A Question For The Lone Ranger

[thedoc]

One of the questions asked by people who doubt the existence of extraterrestrials is "Why aren't they here?" A better question would be "Why would they want to come here?" Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

[The Lone Ranger]

Such a question also illustrates that the questioner probably hasn't considered the monumental investment in resources that it would require to get a manned (aliened?) vessel to even a comparatively nearby star -- particularly if you're talking about flight times that aren't measured in millennia.

Of course, if the aliens are really patient and are willing to invest in von Neumann-type probes, that's a different matter.

[JoeP]

A question for The Lone Ranger, and others:

The Lone Ranger wasn't a Man In Black, but was he a Gunslinger?
In the Westworld TV series, everyone's a Gunslinger including the Man In Black (the Ed Harris character).
In the Westworld film (which I should watch again), Yul Brynner is the Man In Black and a Gunslinger.
In the Dark Tower series, there's only one Gunslinger left and he opposes the Man In Black.
In The Magnificent Seven, they're all Gunslingers and again Yul Brynner is in black, more so than the others, at least if my image-search-assisted memory serves me well.
In the Sergio Leone films, Clint Eastwood is the Gunslinger, and the prototype for King's whatever anyone might say. But doesn't wear mostly black.
In Seven Samurai, they are swordsmen not gunslingers obviously but it's equally obviously a key formative influence on the trope.

TV Tropes is remarkably unhelpful (while unremarkably fascinating) on this. The Gunslinger - TV Tropes doesn't mention The Magnificent Seven, and there is no useful article on the Man In Black. (Only the Illuminati-style Men In Black.) (The "Lost" TV series page presents their Man In Black, Jacob's brother, as Satanic Archetype - TV Tropes.)

So - is Gunslinger good and Man In Black bad? To the extent that archetypes are ever played pure. And if "the Man in Black" is a recognisable trope, not just something only I'm seeing.

And when a gunslinger type dresses all in black, is that a sign we should question how he represents good and evil?

Note to self: watch all those films, in order.

[The Lone Ranger]

My impression has always been that "gunslinger" is a neutral term, and can refer to any character who is good with pistols and prone to using them in a fight. Characters who use long guns or machine guns are seldom -- if ever -- referred to as gunslingers.

I've frequently heard both "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" referred to as gunslingers, so I don't think the term has any real moral implications.

Traditionally in Westerns, characters who dress in black are likely to be Bad Guys. (The trope is: Good Guys wear white hats and light outfits, while Bad Guys where black hats and dark outfits.) That trope isn't so rigidly adhered to nowadays, and there have always been characters who were deliberately set up to subvert the trope -- for example, the character of Paladin from Have Gun Will Travel was very-much a Good Guy, but dressed in black. Producers of the show apparently got a lot of mileage out of audiences (and characters in the show) expecting a person who dressed like that to be a Bad Guy.

[mickthinks]

Hey TLR, have you seen this?

Mechanical gears in jumping insects - YouTube

Functioning mechanical gears seen in nature for the first time | University of Cambridge

[thedoc]

I cooked down some Turkey bones for broth and was cleaning the meat off the bones. I had noticed for a long time that in some parts of the Turkey, especially the legs, there are long thin bony structures, some are not attached to the rest of the skeleton, but are only attached to the muscle. I assume that they are to enhance the function of the muscle, and I was wondering if it was the size of the animal that promoted the evolution of these bones in the muscle?

[The Lone Ranger]

You're probably looking at the fibula bones. In mammals such as ourselves, they're weight-bearing bones that help strengthen the ankle joints, among other things. (Though they don't bear anywhere near as much weight as do the accompanying tibia bones. As such, people have been known to break a fibula without even realizing it at first.)


In birds, the fibula bone is vestigial and greatly reduced. All that's left is a thin spur of bone. Presumably, this is a weight-saving adaptation, as birds have reduced or completely eliminated any skeletal elements that aren't absolutely essential. There is a price to be paid for this, of course; a bird's skeleton is far less robust -- and far less flexible -- than is that of a similar-sized mammal.

The skeletal anatomy of a chicken leg.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're probably looking at the fibula bones.

No, I've found the fibula bone and postulated an explanation for what I have found. I am referring to numerous other bony structures in the muscle of the leg and a few other places in the body of the turkey. These are much less evident, if not absent in a chicken, possibly also not evident in other small birds. I didn't count them but I would estimate there are about 10 in each leg.

[thedoc]

I've done some research on line and it seems that most people who answer don't know what they are talking about. Get a Turkey leg, cook it down and see for yourself what I am referring to. Some of these small bony structures are attached to the lower part of the leg, not the knee. Others are entirely in the muscle of the leg and not attached to any bone.

