Paralith

Counting myself, I can think of seven female science forum members off the top of my head, only one of which I ever saw use a picture of a famous woman as her icon, but that same person also rotated her icons fairly often and used her own face as often as she did someone else's.

Lance, I think any woman who actively participates in online science forums is a special kind of woman. We are a very small subset of a very large population, and I think perhaps it's not the best idea to make assumptions about any of us....especially when the person in question isn't actually a woman.

But if the punishment is intended for the woman, why put the baby at risk too? And by putting the mother at risk you automatically put the baby at risk. It's not just the pain, it's the real danger of injury and death to both.

I already am a beautiful woman. I don't need a different beautiful woman to represent me on an online forum. I am not, however, a sweet little lab mouse. I want to know why God made women give birth out of the tiny space between their legs, risking the lives of both mother and child at every birth, and not through the wide open bone-free abdominal wall. Is this some sort of original sin punishment? I know women are supposed to go through the pain of childbirth, but put the innocent baby at risk too? And at high risk of dying if its mom dies?

Well, isn't the technical definition of a polymer something that is made up of multiple units? As long as we're talking about a chain of at least two or more amino acids, I would say you have a polymer. I've never heard of a minimum length requirement beyond 2.

Yes. A peptide basically is a protein, though usually it's used to refer to one segment of a functional protein or the pieces leftover from a partially degraded protein. But it's still a string of amino acids, and thus, a polymer.

I thought the increased temperature of a fever was a result of the inflammatory reaction of your immune system. I don't think it's an actual defense mechanism, considering you can die if your fever goes too high. Your fever goes down when your immune system begins to "relax" as it were, having gotten the pathogens in your body to a more controllable level. To the OP, at a certain temperature many of the proteins and other molecules your body depends on for survival change shape and no longer function the way they are supposed to. oops, beat by Mokele. Interesting - though you would think that common pathogens would since have evolved to be able to function at the higher temperatures as well. Well, I would think that.

My apologies, I stand corrected. That's pretty interesting. In that case I don't see why you wouldn't exchange bacteria especially living in close contact the way you do. I searched for a few papers and it seems to me it's only a certain family of bacteria, so finding ways to kill specific strains and not others would probably be pretty difficult - they're all probably similar in their environmental requirements. Using something like bleach will kill EVERYTHING, not just one thing. Again, it's probably not that hers have completely taken over, but rather that the two of you have mixed your populations.

Body odour consists of many more things than just bacteria; in fact, I don't think I've ever heard that bacteria is a main cause of it all. Your personal smell is probably much more an affect of your hormones and the food you eat. (People who eat large amounts of garlic will start to smell more like garlic.) Your wife and you now share the same microenvironment - you eat the same food, you use the same bathroom, you sleep in the same bed, your clothes get washed together. She probably doesn't smell the same as she used to either. Men's baseline testosterone levels also decrease as they enter into long term relationships.

There are more differences between the X and Y than just length. Actual sequences are different. The Y chromosome contains SRY, the male sex determining gene, that initiates the signal cascade that causes the undifferentiated genital ridge to be come testes. The X chromosome does not have this gene.

Hmm. The main problem with this is that pathogens respond directly to immune status, not by some proxy signal. Stress is not a signal but acutally weakens the immune system (by diverting energy away from the immune system and to other systems in preparation for fight or flight), and it's that immune system weakness that allows the pathogen to activate - otherwise, the immune system would be keeping it in check.

That's because "classical" zoology and botany is merely cataloging - what's out there, what's it look like, where's it live, etc. "Classical" naturalists merely observe, they don't form hypotheses or test anything, which is where real science is these days (even if what you're testing is the nature of your observations).

Good biological research depends a lot on mathematics, especially when it comes to statistical testing. Also, understanding biological systems really requires an understanding of chance and probability - thanks to things like environmental variation and mutation, the reality is that few things are absolutes. There are lots of areas where mathematical modeling is being used to understanding organic systems - everything from genetics and proteomics to weather and ecosystems to the evolution of sociality and mortality - as CharonY says, you really could go on and on. Just pick an area and you'll probably be able to find someone doing modeling-based research in that area.

