Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 July 22

= July 22 =

Wikipedia articles on planets have little/no mention of the origins of the names of the planets in other languages
Why is it that when I look at the Wikipedia articles on Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn, there is not a single mention of the names of the planets in southwest Asian cultures. In fact, the only way to learn them is to use the languages tab beneath the search box? (Mars is the exception, in that it has a mention of them. Planets beyond Saturn are all simply Uranus and Neptune in every language, as far as I can tell). Where can I find information on the names of the planets in southwest Asian cultures? Thanks--12.48.220.130 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because the European names are the ones universally accepted by astronomers around the world, while the southwest asian (arabic?) names are pretty much forgotten. And why would anyone want to use the planets' arabic names, no-one else would understand what you're talking about. If you want info on the planets' arabic names, just get yourself an english-arabic dictionary. 76.21.37.87 (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, if the encyclopedia had to take the topic of every article and translate it into every language and then explain the origin of the name - it would be a VASTLY bigger undertaking and probably 90% of every article would be quite utterly useless to 99.99% of our readership! I can't think of any other encyclopedia that would do what's being asked here.  The versions of Wikipedia that are written in these Asian languages will probably explain what you need. SteveBaker (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So Anglophones don't need to learn about other names for planets? I mean, there isn't even any mention whatsoever. And seeing as how a lot of astronomy has contributions from that part of the world (zenith, Betelgeuse, Almagest, etc.), I would have thought that it would at least have some brief mention. And looking at the articles, it seems to be victim of systemic bias. --12.48.220.130 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why planets in particular, though? Why is Venus more in need of translations than, say, Toaster?
 * Yeah - exactly. I'm not a linguist - why the heck would I want to learn the name of any object in another language?  It's a total waste of brain cells.  Of course if I needed to learn a new language - I'd have to learn the names of very many objects in that language - possibly including the planets.  Although, realistically, the names of the planets would be WAY down on my list!  First I need to learn how to ask for things like food, drink, hotel rooms and taxis - only after becoming pretty amazingly fluent in the language would I need to know the names of the planets - and long, LONG after that, I might give a damn about how those words came about.  But that's why we have dictionaries.  Cross-language dictionaries are the way that an English speaker looks up the names of the planets in other languages - that's not the function of an encyclopedia. SteveBaker (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because "toaster" is trivial, whereas planets have notable mythology involved with their naming. And Wikipedia is not limited by size, so why not include them?--12.48.220.130 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where there is significant (notable, referenceable, etc) mythology associated with the planet in non-english-speaking parts of the world - then I have no problem with that being added to the article. Indeed if there is mythology relating to the great toaster goddess in certain remote parts of the Kalihari desert tribesmen - then I'd like to hear about that in the toaster article too.  What I'm objecting to (STRONGLY) is simply adding the names for the planets in other languages into the article without any other reason than that they have names in other languages - which is precisely what our OP is demanding.  To do that is to turn an encyclopedia into an every-language-into-every-other-language dictionary - and that's NOT what we do here.  We actually have pretty firm guidelines about that (see WP:NOT and WP:NAD). Arguably, this belongs in Wiktionary - which is gradually gathering translations for English words into it's regular entries.  That's fine because it's a DICTIONARY and not an ENCYCLOPEDIA.  SteveBaker (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For a specific example, Venus mentions its name as used by the Mayans, and the Aborigines of Australia. Why include them but exclude southwest Asian names?--12.48.220.130 (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Without having combed through the page histories of the articles, I'd guess that it's less that the names have been *deliberately* excluded than that no-one has gotten around to including them yet. If you are knowledgeable in this area, go ahead and add whatever you think is appropriate. On WP, doing so is (usually) positively encouraged... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Systemic bias is certainly present on Wikipedia, probably on every language version, but Venus isn't a good example of systemic bias on en. As you know because you read the article, the Mayan name is mentioned in the context of a paragraph on the Mayans having "developed a religious calendar based in part upon its motions, and held the motions of Venus to determine the propitious time for events such as war", and the Maasai mention is ostensibly because of "The Orphan Boy" story about Venus.  The former seems like an interesting and notable fact; the latter, less so; but if you have similar facts on hand about southwest Asian astronomy and Venus, feel free to add it.  This isn't merely a list of translated names in other languages, which would be very non-notable, as SteveBaker said.  The English version of Wikipedia may be shunning your culture in other ways, but I don't think Venus is an instance of this.  Tempshill (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the left-had side column of those pages you'll find links to wikipedia articles on the subject in other languages, including (typically) Arabic, Persian, Hebrew etc. These will provide you the name of the planets in those languages, assuming that you can read the script. Of course, the quality of these articles varies widely, depending upon the interest editors with the needed language+subject knowledge take in developing them. Abecedare (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC) PS: I now realize that you already know this; ignore my redundant comment.:-) Abecedare (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Abecedare; the alternative names such as Arabic names are mensioned for planets that were already known to Arab. For example Mars is named ar:المريخ, Jupiter --> ar:المشتري in the Arabic article.Email4mobile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC).