[Angakuk]

Are you sure they are bones and not tendons?

[The Lone Ranger]

Ah, if it isn't the fibula you're looking at, then you're probably looking at partially ossified tendons. [They're long and more or less flat, I presume, unlike the rounded fibulae?]

In many animals, including humans, tendons that are sufficiently stressed will partially ossify. This improves their ability to handle stress at the cost of some flexibility. Where enough of the tendon ossifies to form an entire functional bone, such a bone is referred to as a sesamoid bone. Runners and other athletes will typically develop a few sesamoid bones in the feet, for example. The patella (kneecap) is a sesamoid bone, the largest in the body; it forms due to stress placed on the tendon of the quadriceps femoris muscle from bending of the leg.

Since they aren't genetically "programmed" like, say, the femur, and instead form as a response to stress on tendons, sesamoid bones typically don't connect to any other bones.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are you sure they are bones and not tendons?

I referred to them as bony structures, I didn't know how they formed, but see TLR's answer for further explanation.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ah, if it isn't the fibula you're looking at, then you're probably looking at partially ossified tendons. [They're long and more or less flat, I presume, unlike the rounded fibulae?]

In many animals, including humans, tendons that are sufficiently stressed will partially ossify. This improves their ability to handle stress at the cost of some flexibility. Where enough of the tendon ossifies to form an entire functional bone, such a bone is referred to as a sesamoid bone. Runners and other athletes will typically develop a few sesamoid bones in the feet, for example. The patella (kneecap) is a sesamoid bone, the largest in the body; it forms due to stress placed on the tendon of the quadriceps femoris muscle from bending of the leg.

Since they aren't genetically "programmed" like, say, the femur, and instead form as a response to stress on tendons, sesamoid bones typically don't connect to any other bones.

So I will assume that these are ossified tendons, and I also assume that they formed because of the size of the bird, (both turkeys were 20 lbs. probably heavier when alive) and the extra stress compared to a smaller bird. This brings up another question, have there been any of these ossified tendons found in relation to the dinosaurs, or were the paleontologists not looking for them, or do they not fossilize like other bones?

[The Lone Ranger]

Oh, most definitely. For example, dromeosaurs such as Deinonychus often had partially ossified tendons in their tails.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, most definitely. For example, dromeosaurs such as Deinonychus often had partially ossified tendons in their tails.

Interesting, I've read some literature and seen a lot of programs about dinosaurs, but have never seen any mention of this detail, or is it like the delayed vision when observing planets. It's so well understood and common that no-one sees the need to mention it.

[The Lone Ranger]

That's possible, I suppose. The stiffening, ossified tendons in dromeosaurs' tails are so well-known to paleontologists that they're a defining characteristic. As such, it's not something that really bears mentioning; what would be surprising would be to find a dromeosaur that didn't have this feature. Ossification of supporting tendons associated with the thoracic and cervical vertebrae is also common in dinosaurs, and so doesn't really merit that much mention.

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

...referred to as a sesamoid bone.

Sesamoid seeds make a nice touch to any salad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by BrotherMan

Sesamoid seeds make a nice touch to any salad.

Unfortunately seeds and nuts are foods that I am not supposed to eat, and I really liked eating Pistachios with my granddaughter.

[The Lone Ranger]

They're called "sesamoid" bones because they're typically shaped like sesame seeds. (That's because they form along lines of stress in the tendons, and so are shaped by the stress experienced inside the tendons.)

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I referred to them as bony structures, I didn't know how they formed, but see TLR's answer for further explanation.

Hey, I asked a relevant question! This is worthy of note given my general level of ignorance regarding the subject of biology.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Hey, I asked a relevant question! This is worthy of note given my general level of ignorance regarding the subject of biology.

Post #1387.

[BrotherMan]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Hey, I asked a relevant question! This is worthy of note given my general level of ignorance regarding the subject of biology.

WRONG THRAD, ANGEKOOK.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Wait, what?

Skunk Cabbage from the gallery

Oh.

Symplocarpus foetidus - Wikipedia
Lysichiton americanus - Wikipedia

Nevermind, answered it myself.

[Angakuk]

Why does it feel so good to scratch an itch when it is almost always a bad idea to do so? What evolutionary pressures contributed to producing such a strong incentive to engage in scratching behavior?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why does it feel so good to scratch an itch when it is almost always a bad idea to do so? What evolutionary factors contributed to producing such a strong incentive to engage in scratching behavior?

Itching is sometimes a sign of healing and an indication of the time for the scab to come off for the wound to continue healing. If you have an itch, scratch it.