Especially it's right under the part about sperm.SharedProphet said:There are so many ways to get into trouble responding to this. : )Lauren Admire said:Lauren Admire wonders how the primordial soup tasted.
Well, I'm not so certain that replicating the "Experiment" and creating new species would be a good idea. It's dangerous to tamper with things beyond our understanding. Even if we figure out how life started on Earth, we'd still be a long way from understanding life completely.Visulth said:Agh, don't say that! Unfortunately that's the mind set of a lot of biology professors and researchers; the majority of them don't really care how organic materials first formed on Earth. They just start off with the assumption and continue with the RNA-world hypothesis.Demonraiser said:Well, it is interesting.....but what the hell is the point about learning where we came from? why not concentrate on the Future, which could actually affect us in a significant way.
Don't you find it interesting? If we know how life started on Earth we'd be better able to predict which kinds of planets to expect extra-terrestrial life. Unlike sci-fi shows we can't just whip up a "Life Signs Detector" and see life from spaceships.
Furthermore, knowing how life started on Earth would allow us to replicate the "Experiment" and create new life of our own. We'd be able to add our own selection pressures, and who knows, we could be creating new species!
We don't even have to be searching for life as we know it. There's an entire subset of "Link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile]Visulth said:Agh, don't say that! Unfortunately that's the mind set of a lot of biology professors and researchers; the majority of them don't really care how organic materials first formed on Earth. They just start off with the assumption and continue with the RNA-world hypothesis.Demonraiser said:Well, it is interesting.....but what the hell is the point about learning where we came from? why not concentrate on the Future, which could actually affect us in a significant way.
Don't you find it interesting? If we know how life started on Earth we'd be better able to predict which kinds of planets to expect extra-terrestrial life. Unlike sci-fi shows we can't just whip up a "Life Signs Detector" and see life from spaceships.
Furthermore, knowing how life started on Earth would allow us to replicate the "Experiment" and create new life of our own. We'd be able to add our own selection pressures, and who knows, we could be creating new species!
It doesn't split, it takes both paths. Simultaneously. I know it doesn't make sense, but that's quantum mechanics for you.f0re1gn said:I didn't quite get it - so the light just splits there? Or does it somehow create another beam which goes in the other direction o.o
As far as I remember from our cell biology course - there was only one beam. Interesting)
Ah, I forgot they mentioned superpositions in there. The same way Schrodinger's cat works, the energy is in two positions at the same time (until we find out, where exactly - according to Schrodinger's theory)Squaseghost said:It doesn't split, it takes both paths. Simultaneously. I know it doesn't make sense, but that's quantum mechanics for you.f0re1gn said:I didn't quite get it - so the light just splits there? Or does it somehow create another beam which goes in the other direction o.o
As far as I remember from our cell biology course - there was only one beam. Interesting)
Haven't heard of that Chimerism theory before, pretty interesting.Epoetker said:The 'kin selection' theory of homosexuality was always a form of far too special pleading for me. I happen to like the chimeric theory:
http://www.welmer.org/2008/07/14/the-chimera-hypothesis-homosexuality-and-plural-pregnancy/
This one handily explains homosexuality, its variants, its differing expression in man and woman, and why it remains impervious to evolution-because it's NOT 'genetic' so much as what happens when a man's female twin gets genetically absorbed into the developing brain. This absorption, of course, happens all the time:
They actually bring up why they focused on Samoan fa'afafine in the study - Samoan families are very tight-knit and have extended families, whereas Western families tend to be more individualistic and homophobic. For a study focused on kin selection, they would naturally have more data/open mindedness in Samoa, but at the same time, it's hard to extend the study results to a broad selection of homosexual behavior.Whispering Death said:RE: fa'afafine survey experiment
Transexuality and homosexuality are quite different. The fa'afafine are transexual, men who identify at a young age as feminine. Furthermore, the fact that the fa'afafine are a cultural phenomenon with lots of cultural and societal behaviors attached to them. So I find the research and conclusions spurious at best.
Why not just survey gay men and women? We make up between 2-6% of the human population depending on what survey you believe. The rates are pretty constant across all societal, cultural, and geographic lines. You don't have to go to the jungles of an Asian country to survey homosexuals in their 'natural habitat'. You can just do a wide survey with a large sample size across the globe which will factor out any variation for cultural or societal factors to see if there's anything else in common with the way gay people are wired other than their sexual orientation -- my guess: no more so than people with black skin color or blonde hair.
Thanks for the link - reading it now. It's fascinating.Epoetker said:The 'kin selection' theory of homosexuality was always a form of far too special pleading for me. I happen to like the chimeric theory:
http://www.welmer.org/2008/07/14/the-chimera-hypothesis-homosexuality-and-plural-pregnancy/
This one handily explains homosexuality, its variants, its differing expression in man and woman, and why it remains impervious to evolution-because it's NOT 'genetic' so much as what happens when a man's female twin gets genetically absorbed into the developing brain. This absorption, of course, happens all the time:
http://multiples.about.com/cs/medicalissues/a/vanishingtwin.htm
I'm guessing, however, that it's not as scientifically 'sexy' because it involves the unspoken assumption of: 'You're gay? KILL THE GAY GUY HE ATE HIS SISTER IN THE WOMB!!!'
However, since it both jibes with twin studies and handily explains why it would be evolutionarily selected for (i.e., a woman who has more twins is more evolutionarily successful, but more likely to have gay children occasionally,) I submit it whenever I hear about this silly photogenic family-and-marketing-friendly 'kin selection' business. Truths are usually ugly, harsh and disturbing, thank you very much.
There are no problems with it because it is HAWT.(the article makes no mention of female homosexuality)