 * The obvious answer is that this is the English Wikipedia. The appropriate place for extensive language-specific etymology is on the specific language wikipedia he/she is interested in.  The very first page of Wikipedia allows you to select your preferred language.  Because of demographics, English wikipedia has the broadest contributor-base, while smaller wikipedias like the Farsi edition have less content and fewer editors.  Wikipedia welcomes your cultural and language diversity, as long as your contributions are verifiable.  Please feel free to add etymologies to the appropriate articles in the language of your choice.  Nimur (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving names and etymologies in all languages for each entry is well outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. What you want is a dictionary.  Our sister project Wiktionary does just what you want.  On this entry for Mercury, for example, I learn that it is called ,عطارد Уторид, Tîr,  বুধ, புதன், or  تیر, depending on which Asian language you're interested in.  --Sean 16:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in reading it in another language (I only read English fluently), I'm trying to do a research paper on the origins of the names of the planets in southwest Asian languages. Where am I supposed to go for that, if not Wikipedia? This has nothing to do with the content of other language edition wikipedias (theoretically, every language edition should have the exact same article with the same scope, just in a different language). So directing me to another language, when I can't read that language, makes no sense. The example you gave of Mercury... well what is the mythology behind those names? Why should I have to go to another language's Wikipedia to learn that?--12.48.220.130 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, I'd recommend that you try looking it up in Wiktionary -- it might have the answer you're looking for. Or you might try asking on the Language desk. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, although Wikipedia does try to be a complete encyclopedia, it is still not capable of containing all human knowledge; nor is that its purpose. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  However, since you asked "where else can you go," have you considered a textbook on specific southwest Asian languages?  Have you considered a text on history of astronomy in Asia?  Have you considered an anthropology or archaeology text?  Have you considered a Google Scholar search for academic publications on the astronomy of southwest Asia?  If you need high-grade research material, and are finding that the internet is unsuitable, Wikipedia will only take you so far - at some point you must do actual research - this can entail real work, with non-instant results.  Your question is still very vague - do you have a particular language in mind?  Do you have a specific region in mind?  Wikipedia can provide you with the baseline facts and information to narrow your search - then you can visit your nearest university research library (or local library and request an inter-library loan).  Some of this may entail a fee or a waiting period.
 * We can help you find specific references if you ask specific questions. Frankly, it's a bit worrisome that you ask "Where am I supposed to go for that, if not Wikipedia?"  Though Wikipedia is an excellent preliminary tool and it's often my favorite first-stop, you really should learn to use a diversity of tools and resources if you intend to pursue serious research.  The Reference Desk is here to help you find those resources, not to do your research for you. Nimur (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should try our sister dictionary project Wiktionary - or you would ask the cunning linguists on our very own Language and Linguistics reference desk - where I'm sure they'd be happy to provide you with high quality translations. You could also try online translation services (check our article Comparison of machine translation applications to see a long list of them - with indications at what they are good at and what languages they can do) - or you could visit your local library or bookstore and look at some English-to-whatever translation dictionaries.  There are lots of ways to do this - but looking into an encyclopedia (ANY encyclopedia - not just ours) is the wrong way to approach the problem.  SteveBaker (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To the OP, I would summarize that it is a simple issue of notability. For most planets, names from other languages are not very notable, since the latin names have become so universally prevalent.  The exception would probably be in the inclusion of notable mythological history from other cultures, as people have suggested. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No offence meant to anybody but what a pointless thread- going down the lines of; if you say "Saturn" there must be a cavat to say this can be said in 900 million languages if it isnt then anglophones are systemicly bias???? positivly daftChromagnum (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Balloon chain for solar power?
If I had a length of nylon cord, attached a toy helium balloon, reeled out the cord until the weight of the cord equaled the lift of the balloon, attached another balloon and so on, just how high would it go? Also could my experiment be a hazard to aviation? Suppose I used larger balloons attached to an electric cable-could I float a solar panel above the UK's (near continuous) cloud layer to gain a reliable supply of solar energy, including enough to electrolyze hydrogen to refill the balloons, bearing in mind that using helium would be uneconomic?Trevor Loughlin (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For the first part of the question, I would assume that the second balloon wouldn't "push" up the first balloon at all. It would simply float up to about the same level as the first balloon. ScienceApe (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ScienceApe, I think the balloon would go up, because the first balloon is limited by the length of its string, not the air pressure. I wonder if people have tried to make the longest chains they could of toy balloons before. Since it would go so high, I would guess you would need some sort of permit. I'm curious too how high you could make it. Gary (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would certainly go up as high as the length of the electric cable, assuming that you got enough balloons attached to lift the weight of the cable. It would sure be a hazard to aviation, though, cause what you got now is pretty much a super-high-altitude barrage balloon and any plane that hits the cable will go down in flames.  Also FWiW, I don't think that the balloons could lift a big enough solar panel to make this method of producing electricity worthwhile or cost-effective. 76.21.37.87 (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like fun. But the first gust of wind would blow it away. And thin, lightweight electric cables could not carry much electric power. nor could small solar cells which a balloon could support supply much power. Put the solar panels on the ground in the desert where the sun is bright every day and transmit the power by high voltage DC or as synthetic liquid fuel via tanker. Edison (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One other thing to consider is that as the balloons go up, the air pressure around them shrinks, and the balloons expand. Eventually, if it gets high enough they will burst because they are too large.  Googlemeister (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another Edison thought DC better than AC . Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is meaningless to say that DC is better or worse than AC - they are each good for different things. If memory serves, Edison thought DC was better for transferring electricity from power plants to consumers, not that is was generally "better". --Tango (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is done regularly in the car lots where I live. (Isn't it common everywhere else?) The balloons form a curve.  Most will be at nearly the same altitude, but the end attached to the ground will curve down.  Some lots take this a bit further and attach both ends to the ground to form an arch. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That idea is not as silly as it may seem. see Airborne wind turbine. Dauto (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * High-altitude wind power was recently in the news around here as well. Nimur (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Flat satellite dish
Or, flat-panel satellite dish. How it focus signal? I mean, quotation From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: The parabolic shape of a dish reflects the signal to the dish’s focal point. But in flat panel antenna there is no focal point. How come that flat panel antenna still capable to archive good signal to noise ratio? So good, that it could receive satellite programming from different geostationary positioned telecommunication satellites, like ones that broadcasts Freesat? Dose it HAVE to be oriented so broadcasting from satellite reach a dish(opps, panel) with a right angle? Short technical description/explanation would be nice. And it looks like thous panels are actually smaller then regular dishes. Examples:
 * Sqish
 * SelfSat’s Flat
 * Satcom

