You know what the alternatives are, right? either we have two mouths, or we speak with our nostrils and the silent, gaping hole below only unhinges for the consumption of organic matter.
Thinking about how smell might have developed is kind of cool. Some mutation allowing cells to detect smell (something modern science is kind of puzzled by) then just sending those signals to the brain and saying, you figure it out. I'd bet there is some other property of matter that exists that we have no ability to detect.
Isn't smell just particulate matter hitting receptors not dissimilar to how taste receptors send taste signals to the brain? I thought science had this stuff nailed down now?
I dont know....but I wouldn't say that's a good reason to doubt it, for example I don't know how they proved black holes exist but they seem pretty confident.
Ok, if it's just particles how does it distinguish the particles on a molecular level. This is important shit. The closest science can do is gas chromatography and that's an instrument which exists in any reputable lab. Also, using gas chromatography for this a far cry from the simple function of our sense of smell which can distinguish scents just by simply introducing a fragrence.
Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but I'm not trying to argue with you - I'm genuinely curious about this and if you have superior knowledge I'm open!
My understanding from a quick skim of Wikipedia citations suggests we understand what's involved (particles and receptors) but the actual mechanism around encoding of signals seems to be theory.
We also can't teach a computer to think, but we still have quite a good idea of how it works.
I believe the receptor cell responds to a particular part of the molecule in question. Artificial flavourings and scents have identical (or similar enough) parts to trigger the same response, but are otherwise different molecules.
"Design is fine, is just user error"
- every designer ever
I see the problem, you forgot to clear your browser cache before evolving. closes ticket
Efficiency is making the same structure work for dual purposes.....like garbage disposal + procreation.
I don't think you procreate if you stick it up the garbage disposal though.
Garbage comes in different states of matter...
I still don't think you procreate if you stick it up the garbage disposal.
Ever heard of a cloaca?
chapeau.
It’s more than just efficient, personally I think it feels pretty good too
You know what the alternatives are, right? either we have two mouths, or we speak with our nostrils and the silent, gaping hole below only unhinges for the consumption of organic matter.
I'd take that tbh.
Good luck speaking when they are clogged up. :/
Maybe the nostrils should be redesigned too.
Maybe Voldermort was onto something?
That's how they kill the germs....very clever really.
Silent? No no no. The gaping hole makes loud chewing noises while the nostrils merily chat away in a sing-songy, whistly voice!
Last change made by Evolution, commit message "ehh good enough TODO fix in next release", 500 million years ago
Works well enough in most cases #wontfix
Bro I don't think you are supposed to look at it to determine which way food goes
I wonder what the implications would be, if every body part were labeled (including innards).
It would raise some pretty interesting philosophical questions.
This is what allows you to hold your breath underwater
Sounds like we should optimize that.
All you can eat sinuses
Thinking about how smell might have developed is kind of cool. Some mutation allowing cells to detect smell (something modern science is kind of puzzled by) then just sending those signals to the brain and saying, you figure it out. I'd bet there is some other property of matter that exists that we have no ability to detect.
Isn't smell just particulate matter hitting receptors not dissimilar to how taste receptors send taste signals to the brain? I thought science had this stuff nailed down now?
That's what they theorize. How do you prove it?
Science shit?
I dont know....but I wouldn't say that's a good reason to doubt it, for example I don't know how they proved black holes exist but they seem pretty confident.
Ok, if it's just particles how does it distinguish the particles on a molecular level. This is important shit. The closest science can do is gas chromatography and that's an instrument which exists in any reputable lab. Also, using gas chromatography for this a far cry from the simple function of our sense of smell which can distinguish scents just by simply introducing a fragrence.
Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but I'm not trying to argue with you - I'm genuinely curious about this and if you have superior knowledge I'm open!
My understanding from a quick skim of Wikipedia citations suggests we understand what's involved (particles and receptors) but the actual mechanism around encoding of signals seems to be theory.
We also can't teach a computer to think, but we still have quite a good idea of how it works.
https://pca.st/episode/835428d6-e13b-4f1b-866c-de9b6a74d660
If your interested this is a good episode of Unexplainable. They can do better then me.
I believe the receptor cell responds to a particular part of the molecule in question. Artificial flavourings and scents have identical (or similar enough) parts to trigger the same response, but are otherwise different molecules.
I think someone said the number of combinations for a key and lock receptor was insurmountable. Don't quote me.