versions such as vertical take-off/landing, pilots being able to see “through” the plane, and it’s sensors that are second to none, and we’ve got ourselves a winner.

The real knocks on it are not in it’s lack of capabilities, but instead in it’s expense and projected short shelf life.

Here’s an excellent video showing the whole idea behind the F-35.

BleedingRedAndGold

Of course, it doesn’t replace reliable weapons platforms such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It annoys the fuck out of me that the fighter pilots and truck drivers who’re running the USAF keep trying to get rid of it.

tecmo_sb35
tecmo_sb35

The NYJ crash every year but all 3 of their fans see it coming.

Spider
Spider

There’s nothing wrong with the Max.

probablyamistake
probablyamistake

This series has made me stop and think, is what I believe true? What evidence is there today that evolution is true? Then I look at the WH and see a brain dead neanderthal, and I’m like ok, it’s a definite possibility. 🙂

BigRed
BigRed

Bet you’re having a rough time with the Mueller report, eh? Lol.

probablyamistake
probablyamistake

Nope. If they didn’t commit a crime, they didn’t commit a crime. Actually glad, don’t want to see us go through another impeachment. I was around for the previous one and Watergate, too much BS involved. In a 1-1/2 we can express our opinion again.

upamtn

oh, crimes HAVE been committed … there’s a reason a bunch of “associates” already have prison sentences and hefty fines … and remember that there are still ongoing investigations by SDNY into family members and business

and since when can we … or SHOULD we … not express our opinions? since when should we NOT call BS on what is clearly BS?

Warpath
Warpath

I’ve always preferred to mate with “colorful” females. However, a dry stretch must be broken.

zulu trader
zulu trader

any female is fine with me. The worst I ever had was great!