etc... Vitall (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The third of those links has the answer: it's phased array technology. However, that article seems to be mainly or entirely about transmitting antennas. Anyway, it must be that the signal is assembled from many small components, vaguely like the way a Fresnel lens does it for light, only because radio waves have longer wavelengths, the phase of the incoming waves is involved. --Anonymous, 03:24 UTC, July 22, 2009.
 * This might help. Tonywalton Talk 12:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pervasiveness of popcorn
What makes the odor of popcorn carry so far? I mean, it seems to carry so much farther than any other odor. Why? Dismas |(talk) 05:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Plain popcorn, or especially buttered? Butyric acid and some of the other primary components of butter flavor are volatile, have sharp odors, and are detectable at quite low concentrations. DMacks (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The odor of "popcorn" that most people smell is not popcorn at all. It is the oil.  The heavier the oil, the further it travels.  For that reason, coconut oil (aka coconut butter) was the most popular oil in movie theaters until the public was told that coconut oil was the deadliest substance in the universe and just being in the same room as some coconut oil would cause an instant heart attack.  Now, many theaters use bland, odorless air-popped popcorn.  To create the smell, they put coconut oil on a hot plate.  The public, in an attempt to enjoy popcorn that tastes like wood shavings, has adopted the practice of smothering the air-popped popcorn with a gallon or so of artificially flavored and artificially colored soybean oil.  But, that is going off on a tangent.  The odor travels very far because the oil is heavy and it is a smell that we don't smell every day (unless we work in a movie theater). --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was the public told that about coconut oil? Does it have any basis in fact? 90.208.66.95 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's exaggerating for humorous effect. But coconut oil is high in saturated fat. Whether it is bad for you is discussed at Coconut_oil. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Kainaw is only partially right about the heaviness of the oil. The oil's heaviness actually makes it travel SLOWER, which is what you want if you want to be able to smell something.  See Graham's law for the math behind effusion, or the transport of a gas within another gas.  In this case, the volatile, but heavy, fatty acids move through the air relatively slowly, so they tend to hang around in high enough concentrations for us to be able to smell them for a relatively long time.  Light compounds tend to drift away too quickly to remain around long enough to provide a particularly strong smell at such low concentrations.  -- Jayron  32  04:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Binary poisons
A common form for fictional poisons is a pair of substances, each individually harmless, but which when taken together or in succession are fatal. Do these have any basis in reality? --67.185.15.77 (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are many substances which would be much less harmful if taken apart from exposure to a second substance. See drug interactions. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See binary chemical weapon, QL (chemical) and M687. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have Binary explosives, as seen in Die Hard 3 Exxolon (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of total solar eclipes
1. If one plotted on the same map the paths of all the total solar eclipses over the past 10,000 years, say, would there be places on land that get them a lot more often than other places on land?

