Science desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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

September 14

about boyles law

R.bhusal98 (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC) state and expalin boyles law/[reply]

Try Boyle's law. Mikenorton (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potato effect

Does a potato peel contribute to the oiliness of the skin ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.101.24.162 (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potatoes contain virtually no oil.[1]--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The preparation of baked potatoes by restaurants usually consists of oiling the skin, then wrapping the potatoes in aluminum foil, then baking them at 450F four at least an hour before serving (and they are kept rather hot for the rest of the shift by the waitrices who mind the potato drawer even after they have been baked). this my contribute to the notion that the skins are oily. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the original questioner is asking whether consuming potato peels makes a human's skin oily? That's the way I read the question at first. Deli nk (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the questioner is asking: "Would the rubbing of potato peel on the skin contribute oil to the skin?" Perhaps the questioner can say a little more about this. A Google search for rub potato peel on skin gets lots of hits. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated hypothesis generation and cell culture machine

Over a year ago, I read in a magazine (I think it was Lab Times; I'm not sure how widely it's distributed) of a machine someone had built that generates it own hypotheses, tests them and forms new hypotheses based on the results. I'm unable to find information on this now. I know there are automated cell culture machines but this one worked with code a person had written to enable a much greater degree of autonomy. Has anyone else heard of this? --129.215.47.59 (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not it. This machine generated its own data using cell cultures. --129.215.47.59 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the Robot Scientist "Adam" as described in [2] and [3], with some popular press coverage at [4] and [5]? It uses models of metabolic processes and gene homology information to predict what will happen in cell cultures of yeast knockouts, and then actually performs the experiment with an automated liquid handling system. They've since moved on to drug discovery (a number of links are in the Robot Scientist Wikipedia page). -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be it; I'm not sure. It's close enough, anyway. Thanks! 129.215.47.59 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brain capacity

Why doesn't the brain's memory get full? It seems that what our memory can hold (no matter how you calculate it) is much bigger than what we need for survival. Even considering a myth the 10% of brain use, it seems like there is a lot of not used memory out there (or in there). --Scicurious (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we don't remember everything so it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that our brains have a limited capacity to remember and that limit is routinely reached. Also, I don't see any reason to think our memory is bigger than what we need for survival. In the environment in which humans evolved, being able to remember more (exactly where food sources were found it past years, exactly where predators were encountered in the past, etc.) would be beneficial to survival. Deli nk (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our brains constantly delete old memories, consolidate others, and just generally juggle lots of things around. Also there are different types of memory that store different things. The exact details of how memory works are a fertile area of neuroscience research. We have tons of articles on memory, many of which also point you to a plethora of sources. If you want to really get a deeper understanding you'll have to do some reading. Hey, it's a good way to exercise that memory! --71.119.131.184 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if you didn't already have some impression of this fact, given the nature of your comments, but for the sake of clarity for the OP, it is worth noting that the brain doesn't "delete" memories. This kind of nomenclature is inaccurate and problematic when applied to the brain (and neural networks broadly) because it implies that a memory is coded data stored in a discrete memory block, as with a classical computer. Rather, in the case of the brain, experiential information is stored as product of associations between neurons which are used, as you note, by various modules of the brain in many different fashions. Thus memories are never really deleted, though their potency (that is, the likelihood of their recall and their effect on future cognition and behaviour) may dwindle as the associations between the relevant neurons change (some growing stronger, some weakening). But its not binary phenomena, as "deleted" implies and it's not uncommon for memories to remain but change in character. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow ^{let's rap} I am very surprised that you or anyone else for that matter did not answer the main inquiry. "Brain capacity".... We have an article that claims "It is estimated that the human brain's ability to store memories is equivalent to about 2.5 petabytes of binary data" see link here Void burn (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that from the article because it's from a Scientific American Q&A that cites no source, peer-reviewed or otherwise. Landauer estimated 10⁹ bits of factual memory (not procedural) based on experimental tests of people's recall ability. -- BenRG (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Memories are lossy. Today you call your bank...for the 30 seconds it takes to dial the number, you remember it - but 30 seconds later, it's gone. For a few minutes you remember the name of the guy you talked to and every detail of what he said. An hour later, you recall the important content of the call - but his name is gone. A day later, you recall that you called the bank and at what time, and whatever content mattered. A week later, you recall calling the bank some number of days ago...but when exactly is gone. A month later - you might not recall calling the bank - but the important things you learned from them are still there. A year later, you have no memory of the event at all...it might as well never have happened. A decade later, you don't recall even having an account at that bank.

