←back to thread

How the cochlea computes (2024)

(www.dissonances.blog)
475 points izhak | 1 comments | 30 Oct 25 17:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
shermantanktop ◴[30 Oct 25 18:16 UTC] No.45763231[source]▶
The thesis about human speech occupying less crowded spectrum is well aligned with a book called "The Great Animal Orchestra" (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Animal-Orchestra-Finding-Origin...).

That author details how the "dawn chorus" is composed of a vast number of species making noise, but who are able to pick out mating calls and other signals due to evolving their vocalizations into unique sonic niches.

It's quite interesting but also a bit depressing as he documents the decline in intensity of this phenomenon with habitat destruction etc.

replies(2): >>45763694 #>>45764491 #
kulahan ◴[30 Oct 25 19:49 UTC] No.45764491[source]▶
Probably worth mentioning that as evolutions that allow them to compete well in nature die out, ones that allow them to compete well in cities takes their place. Evolution is always a series of tradeoffs.

Maybe we don't have sonic variation, but temporal instead.

replies(2): >>45765460 #>>45766544 #
jibal ◴[30 Oct 25 23:16 UTC] No.45766544[source]▶
The dying out of birds "in nature" and the adaptations to cities are largely independent as they occur in different populations.
replies(1): >>45767161 #
kulahan ◴[31 Oct 25 00:43 UTC] No.45767161[source]▶
It's about filling open niches. City birds were an open niche for a long time. The ones who adapted to handle that better are thriving in better population numbers than those which can only survive with 13 specific types of trees.

Even still, among the populations of birds not adapting to the city, they are being forcibly adapted in other ways. If the reach is too big, they die.

This is how evolution works, and has always worked. The world shifts, and those who can handle it thrive, while those who can't, suffer. It's the reason mammals are running the planet today when it was lizards just a couple million years ago.

replies(2): >>45769100 #>>45776194 #
didroe ◴[31 Oct 25 06:58 UTC] No.45769100[source]▶
The problem is that evolution works on a much longer timescale than the pace of change to the environment that humans cause.
replies(2): >>45771987 #>>45773882 #
paulgerhardt ◴[31 Oct 25 13:52 UTC] No.45771987[source]▶
While I understand the spirit of this comment, if you look at the fossil record you’ll see that’s objectively not true.

Roughly half of the shifts in the last 11 evolutionary periods, over the last 500 million years, were caused by changes that occurred in a-few-hours-to-a-few-thousand-years with 75%-90% species lost.

Evolution did not fail to work then.

replies(2): >>45775667 #>>45776330 #
1. jibal ◴[31 Oct 25 20:26 UTC] No.45776330[source]▶
You are tautologically saying that massive shifts resulted from massive changes, but that doesn't contradict the statement about evolution--which is about far more than such "shifts" (not an aspect of nature but rather changes large enough for humans to perceive)--operating over long time periods. Every single instance of offspring is a "shift" from its progenitors.

Also talking about evolution failing to work is a category mistake--evolution is an ongoing process that is the inevitable result of imperfectly replicating biological mechanisms and there's no "succeed" or "fail" about it.