2. Given sufficient time, would the entire planet eventually be covered by paths of totality? If so, how long would it take for the entire planet to be covered? If not, where are they never seen, and why? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you will accept 1,000 years of data instead of 10,000 years, you can look at this diagram, attributed to NASA. Poor resolution in this copy, but you might be able to find the original here. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are numerically more total eclipses closer to the equator than towards the poles. Do a thought experiment for me:  Suppose for one moment that the sun/moon/earth system lay in a plane that sliced right through the equator.  So the orbit of the earth around the sun, the orbit of the moon around the earth and the circle of the equator lay in the same exact plane.  In that hypothetical 'perfect' solar system, eclipses would ONLY happen in a narrow region close to the equator.  However, the moon's orbit is tilted at 5 degrees to the plane that the earth orbits in - and the earth's axis is tilted relative to it's orbit by 23 degrees - so the moon appears to wobble up and down compared to the sun - which results in eclipses happening further to the north and south.  Although it takes a particular coincidence of time of year, time of month and time of day for the numbers to all add up in one direction to get that maximum deflection of the path of the eclipse - which explains why the poles are so rarely treated to an eclipse.  Because of the angle of the surface of the earth to the cone of shadow cast by the moon - the rarer eclipses that are far from the equator cover a much greater area.  So the further north and south you go - the fewer eclipses there are - but the longer they last and the larger the number of people who see them - so if you're standing at some particular spot hoping for an eclipse, the probability of that happening on any given day is a more complicated thing to work out.
 * The map that Gandalf61 linked to shows that almost everywhere has had an eclipse at some time in the past 1,000 years - over longer periods of time, sooner or later, every point on the earth will have one. Figuring how long it would take for everywhere to get one requires more math than I'm prepared to think about! The fact that neither earth nor moon have perfectly circular orbits - that nothing in the solar system is perfectly lined up - the precession of orbits...it's too complicated for a quick answer.  The 1,000 year map suggests that 10,000 to 100,000 years ought to get even the last of the polar regions covered...but it's possible that some odd coincidence of orbital timings might put it out further than that.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A word of caution on insisting that it would be an eventuality: remember that the moon is slowly moving into a higher orbit, thus at some point in the future total eclipses will not be possible. This is of course me being a devil's advocate, because over 500 million years I have to believe that every part of the earth would be covered. But then, what do we consider to be one part of the earth?