This is true of everything. More important events stay around longer - the day you got married, the day your kid was born...those exist in some clarity for a long time. My memory of my first day at work at my first job is entirely gone - and I have just a couple of 'snapshots' of my first day in school.

How about an analogy: Think of it like a store of photographs on the hard drive of your computer. If you keep every photo you ever took, it would get full very quickly. So within a few months you decide to delete the ones you don't care about anymore - you go through and delete the ones that had your thumb over the lens, the ones that were out of focus. But what if you did that for years? Eventually, you'd have to start tossing out photos of friends at parties and stuff like that. But after decades, you'd be making hard decisions about throwing out *some* of your wedding photos in order to keep a couple of pictures of your kid's first birthday - and then some of those would need to be erased to make room for his high school graduation. You might get clever and decide to reduce the quality settings and re-save some photos at lower quality so they take up less space. Do that a few times and they gradually get blurry. But, you'd never consider throwing out ALL of your wedding photos - just as your brain will never throw away all memory of that day.

With that kind of strategy, even with a limited amount of storage space, you could keep enough photos at reasonable resolution that are very important to you, plus a good number of lesser importance that you'd store at lower resolution, but some events would simply have to be deleted entirely. But you'd never truly run out of disk space.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is as bad as yours, but that can't be inherent in the brain's design. There are people who can recall everything that happened to them on every day of their lives. All/most young chimpanzees seem to have eidetic short-term memory, versus only a small fraction of human children, so lousy memory might even be a uniquely human trait. -- BenRG (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates of the capacity are based on the total number of synapses. 1 bit per synapse would give about 100 Tbit or 10TB. Some divide it by ten because they think most neurons have other functions. Others have argued that the neurons can select the neurons they connect to, and synapses aren't digital, they can encode more values (I think that was the origin of the 2.5 PB) This article on slate mentions a few estimates, don't know why he concludes that 100 trillion datapoints would equal 100TB and not 100Tbit.

I would argue against the assumption that we have more memory than needed. Evolution would not produce a memory that offers no advantage.

That we can learn new things doesn't necessarily mean we have "unused" storage. All neurons are connected, there's no memory waiting until the rest is filled. It seems logical that memories aren't limited to meaningful connections only, if some combinations of the signals that generate the memory make sense, there will be many others that are meaningless, and the associations created by them will fade away, never used or perceived. In children, such associations could include meaningful connections, like concepts they haven't learned yet.

a similar argument has been used to explain why we have so much memory: "In particular, there are reasons to believe the capacity of our memory systems to store perceptual information may be a critical factor in abstract reasoning. It has been argued, for example, that abstract conceptual knowledge that appears amodal and abstracted from actual experience (25) may in fact be grounded in perceptual knowledge (e.g., perceptual symbol systems; see ref. 26). Under this view, abstract conceptual properties are created on the fly by mental simulations on perceptual knowledge. This view suggests an adaptive significance for the ability to encode a large amount of information in memory: storing large amounts of perceptual information allows abstraction based on all available information, rather than requiring a decision about what information might be necessary at some later point in time (24, 27)." http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14325.full

Sparse distributed memory could explain why we seem to have more memory capacity than needed. Accuracy of recall would depend on the saturation of the memory. Ssscienccce (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How much we can remember is not the same as how many bits it would take to encode the low-level structure of the brain. According to magnetic storage there are "a few hundred" magnetic domains per magnetic region on a hard drive platter. It's not clear to me if each magnetic region is independently readable/writable as a bit, but conservatively guessing that it is, and adding in error correction, you'd get an estimate of several petabytes for the capacity of a modern hard drive. Encoding the analog direction of the field in each domain would take you to ~100 petabytes. But the amount you can actually write to it and read back reliably is <10 TB.

Landauer (who I linked above) got ~10⁹ bits from tests of what people can remember. Brady et al (which you linked) cites Landauer and estimates that (a minimum of) 17.8 bits per image is needed to explain their subjects' performance. The images were presented at intervals of 3.8 s, so that's higher than Landauer's numbers but only by a small factor. -- BenRG (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, storing one bit of data would require more than one synapse, but there are indications from models. These typically give a maximum of about 0.2 - 0.3 bits per synapse (or minimum 3 to 5 synapses per bit) for optimized networks. These models don't take into account noise from the baseline firing rate of the neurons, nor redundancy.

We can come up with some additional requirements like redundant storage (multiple copies in separate locations), redundant connections (multiple synapses, multiple neurons)...

