Hic Hic Hooray: Hiccups Explained

Anonymous Hero writes "Finally after millions of years (and zillions of hiccups) New Scientist gives us an explanation for this most annoying and least obvious of adaptations!"

Comments

This is an idea - a theory, for goodness sake!

[anomaly]

The article seems to indicate that this is a concept - something that may have arisen from brainstorming, and may not be backed up by any data at all!!

This "explanation" is apparently supported by the thinnest of threads in terms of evolutionary history, and hard evidence is not presented to back this claim. This does not stop the Slashdot editors from posting this as "stuff that matters."

Please let the brainstormers check their ideas with research, show correlation, then causation, then present their findings in a way that can be checked by others.

This hypothesis, if you can call it that, is not tested and is perhaps not testable.
Why this reflex motion a) exists at all, and b) why it persists, if it descende from the frog may only be fodder for spectulation.

Science requires more than mere speculation.

Phooey.

Anomaly

Re:This is an idea - a theory, for goodness sake!

[nanojath]

I think you're being overly hard on the idea proposed in this article and overly optimistic about the function of Slashdot. The point of the article is that this is an interesting hypothesis that fits known facts and eliminates some of the problems of other theories that have been proposed. Although it will be, as one scientist notes, very difficult to prove, the scientists proposing the theory do in fact suggest how they might pursue experimental evidence in support of their hypothesis.

Does it "matter?" I think this article is fascinating. The suggestion that specific adaptations might persist beyond their usefulness to an organism because they form a foundation for later adaptations raises really interesting questions about how complex neurological behaviors are "built up" in organisms, and research in this territory could lead to a greater understanding of the line between inherited and learned behaviors, and the evolution of neurological response. That's cutting edge.

Science is indeed more than speculation but science begins with speculation, hypothesis, and theory. When I want hard science news I go to the resources in the scientific community, I read my Chemical and Engineering News magazines. 95 percent of what I read there is so dry and technical it would be pointless to post it on Slashdot.

"Münchnones, or mesoionic 1,3-oxazolium-5-oxides, are versatile substrates for 1,3-dipolar additions in constructing biologically active heterocycles. They usually are made by multistep synthesis, but now, Bruce A. Arndtsen, an associate professor of chemistry at McGill University, Montreal, and coworkers have come up with an easier way [J. Am. Chem. Soc., 125, 1474 (2003)]."

That's "real" science reporting. And it is definately more groundbreaking, in the immediate sense, than an article speculating about hiccups. But there is nothing wrong with a "color" science article that makes me think and wonder and dream a little bit about larger issues.