Science desk
< October 31	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 1

Of Frogs and Men

I've always held this notion that humans are somehow descended from frogs. Even apes and monkeys appear to have certain frog-like features. Unfortunately I can't find much of anything in the way of direct genetic evidence to support such a claim. (Most people seem to believe that we are rather highly-evolved mice, but I just don't see it.) Earl of Arundel (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is the Most Recent Common Ancestor in each case (see also Phylogenetic tree), that is, if you go back in time, you will find an organism that evolved into frogs and humans, another for mice and humans and yet another for apes and humans. For the first you would need to go back hundreds of millions of years (see Tetrapods), for the second several tens of millions (see Euarchontoglires) and for the last (taking the Chimpanzee as an example) about 10 million years (see Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor). Mikenorton (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Are you serious? Both humans and mice are tetrapods, but the split in the evolutionary tree between the Lissamphibia, to which frogs belong, and all other tetrapods, including the Amniota to which all mammals belong (not considering shape-shifting reptilians, which presumably, if not alien, are Sauria – also not Lissamphibia) took place more than 300 million years ago. It is hardly surprising you cannot find genetic evidence for the extraordinary claim. As there is an unsurmountable mountain of evidence against it, you'd need extraordinarily extraordinary evidence. --Lambiam 10:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're making a common misconception; that humans (or any other species) descended from some species that still exists. That's not really how it works. Instead, it's helpful to think that somewhere in the past there is a most recent common ancestor (MRCA) to both humans and to frogs. That species may (or may not) be convenient to categorize as a "frog", but that's really irrelevant; by definition both modern humans and modern frogs are equally as related to that species. The most recent common ancestor of humans and frogs would have been among the earliest tetrapods, before the development of amniotes; the oldest amniote fossils date to 313-316 million years ago, which would be the latest possible most recent common ancestor of both frogs and humans. It likely looked nothing like either a frog (or a human). Being from the carboniferous period, it would look like one of the animals listed at List of Carboniferous tetrapods. --Jayron 32 12:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pederpes finneyae

Maybe it looked like this whatcheeriid, which doesn't resemble a frog except for the smile. I must say, though, she reminds me of one of my great aunts. --Lambiam 17:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Frogs and humans are kissing cousins from Nature and Frogs Surprisingly Like Humans, Genetically Speaking, both referencing research by Richard Harland (biologist). Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is both surprising and unsurprising; unsurprising when you realize that the other organism noted in the study, the zebrafish, is much more distantly related to the other three, something we know that since the MRCA of zebrafish to tetrapods would be much older than that, which would be the divergence of ray-finned fish and lobe-finned fish, which would have happened in the Silurian, about 418 mya. The commonality of the genetics of all tetrapods is unsurprising; most of our major structures and components are quite similar. We have the same skeletal structure, the same major organ groups in the same places, the same kinds of metabolism, etc. etc. Most of the genes would be the same or very similar. Even humans and bananas have 60% of their DNA in common. --Jayron 32 14:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, much thanks to everyone for the informative comments. This is a such a complex field of study. Also interesting how parallel evolution can produce somewhat similar traits/features. So I guess this extends to our relationship with modern apes; not necessarily directly per-se from chimpanzees, although we do share a common recent ancestor. Fascinating. Well, humans ARE at more or less highly-evolved worms anyway. I wonder if that direct ancestor still exists (eg. C. elegens)? Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MRCA of C. elegans and H. sapiens was a nephrozoon, a worm-like aquatic animal. The split into Protostomia (to which nematodes belong) and Deuterostomia (to which mammals belong) is estimated to have occurred some 620 million years ago. Obviously, the earliest protostomes were also worm-like, but there is no reason to think they closely resembled nematodes, Because of their soft bodies, nematodes leave not much of an imprint on the fossil record, but the oldest putative nematoid fossils appear to date to 470 million years ago.^[1] --Lambiam 12:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I often wonder if we will ever see a technology emerge that will allow us to see much further back in the fossil record. Now obviously if the fossil has been exposed to magma or what have you, in those kinds of cases the remains will likely be destroyed for all practical purposes. But otherwise, special imaging techniques or what have you might be able to look even deeper into the past. Who knows, we may find that C. elegans for example dating back even a billion years or more, I imagine. (Just being an "arm-chair scientist" here, of course. Surely there are many other important considerations.) Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, C. elegans is as "highly evolved" as H. sapiens. It is exquisitely adapted to its ecological niche. --Lambiam 12:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify and elaborate on Lambiam's very salient point, every living being alive today is equally as "highly evolved" as every other one. The entire system of life started out in the murky past, but that nematode is part of a chain of evolution which is equally as long as the chain of evolution that produced you. In terms of "time we've spent evolving", all of life has been evolving since life began, so we're all equally as highly evolved. If you really want to get pedantic, since nematodes have a shorter life cycle than mammals (which is to say, they get in more generations in less time), if you want to get down to it, the nematode is actually more evolved than a human is. --Jayron 32 16:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So the assumption that "less complexity" necessarily means "lower on the chain of evolution" is clearly flawed. Modern organisms are highly-evolved in their own, unique ways, adapting to changing environmental pressures for aeons. Fair enough. Kind of sad to think that not a single extant ancestor of ours can be found on Earth today in its original form though. Like, the DNA sequences of our ancestors have literally been forever erased by the sands of time! How utterly depressing.... Earl of Arundel (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watt and erg relation

