Comments on: The Court Jester and the averaging fallacy http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/04/the-court-jester-and-the-averaging-fallacy/ Fri, 24 May 2013 15:27:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: The evolutionary effect of the sky gods | Gene Expression | moregoodstuff.info http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/04/the-court-jester-and-the-averaging-fallacy/#comment-32294 The evolutionary effect of the sky gods | Gene Expression | moregoodstuff.info Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:45:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=11078#comment-32294 [...] week I reviewed ideas about the effect of “exogenous shocks” to an ecosystem of creatures, and how it might [...] [...] week I reviewed ideas about the effect of “exogenous shocks” to an ecosystem of creatures, and how it might [...]

]]> By: The evolutionary effect of the sky gods | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/04/the-court-jester-and-the-averaging-fallacy/#comment-32293 The evolutionary effect of the sky gods | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine Sun, 24 Apr 2011 23:02:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=11078#comment-32293 [...] week I reviewed ideas about the effect of “exogenous shocks” to an ecosystem of creatures, and how it might [...] [...] week I reviewed ideas about the effect of “exogenous shocks” to an ecosystem of creatures, and how it might [...]

]]> By: Linkage is Good for You: Christ Has Risen, Glorify Him Edition http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/04/the-court-jester-and-the-averaging-fallacy/#comment-32292 Linkage is Good for You: Christ Has Risen, Glorify Him Edition Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:05:12 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=11078#comment-32292 [...] Razib Khan – “The Court Jester and the Averaging Fallacy” [...] [...] Razib Khan – “The Court Jester and the Averaging Fallacy” [...]

]]> By: dave chamberlin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/04/the-court-jester-and-the-averaging-fallacy/#comment-32291 dave chamberlin Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:50:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=11078#comment-32291 The cambrian explosion, when the diversity of complex life really took off was preceded by snowball earth. The evidence seems to point to a freeze fry sequence, the earth was virtually covered by ice and life dependent on sun and liquid water were isolated to a few volcanic hot spots. At that point carbon dioxide slowly accumulated in the atmosphere from volcanic emissions for millions of years, the computer models indicate it would take a carbon dioxide level of 550 times average when carbon dioxide breathing life was abundant for the cold snap to reverse. When that level was reached the snow all melted in just a couple of hundred years and it became unbearably hot except for extremophiles. Various people have hypothesized various reasons for when the cambrian explosion happened when it did. I have read complex life required high oxygen levels for it's high energy needs and the ozone level to protect it from the sun's radiation so that caused it. But high oxygen levels were present well before the small time period(relatively speaking) of the cambrian explosion. What caused the cambrian explosion is no doubt a complex answer of many variables but it would seem that the horrific temperature fluctuations that preceded it was one of the requirements. It has long been known that the brain size of hominids didn't just slowly grow for six million years but jumped in size in times when there was more temperature variation. Show my a list of nobel prize winners and I'll show you a list of people whose ancestors had a history of hard times. Of course there are exceptions but the rule generally holds. When it comes to life new and improved, misery works and evolution is cruel. The cambrian explosion, when the diversity of complex life really took off was preceded by snowball earth. The evidence seems to point to a freeze fry sequence, the earth was virtually covered by ice and life dependent on sun and liquid water were isolated to a few volcanic hot spots. At that point carbon dioxide slowly accumulated in the atmosphere from volcanic emissions for millions of years, the computer models indicate it would take a carbon dioxide level of 550 times average when carbon dioxide breathing life was abundant for the cold snap to reverse. When that level was reached the snow all melted in just a couple of hundred years and it became unbearably hot except for extremophiles. Various people have hypothesized various reasons for when the cambrian explosion happened when it did. I have read complex life required high oxygen levels for it’s high energy needs and the ozone level to protect it from the sun’s radiation so that caused it. But high oxygen levels were present well before the small time period(relatively speaking) of the cambrian explosion. What caused the cambrian explosion is no doubt a complex answer of many variables but it would seem that the horrific temperature fluctuations that preceded it was one of the requirements.
It has long been known that the brain size of hominids didn’t just slowly grow for six million years but jumped in size in times when there was more temperature variation.
Show my a list of nobel prize winners and I’ll show you a list of people whose ancestors had a history of hard times. Of course there are exceptions but the rule generally holds.
When it comes to life new and improved, misery works and evolution is cruel.

]]> By: Jim Johnson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/04/the-court-jester-and-the-averaging-fallacy/#comment-32290 Jim Johnson Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:41:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=11078#comment-32290 The question you ended with is also in my mind. Since particular species don't care from where environmental pressures come (climate or other organisms), using that difference to define two types of pressures seems arbitrary. It is true that that climactic change affects all members of the ecosystem, so that might be the definition they meant: Changes to the physical environment within which the ecosystem is housed. However, the name itself - "Court Jester" seems to imply a wild card scenario - ANY change to an ecosystem so profound that relationships throughout the ecosystem (or at least all of the relationships held by the species under study) must be rebalanced. A time of change. If that is the intended definition, then I can think of a number of non-climactic changes that fit the definition (a river bed shifts, a new volcanic island emerges), including several biotic ones: invasive species, reintroduction of species (think wolves of Yellowstone), and even the results of a course of antibiotics on the ecosystem within someone's intestines. To be truly useful, I think the Court Jester term needs to be defined in terms the nature of impact to the species (or their evolutionary courses) under discussion. The question you ended with is also in my mind. Since particular species don’t care from where environmental pressures come (climate or other organisms), using that difference to define two types of pressures seems arbitrary. It is true that that climactic change affects all members of the ecosystem, so that might be the definition they meant: Changes to the physical environment within which the ecosystem is housed.

However, the name itself – “Court Jester” seems to imply a wild card scenario – ANY change to an ecosystem so profound that relationships throughout the ecosystem (or at least all of the relationships held by the species under study) must be rebalanced. A time of change.

If that is the intended definition, then I can think of a number of non-climactic changes that fit the definition (a river bed shifts, a new volcanic island emerges), including several biotic ones: invasive species, reintroduction of species (think wolves of Yellowstone), and even the results of a course of antibiotics on the ecosystem within someone’s intestines.

To be truly useful, I think the Court Jester term needs to be defined in terms the nature of impact to the species (or their evolutionary courses) under discussion.

]]> By: bob sykes http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/04/the-court-jester-and-the-averaging-fallacy/#comment-32289 bob sykes Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:33:39 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=11078#comment-32289 Could you expand the citations to Rosenzweig, 1995 and Brown and Lomolino, 1998? Could you expand the citations to Rosenzweig, 1995 and Brown and Lomolino, 1998?

]]>