 * I don't know much about astronomy, so I don't know if there are more complicated effects that make eclipses more likely in some places than others, but some comments on the things SteveBaker mentioned: The 5° tilt of the Moon's orbit from the ecliptic translates into a variation of about 70,000 km in its height relative to that plane, which is much larger than the Earth's diameter (about 12,700km).  If you were to take the position of the moon at a random time, the probability of it being in line with any specific height along that axis of the Earth would be roughly even.  In fact, since the moon's height over time would be roughly sinusoidal, the probability would increase away from the center (negligibly).
 * You're right that at higher latitudes, since the angle of the surface of the Earth is lower compared to the approximate plane of the sun and moon, eclipses there would be more spread out but covering wider area. However this wouldn't affect the frequency or duration of eclipses as viewed from any particular place on the ground, regardless of latitude.  So just looking at this superficially, it seems to me that where you are on the Earth should have little effect on your likelihood of seeing an eclipse.  Rckrone (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That map linked by Gandalf61 above is quite interesting. It would be good to see it colour coded, showing the areas with different frequencies of eclipses in different colours.  It would clearly take more than 1000 years for full coverage.  For example, most of Northern Ireland and the southern half of Taiwan have not seen an eclipse in the past 1000 years, and there are various spots on every continent that have missed out.  If it's possible to accurately predict the paths of future eclipses, isn't it possible to run some program over any nominated time period and show them all?  Or does it require each event to be separately calculated and added "manually".  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible to predict the path of eclipses with high precision for long into the future. All of the data is well known and to high precision, and you could easily check your calculations by running them back in time and comparing with all of the known, documented eclipses.  The problem is just that it's a painful calculation to make with lots of variables to take account of and plenty of scope for error, and hence it's unlikely that anyone here on the ref desk will be willing & able to do it.  If you really want to know, send me $1,000 and I'll write you a program to do it. SteveBaker (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every man has his price, and you've just exceeded mine, Steve. Damn.  But let's not reinvent the wheel here.  Surely I'm not the first person to have ever wondered about this - or am I that weird?  Surely some boffin has come up with such a program that's generally available.  I have sneaking suspicion that, over a long time, a rather interesting pattern would emerge.  Just what that pattern is, I couldn't possibly say. But I'd love to find out. --  JackofOz (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

molar mass
i'm stuck with this problem. plz anyone help me!

a sample of gaseous substance weighing 0.5 g occupies a volume of 1.12 litres at NTP. calculate the molar mass of the substance.

as 1 mole of any gas at NTP occupies 22.4 litres, there are 0.5 moles in the sample, and that weighs 0.5 grams. so, 1 mole of the sample will weigh 1g. so this will be the molar mass, won't it be?