Storing info isn't enough, we also want to recall it. Take for example faces of famous people, and their corresponding names; It's much easier to recall if a given face corresponds to a given name, than it is to recall the name based on the face. We don't have a problem naming ordinary objects. Could be that the synapses are simply better trained, or that more neurons and synapses are involved.

Landauer's estimate (or upper limit) of ~10⁹ seems reasonable, although it's not obvious that those experiments give an accurate idea of how our memory performs in normal life.

At least some people think that old people take more time to recall memories because they simply know more. Could both be result of limited capacity, it certainly makes sense in evolutionary terms. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Namesake vocalization by birds

Hello! Wikipedia articles about birds have a box that summarizes taxonomical information, conservation status, etc., alongside providing a picture and audio. I just came across the eastern whip-poor-will's page and I am intrigued by a caption in the bird's box saying "Namesake vocalization". There seems to be no Wikipedia article explaining what that means. Although one can make a fairly good guess due to the mentioning of the bird name's onomatopoetic origin right at the beginning of the main article's text, I wonder whether there is a way of grouping birds according to that caption. Are there more birds that do namesake vocalizations? I tried to search for more, but failed to adequately perform that search. How to search for more? A list would be very helpful! Kind regards, stovariste — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.183.98 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that could be reduced from "Namesake vocalization" to simply "Vocalization". I'm not sure. (Eastern whip-poor-will) Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting question! Let's break this into two parts for clarity.

1. How to search for this? Eastern_whip-poor-will does say "namesake vocalization", but that's just the caption, not part of the standardized infobox templates. So while searching for "namesake vocalization in the search box technically works, there isn't any easily viewable category of pages that have this kind of content, or pages that are about birds with onomatopoetic names. Most of the search results on [6] are spurious, but it did lead me to Lesser scaup in particular, and the scaups in general, which I think is exactly the kind of thing you're looking for. I don't know how to create categories, but someone here (or at WP:HELP) could probably help us create Category:Birds with namesake vocalizations or Category:Birds with onomatopoetic names. Once the category is created, it's easy to include a page in the category, you just put a little link at the bottom of each page.

2. What other birds have onomatopoetic names? A few I know of: the Chickadees and the Towhees definitely count. Not clear on if e.g. screech owl fits a strict definition of onomatopoetic names, as we don't just call them "screeches" and "owl" is not onomatopoetic. Humming birds is surely named from the sound, but it's a sonation, not a vocalization, but I'll list is as being somewhat relevant.

I'm not sure, but I don't think "namesake vocalization" is all that standard of a terminology among either birders or ornithologists. Sure, it has some use, but (in my opinion, WP:OR) this google search [7] would have far more relevant hits if the terminology were fairly standard.

Finally, though our audio content is variable in coverage and quality, the Cornell Ornithology lab has the very nice "all about birds" website and database that you can use to listen to calls that we don't have here on WP. Here is their page on Eastern Towhees [8]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_onomatopoeias#Animal_and_bird_names reminded me of killdeer, and also has a few others I didn't know - like Dodo - though that one is more of a hypothesis than a known fact... SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In England we have Yaffle, an archaic country name popularised by a children's television series. Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We also have the cuckoo and crow, which I would venture to say are more widely known… ‑ iridescent 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for the comments and rich discussion! The list of onomatopoetic animal and bird names is definitely helpful, I wasn't aware of it! Let me argue that calling a sound a namesake vocalization is much more precise than saying that an animal has a onomatopoetic name. First, one is not left with guessing which sound or vocalization has given rise to the name. Second, a namesake vocalization conveys that the name is not entirely deformed by historic (diachronical) processes. The classic example here is the English word pigeon, which, according to Saussure, is derived from Latin pipio which, in turn, is derived from yet another precursor which finally would lead to its onomatopoetic origin. I mean, even if a namesake vocalization is a concept that cannot be backed by original research whatsoever, it seems worthwhile establishing ... ahoy! --Stovariste (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke Mars now, ask me how.

