Basic Biology

Hey everyone, I'm not a physicist by any stretch but was wondering about this this morning. If an object has a higher density than water, will it sink if there is zero gravity? I'm mostly just curious about the effects of gravity in water.

I want to go with dolphins. If only they had arms... some scientists are trying to build software that can allow us to understand dolphins. Its a long way off, they have so far managed to translate one word. It would be a crazy world if we could actually communicate with other species. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.U6QeILFqPKc

So would you say that the temperature of fluid and liquid would have little to nil effect on the rate of digestion?

Better evidence than anyone else so far, but reaction rates are increased with changes in temperature within this scale. Think about boiling an egg, the difference in the stability of proteins is massive between room temperature and boiling temp.

From my days as an athlete, we were always told not to drink cold water straight after training because supposedly it upset your stomach and I have to agree with the idea from personal experience. I realise that is is not very scientific evidence though. I would think that the enzymes and bacteria in our guts work within a temperature optimum and temporarily lowering or raising the temperature in our guts too far either way would reduce the rate of digestion.

I am planning an experiment that attempts to prevent bacterial infections via wound sites of plants by covering the wounds with air tight sealants but wasn't sure if plants require oxygen for their wounds to be healed properly? If anyone knows anything about this I would appreciate your comments, and any literature on the topic would be great. Thanks

I'm not aware of any tests for baldness genes. It is a genetic trait but I'm not sure if baldness genes have been isolated. Maybe someone else could elaborate...

Its a snowflake moray eel, Echidna nebulosa. Its a common aquarium species

It really is a matter of how much food the human population requires and how much we can sustainably provide. I don't have those numbers but I would be surprised if we are currently managing to that with our current use of resources and technology but that's not to say that it isn't possible.

What determines maximum tree height isn't known for sure but I believe the most popular hypothesis for maximum height is the hydraulic limitation hypothesis proposed by Ryan et al. in 1997. The hypothesis basically proposes that height is limited because resistance for water transport up the tree increases with height and gravity increases with height. Leaves require a certain amount of water to maintain functioning properly. If water supply is too low then leaves are unable to photosynthesize enough to produce excess energy for further growth in height. I think that's pretty much the gist of it.

I'm not sure if you were being serious or not but "dangerous wild animals, such as wolves, elephants and polar bears" can be a vital part of healthy ecosystems, ecosystems that we depend on for our survival.

OK, but if you consider that the many species, not just polar bears, are endangered because of our actions and that a lack of action to save them will inevitably lead to their extinction, do you not think that we have an inherent responsibility to do what we can to protect them? I'm not arguing that we should move polar bears to Antarctica, but I am concerned by the idea of simply leaving species to sort themselves out in the hope that they can adapt to their new environment that we have so kindly altered for them... We've put the world's flora and fauna in a position where many species simply cannot sustain their populations. Plus we have altered the climate so that optimal habitat conditions are no longer present in the historical locations where species thrived. I struggle with the idea that we just leave species in the hope that they adapt to their new environment or migrate into new, more suitable habitats, when it is our fault that they are in this situation in the first place and we have the ability to help them. Or is that just life? We've made our bed, now the rest of the world's biota must sleep in it. Survival of the fittest.

Who doesn't like penguins? Just to make it clear, I don't actually think we should move polar bears to Antarctica. That is just the most extreme example of assisted migration that has been proposed. Save the polar bears from melting ice caps by moving them to Antarctica

As we enter a period of time where predicted changes regarding global climate patterns are huge and many ecosystems are expected to fail to adapt to their new environment, should we be assisting our plants and animals into new locations where they are better equipped to handle the climatic conditions? Changes in the distribution of plants and animals have already been observed in a number of ecosystems. Many plants are predicted not to be able to disperse into new areas fast enough to survive the predicted climatic changes over the coming century. The loss of habitat will undoubtedly have significant ramifications for native wildlife around the world. The idea of assisted migration assumes that our ecological understandings of plants and animals are good enough to predict the outcome of intentionally moving exotic species into new environments. The concept also assumes that our predictions on global climate changes will be correct. History can warn us of the risks associated with falling victim to our egos and believing we understand the processes that govern the natural world and how nature will react to our interference. Are we playing with fire? Or are the predicted losses too high not to take action?