(but unfortunately, it's not. my teacher gave me a big zero on the left side of my answer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.133.200 (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you make a math mistake (maybe slipped a decimal place) when you calculated "there are 0.5 moles in the sample"? DMacks (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to calculate the fraction of a mole. You can do this volumetrically, since the conditions are described as standard temperature and pressure; so, if you have 1.12 liters, and 22.4 liters is one mole, then you have 1.12 liters/22.4 liters.  Check your arithmetic here carefully.  Nimur (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think u made a decimal mistake. 1.12*20= 22.4 l..that is one mole. your answer should be 0.5*20=10 gms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gd iitm (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you show your working out on the answer? In my experience teachers will award partial marks if you are performing the correct calculations but make an error in the actual maths. Exxolon (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

what is a megafauna?
I cam across a list of megafauna and there are a great many animals on it that really aren't that large, including things like the domestic cat, Canada Goose, and the Blue-and-yellow Macaw. According to the megafauna article, there is no standard definition of size, and some of the references in that article are a bit contrary to each other on the matter. A reference that you could direct me to that might offer some guidance in this area would be appreciated. Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From megafauna :

The term megafauna (Ancient Greek megas "large" + New Latin fauna "animal") has two distinct meanings in the biological sciences. The less commonly found meaning is of any animal which can be seen with the unaided eye, in contrast to microfauna. The more commonly found meaning, discussed in this article, is of "giant", "very large" or "large" animals — although there is no standard definition of a minimum size.
 * APL (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that because there is not a standard definition of megafauna, we can not have a list of megafauna on wikipedia because there is not referenced criteria as to what size an animal must be to qualify? Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable to me. If the definition is "any animal you can see with the unaided eye" then the list is too long and incomplete to be allowed under the rules for lists on Wikipedia - and if the definition is some fuzzy idea of a "large" animal with no solid definition then the list is still not allowed.  It needs to be AfD'ed ASAP! SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article (and section) Fauna is much more sensible, I'd agree that the list needs to go, and that megafauna itself needs a rewrite.
 * Looking at Category:Megafauna it's clear (to me) that list of megafauna is unnecessary, and can/should go - there already are lists and articles on megafauna by continent.83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Googlemeister, no, that is not what I am saying. APL (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is pretty much what I was thinking. Besides, the article is a mess and has a pretty dubious history. APL (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could be redirected to Noah's Ark (joke sorry) :) 83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I stuck a 'prod' template on the article - if nobody 'fixes' it in a week (I don't see how they could), it'll get deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, there's no actual requirement you improve the article. If you genuinely feel the article should not be deleted you are entitled to remove the prod, although you should be prepared to defend the article against deletion since someone may then WP:AFD it.Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - that's true...and I would indeed immediately instigate an AFD. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The original creator of the article seems grudgingly in agreement - it's almost certainly history. SteveBaker (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you put that message on the page? I think I am going to add it to the following


 * 1) List of African megafauna
 * 2) List of Arctic megafauna
 * 3) List of Australian megafauna
 * 4) List of Central and South American megafauna
 * 5) List of Eurasian megafauna
 * 6) List of island megafauna
 * 7) List of marine megafauna
 * 8) List of North American megafauna
 * 9) List of Prehistoric Megafauna  Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You use ...reason... at the top of the article - and if nobody removes it for a week - the article is deleted with a minimum of fuss. However, someone did just remove the prod template from List of Megafauna - so it's got to go to WP:AfD and take the long way around.  Since I have to go the AfD route anyway - I'll just include all of the List of XXX megafauna articles in the same request. SteveBaker (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - the AfD for all ten "list of XXX megafauna" article is up at: Articles for deletion/List of megafauna - feel free to comment there. SteveBaker (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin, evolution, etc...
Why is it that scientists insist that evolution is widely accepted when it's obvious that there are so many flaws (missing links, for example) which prove that it's not true? And so many people in the world don't believe in Darwinism, it's not accurate to teach only one view of the world when there are so many different, more likely possibilities.

Haha got ya! I'm just kidding, I'm a hardcore biologist that loves evolution. Darwin wrote something about if someone could find something that was put on earth just for our (humankind's) pleasure, his theory would be disproved. Does anyone have this exact quote, and have any serious (misguided) attempts been made to find such a thing?