Isn't Mars being hit by 5 Megatons of nuclear powered radiation every second already? Hcobb (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the point is?--Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What could human action reasonably add to that? To just match that rate use up all of our nukes in less than half an hour. Hcobb (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Elon Musk's proposal. Well think about Earth for a second. We're hit by about 10¹⁷ watts of solar energy every second, or on the order of 25 megatons of TNT every second. Yet you would notice if even a kiloton-range nuke detonated over your home. The idea is to put a concentrated amount of energy right at the poles, instead of spread across the planet. This concentration of energy, which does not happen naturally, would (in Elon Musk's estimation) vaporize enough water to give Mars something of an atmosphere. I'm not equipped to address the feasibility of the idea myself. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse effect, although risky on earth and a disaster on Venus, would be vital to the process of terraforming Mars, as Carl Sagan wrote a few decades ago. Presumably there's more than one way to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's "proposal" was made during his appearance last Wednesday on The Late Show. Video and transcript are here: Elon Musk on Tesla, SpaceX and Mars Terraforming, with the Mars part starting at 02:17. It is possible that he mentioned this "fast way" of terrafromnig as a joke (playing into Colbert's "You're a super villian" theme), and he gave no indication of the number and yield of nuclear devices necessary or if he had even read a study that offers any such numbers. We have the article Terraforming of Mars, but it does not mention the nuclear option. -- ToE 10:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, our general Terraforming article does mention Martyn J. Fogg and his book Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments (1995), and one of his proposals [disclosure: I'm a friend of his and have the book] was to detonate (large-scale) nuclear explosives in (presumed) subterranean (sub-arenean?) carbonate rock deposits in order to return to the atmosphere their considerable CO₂ and H₂O content. Fogg however emphasised that this would be problematic if colonists or scientific bases were already present. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Fogg's The Terraforming Information Pages (included in Terraforming#External links) includes a Zubrin & McKay 1993 paper Technological Requirements for Terraforming Mars which includes a section "Activating the Hydrosphere" that states: Activating the Martian hydrosphere in a timely fashion will require doing some violence to the planet, and, as discussed above, one way this can be done is with targeted asteroidal impacts. Each such impact releases the energy equivalent of 10 TW-yrs. If Plowshare methods of shock treatment for Mars are desired, then the use of such projectiles is certainly to be preferred to the alternative option [4] of detonation of hundreds of thousands of thermonuclear explosives. After all, even if so much explosive could be manufactured, its use would leave the planet unacceptably radioactive. (With footnote four being Fogg's 1992 "A Synergic Approach to Terraforming Mars".) -- ToE 18:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it's better to leave the water sequestered at the poles for future colonist to mine, rather than have an extremely thin water vapor content in the air, mixed with radioactive isotopes. I don't see the entire planet being terraformed anytime soon (unlike in the movie Total Recall, where the Martians apparently designed a system capable of terraforming Mars in 30 seconds, but forgot to hit the on button). However, greenhouses full of growing plants might be possible. StuRat (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if we're discussing SF solutions, manipulate an ice asteroid to crash on Mars, like in Niven's Protector (novel).Sjö (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't solve the gravity problem. Mars is smaller than earth. It seems we could equate an earth altimeter that would equal the residual atmosphere on Mars. I suspect the equivalent altirude very high and thin and earth doesn't grow much at that altitude (but it's dry, has ice, etc - think Himalayas) . If we did warm up the atmosphere, it would simply escape to space until temperature and density return to the current steady state. --DHeyward (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a claim that the Moon could hold an atmosphere for 100,000 years - though I can't find it now and in any case, because of the scale height, it would have to be one hell of an atmosphere (going really high up). Not sure if you'd have to give it a decent spin and a magnetic field for that number, either. But Mars is thought to have naturally held an atmosphere for some time during its early development. Indeed, I've seen claims that the planet is in something of an Ice Age now, with the brines frozen that might at other times be apparent as flowing liquid. Note that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, so warming the water already present ought to provide some increase in greenhouse warming. Methane is a much better greenhouse gas, and a component of some of the objects that might be lobbed in Mars' direction. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fogg's book (see above) demonstrated that once created, a breathable pressure atmosphere would persist for hundreds of thousands of years before needing replenishment, by which time we'd likely come up with ways to do so. A "revived" atmosphere might have the wrong proportions of gasses, but that could be answered by a simple scuba-like apparatus provided the atmospheric pressure was sufficient to obviate the need for whole-body pressure suits.

There are also questions about whether Mars' surface gravity is sufficient to keep humans healthy. Investigation by the Mars Society have suggested that the lower limit is around 1/3g, putting Mars at 0.38g near the limit, but this is a very difficult matter to research. See Colonization of Mars for more details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one big problem with the gravity is that in order to pile 15 pounds of air on a square inch ... you need to pile up almost three times as much air. So though the planet has only 28% the area of Earth, you need the better part of a full Earth's atmosphere of air to dump onto it to get the pressure you want. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't necessarily need the full sea-level 15psi. At the peak of Everest its a tad under 5psi, but pressure suits are unnecessary there: see Armstrong limit for some relevant data. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.81.139 (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could dogs evolve language?