Can we write that: 1 Watt/cm^2 = (10^7 ergs/cm^2) * sec Why or Why not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malypaet (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's not right. A Watt is a J/sec, so a Watt/cm^2 is a J/(sec * cm^2), and since a J = 10^7 ergs, then a Watt/cm^2 = 10^7 ergs/(sec * cm^2). You need to divide by sec, not multiply. --Jayron 32 18:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating calcium carbonate blocks

Is it possible to cast calcium carbonate in large format solids, or create via some chemical reaction? I was watching some folks laser etch eggshells and wanted to get my hands on some large pieces of solid caco3 but cant find any suppliers, or if its even possible. thanks ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sounds to me you're trying to reinvent limestone :) Dr Dima (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We are one of the noted manufacturers and suppliers of High Quality Calcium Carbonate Blocks. These blocks are made under the supervision of our trained professionals so that the final output fulfill with the international quality standards. As per the variegated requirements of clients, these blocks are made available in different sizes and specifications. With the help of our wide distribution network, we make sure safe transportation of these blocks within the specified period of time. High Quality Calcium Carbonate Blocks are known for high strength, wear & tear resistance and excellent electricity conductivity". [2] Alansplodge (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you want to use it for, perhaps optical purposes, see Iceland spar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium carbonate is what is the difference between hot tap water and cold tap water. How would 1 extract it from water though? Or ice. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Reportedly, the temperature also makes a difference between hot tap water and cold tap water. Allow the water to evaporate, and you'll be left with limescale. --Lambiam 03:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium carbonate is a very common mineral, and exists in MANY different forms and in many different contexts in the world. It is a major component of hard water, often in places where the water supply is in contact with soil or rocks that contains high quantities of calcium carbonate. Various forms of calcium carbonate, or rocks that include calcium carbonate, include calcite, chalk, limestone, and marble. When used as a soil additive, it is commonly called lime, though that term also refers to a number of other calcium compounds, such as calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide, among others. --Jayron 32 11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can Alansplodge speaking for SS Industries of Rajasthan, India please clarify what "excellent" electricity conductivity calcium carbonate is known for? When anhydrous (dry) it is an insulator. Philvoids (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly my expertise lies in interrogating Google rather than physics or chemistry. Please don't shoot the messenger. Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they consider an electrical conductivity of < 10⁻¹¹ S·m⁻¹ to be excellent. Curiously, they do not mention the material's high thermal conductivity, ~4 W·m⁻¹·K⁻¹, higher than glass. --Lambiam 08:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]