Cheers,

Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know the exact quote you speak of, but Creationists have discussed the banana in particular as looking anthropocentric. The argument is a bit silly — bananas have, in fact, evolved to be particularly appealing to primates, even without the fact that the bananas consumed by most people are the products of considerable selective breeding by humans. But it's out there. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking some drugs would qualify. Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did Benjamin Franklin's reputed observation "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" disprove Darwin? :) DMacks (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By that quote, God then also approves of liver damage and beer goggles ;) Sjschen (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Darwin meant to include anything that humans had made from some other resource...otherwise the existence of "Tickle me Elmo" dolls would have disproved evolution long ago! Powerful and useful drugs found naturally in plants are a possible candidate. But to pick a common example: Foxgloves just happen to contain digitalis - which is a complicated chemical that's really handy for preventing heart attacks.  At first sight, that seems like a surprisingly friendly thing of them to do!  But plants generally evolve these pharmacologically active substances with the specific intent of attracting or repelling animals - the Foxglove isn't trying to cure humans - it's trying to induce anorexia, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea (which are the side-effects of high doses of digitalis) in animals that try to eat it's leaves!  Digitalis is only useful when you are exceedingly careful about the dosage.


 * But even if your did find something in nature that's incredibly useful to humans - for which there is no reasonable evolution-based story as to why it would be produced - seemingly just for the benefit of mankind - you'd still have to suspect that humans evolved in order to exploit that resource. Fruit changes color when it's ripe - and the color changes at precisely the range of frequencies to which our eyes are most sensitive.  There may be no reason for the plant to be so very helpful - but there is every reason why we might have evolved eyes that are particularly well-suited to recognising ripe fruit.  It's gonna be virtually impossible to come up with something that didn't either evolve to suit us - and which we didn't evolve to exploit.  It's notable that when mankind ventures anywhere out of the regions we evolved to be comfortable in - things get immediately horribly nasty.  In deep oceans, at the poles, at high altitude, on the moon, mars or any other planet we can find - we are only able to survive at all by virtue of having lots of fancy technology.


 * It's worth bearing in mind that Darwin didn't understand as much about evolution as we do now!


 * SteveBaker (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve, it is useful to know that in English the contraction IT'S is short for IT IS. So when you typed "it's trying to induce anorexia..." everyone understands that is the same as "it is trying to induce anorexia..." and you have communicated what you intended . But when you typed "animals that try to eat it's leaves!" one reads "animals that try to eat it is leaves!". Do you agree that is incoherent nonsense? Let me offer you a 3-letter marvel of the English language: the posessive word ITS. It has no apostrophe, which saves a massive 25% on bandwidth. Even better, you can use it to make your own text comprehensible English as in "animals that try to eat its keaves!". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keaves? It seems to be a universal rule that someone who tries to correct someone else's spelling and grammar will inevitably make a mistake in their own correction. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that's known as Muphry's Law. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Muphry's law. But everyone should learn the difference between it's and its, because it's easy. -- BenRG (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And that whether Darwin himself was always correct doesn't reflect on whether the current status of evolution, etc., is correct. (Darwin was very wrong on a number of things. That's okay. That just means science is improving.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Returning to the original question: Wikiquote has the line our OP is seeking: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.". It's notable that this is one of the main arguments the creationists use against evolution.  Fortunately for the theory, modern science has also found out no such case. SteveBaker (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not really the same point. The closest thing I've been able to find to the line in question is a sentence from a letter to Charles Lyell dated 28 Sept 1860: "I quite agree with what Hooker says, that whatever variation is possible under culture, is POSSIBLE under nature; not that the same form would ever be accumulated and arrived at by selection for man's pleasure, and by natural selection for the organism's own good.".  Note that Darwin put a lot of effort into explaining how people have shaped plants and animals to their pleasure by selecting among random small variations -- so to get a counterexample that Darwin would accept, you would have to find a plant or animal that clearly serves human pleasure but has no prior history of interaction with humans.  It's hard to imagine what that would be. Looie496 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to speculate whether creationists use the "irreducible complexity" argument in an honest way (because, you know, how did an eye just appear!), or precisely because of having this knockout punch from Darwin himself once they win that argument. --Sean 14:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To the OP, the so called "holes" and "missing links" in evolution are actually pretty rare; and they get filled in all the time. It should be noted that there is a difference between holes in the fossil record and holes in the actual theory of evolution.  Look at it via this metaphor.  Imagine a brick road stretching from New York to Los Angeles with some bricks missing, like say, every few hundred feet, is one brick or another missing.  To claim such missing bricks make the road undrivable is like claiming that the holes in the fossil record somehow make evolution entirely disproven.  The gaps in the fossil record that do exist are certainly no different than the holes in other scientific theories, such as subatomic particles from the Standard Model that have not yet been isolated.  The theory predicts such holes will eventually be filled, and as such, they always have been.  -- Jayron  32  04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think OP knows that :-) Anyway, according to Wikipedia, the clitoris (no, don't look, not at this time in the morning) "functions solely to induce sexual pleasure". Thanks, God.--80.3.133.8 (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's morning and I did look and it's beautiful. Uh, so is the morning. Concerning "missing links", absence of proof is not proof of absence. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true - but the purpose of that pleasure is to induce the female of the species to make more intercourse attempts - and thereby to bear more children - thus increasing the spread of her genes into future generations. Ergo, at some point in the dim and distant past, female animals with these organs out-bred the ones that didn't have them and evolution did the rest.  SteveBaker (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder about that. I'm not that clear how and when the penis, specifically the mammalian penis evolved but a quick loook at the article suggests to me it may have happened in mammalian development since it appears many other animals are fairly different or don't even have a penis. If so, it's possible there weren't ever really many females without a clitoris since the clitoris is a homologous structure to the penis, developing along the same pathway and perhaps the clitoris was simply preserved in females (in other words, there weren't ever many females without a clitoris) or perhaps it would be more accurate to say a co-evolution of the structures on the male and female side occured). But I don't really know, information on the genetic may help. Of course besides preserving the clitoris, evolution undoutedly would have had an effect on the structure and functionality Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What did Jayron mean by "as such"? —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Chemical formula of waterproofing oil used by birds?
1. Does anyone know the exact chemical formula of the oily substance secreted by birds such as ducks and seagulls that is spread on the feathers during preening to waterproof them?