Most people prefer pets that "connect" with us, and many pet owners talk constantly to their dogs. That's lead to a possible preference for linguistically competent dogs. Could it be that we are artificially making dogs evolve to understand human language? Could we breed dogs to understand human language better on purpose? --Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've been breeding dogs to get better at understanding us (and vice versa) for a long time now. See Dog_communication, Dog#Intelligence.2C_behavior_and_communication. selective breeding, Human–animal_communication and Interspecies_communication. As to your last question, I think we already have bred our dogs to improve their understanding of human communication, if not "language" in the strict sense. See Dog_behavior#Behavior_compared_to_other_canids for some other examples of this. There are many decently good claims to showing that specific dogs understand specific words, and various other "linguistic" accomplishments [9] [10] [11]. It's probably too far to say that current dogs understand a human language well, but I think WP:OR it's safe to say that some dogs have behavior consistent with understanding of some aspects of human language, some aspects of gaze, some aspects of emotion. At some point this gets philosophical, but my answer to your first question is "yes" and the second is "probably." For some interesting context on domestication experiments, see also Domesticated_silver_fox, which is still ongoing! SemanticMantis (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course dogs could evolve language...so could frogs and ants. The future of evolution is entirely unpredictable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: the topic here is artificial evolution, not natural evolution. I don't believe it is unpredictable, but there are obviously some constrains.--Jubilujj 2015 (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what you are talking about is selective breeding rather than natural selection, but DrChrissy's point still stands, because it is not as easy to isolate the influence of different selective forces as you may assume. Ignoring the "sci-fi" possibility of genetic engineering (which may indeed be a possibility in areas like this in the not-too-distant future), an experiment designed to grant dogs "true" linguistic capability through only selective breeding would likely run on the order of tens of thousands of years at minimum, if not massively longer, slowly improving the relevant neurophysiology one iteration/generation at a time. That's a long time to assume that other selective pressures wouldn't be involved. It also implies giving dogs a certain level of awareness and inviting them into the "cognitive niche", the consequences of which are impossible to predict. So really, Doc's answer is as close to as reliable as you are likely to get on this highly speculative question.

Is it is possible dogs (or any species) could give way to an evolutionary path that results in an independent evolution of complex natural language? The answer is clearly yes, because it happened once already. But asking for the exact likelihood with regard to any given species strains the predictive capabilities of even the most knowledgeable expert, and I think that was DC's point. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Funniest Home Videos has showed a dog saying I want my mama! still very dog sounding but uncannily well pronounced and English-like. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that communication isn't limited to spoken language. Dogs seem to be one of the few non-human animals that understand pointing, for example. Some are even bred to point, to silently communicate the location of prey animals. StuRat (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would a dog that evolved to the point it could talk still be considered a dog? RJFJR (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "talk". If they could hold an intelligent conversation with a person, that would require major changes to their brains, and that would make them a new species. On the other hand, if they just learn to mimic a few words, like many birds can, that's not so remarkable. Note that a bird saying "Polly want a cracker" doesn't know it is named Polly, a cracker is the thing it eats, and what "want" means. It just knows when it makes that sounds it gets a nice treat. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, dogs and cats do not decode the letters of the voice. But they get information about felling and condition very precise told of the sound. Angy, lucky, proud and so on, much animal species gets it well, some from long distance, when even hear anybodys voice. The meaning of you words is beeing recognized as a noise and your behavior. Are you talking to the animal which knows what will happen when hearing this (v/n)oice or are you taking to somebody else. When changing voice of mood, the animal just detects similarities but does not expect or relay on the same meaning and consequences. If the animals name's sound is not part of another part of your used words sound, it triggers the animals attention if you are watching it or not. If the same sound it is part other speech, you need to focus the animal. If you call your resting cat by its name, see its tail beginning to move. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 17:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs have been bred to express behaviors that exist in wolves. Pointing, barking, herding, etc, etc, can all be found in wolves. The traits humans reward are submission and specific behaviors that already exist. The interesting thing is that if all the purebred dogs are released and become "wild", the mutt converges to a specific size but it's not a wolf. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I attribute that to feral dogs occupying a different ecological niche than wolves. While wolves form packs to take down large prey, and thus need to be fairly large themselves, feral dogs are more likely to scavenge landfills, etc. As such, they don't need to be as big, and, if they were big, they would need more food, and, living that close to a city, people might feel threatened and kill them. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]