2. Does this stuff have any practical use in human society if sythesized artificially?

3. The gland that secretes it would seem to be on the lower back in birds. Is there an analogous organ anywhere in humans/other mammals?

Thanks. --84.70.191.247 (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Uropygial gland - also try a search for "Preen oil".  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)::Uropygial gland doesnt have detailed listings, but esters are pretty common chemical compounds. A diester is simply a compound made up of two (di-) esters.  Not all birds have functioning glands and the exact secretions vary.  As our article points out the waterproofing isn't in the waxes, but rather a result of the method of applying it, similar to being able to bend a stream of water with a comb you used to comb dry hair. --71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Preen oil is said to be made up of fatty acids and fatty acid esters . This article says it (specifically chicken preen oil) has a similar constitution to chicken fat.
 * So I would guess it's fairly safe to assume that puffin preen oil is similar to puffin fat. Does it have any practical use? - not really - though bird fat in general is edible. The problem with all animal fats is that they go off and start to smell.83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only is bird fat edible, some cuisines use it quite extensively. See Schmaltz.  -- Jayron  32  04:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I like the idea of "synthetic smaltz", (see original question) though apparently it does exist. Does anyone know of non-cooking uses for bird fat?83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll wager it would run a diesel engine - old style, mechanical distribution pump, not the modern common rail one like I drive!  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See e.g this article. . AFAIK they are currently having problems with rising price for the turkey waste making the processes very uneconomical. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And it would prob'ly be too viscous for a diesel engine anyways -- using this stuff could cause problems with the fuel injectors. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the engine. Ocean going ships tend to run on Bunker Fuel (see Fuel oil), which is very thick, black and viscous - they have to run on white diesel for a minimum 30 min before stopping to ensure that they will be able to start the engine again.  Ron h jones (Talk) 17:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, it might do for a ship's diesel, but not for any other kind of diesel I'm sure. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Works when you mix it according to this source 71.236.26.74 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that makes sense -- the soybean oil lowers viscosity and cloud point. FWiW 98.234.126.251 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)