I also endorse Sisyphus. The phenotype of homosexuality is most likely the combined result of a suite of genes related to gender identity and sexuality, and environmental factors experienced while developing and growing up. In fact, these studies show that one of the best demographic predictors for homosexuality in a male is the number of older brothers he has. One of the suggested theories behind it is related to kin selection - if there are already a lot of males in the family, competition for mates and resources (especially paternal inheritance, which tends to go to the oldest brother anyway) is going to be high. In that case it may be better to be homosexual, and aid your brothers in raising their offspring, and raise your indirect fitness as opposed to your direct fitness. Unfortunately I couldn't get the full text on this one, but here's a review article on the causes of homosexuality - the evidence for a genetic component is pretty solid at this point.

1. Until a better understanding of the nature of intelligence is acquired, I am unable to accept most conclusions (like the OP's) that are based on our existing, incomplete knowledge of intelligence. 2. Even considering our current definition of intelligence, the support for the premise that higher circulating androgen levels results in greater intelligence across both genders is dubious at best. As that it the second basis of the OP's conclusions, I doubly do not accept them. Provide us with more sources addressing those two points and you might get taken slightly more seriously.

Indeed. If evidence in support of "something huge" that we were previously unaware of is found, then it will be given all due attention, and if it calls for a change in existing theory, then the change will be made. But what we've been telling you in this thread is based on all the evidence we have, and that is no small amount.

I'm sorry BlackPower, but you are using arguments like those of creationists, whether or not that is your intention. My apologies if I offend, but the creationist argument is based on ignorance and a failure to consider all the evidence. You do not appear to have a good background in evolution and the huge, I repeat huge body of evidence body of evidence supporting it and the conclusions drawn from it, such as the fact that humans and modern apes share a common ancestor. And in fact, biologists are not closed minded. Our understanding of evolution has advanced and changed significantly from the time it was first formulated, because we took into consideration new evidence and knowledge every time such things were found.

The body evidence supporting the existence of a common ancestor between chimpanzees/bonobos and humans approximately 6 - 7 million years ago is large and stemming from multiple fields of analysis. If nothing else, do a search on hominid fossils and you'll find an average progression of forms leading up to anatomically modern humans. I suggest you start actually reading all of the responses given to you, since several of us have indeed answered your question. No, we are not missing something huge. Aliens did not come down and genetically engineer us or anything like that.

Universal shoulder joint, relatively short lumbar region, no tail, broad ribcage - looks like an ape to me.

The body evidence supporting the existence of a common ancestor between chimpanzees/bonobos and humans approximately 6 - 7 million years ago is large and stemming from multiple fields of analysis. If nothing else, do a search on hominid fossils and you'll find an average progression of forms leading up to anatomically modern humans.

With the way you mix and match all your various metaphors and analogies it's very hard to puzzle out exactly what you're trying to say, but let me take a stab at it: One day, somebody said, "You know, we need to lay down the law of what is good and what is evil." So this person laid down the laws and said they came from the mythical tree of knowledge. But some other people tried to get around these laws, and in the process of trying to prevent them from doing so, the laws got more complicated as time went on. If that's what you're saying, then I have some questions for you. 1. Why did that first person decide we needed laws of good and evil? 2. Why did that person use the myth of a tree of knowledge to help spread those laws? 3. What was so bad about these laws that made other people try to get around them?

Well, you can always look at animals that seem to be on the border of such a transition - bears, for example, came from carnivorous ancestors and still partake in frequent carnivory; but they are omnivorous, and will eat a large variety of plant foods as well. Another example is the palm civet, another omnivore from a carnivorous ancestor. Probably the best example, though, is the kinkajou, also from a carnivorous ancestor, but depends primarily on fruit for its diet. It does still eat some insects and an occasional bird, but fruit is the main component.

Wait. This just flies in the face of your previous paragraph. Now you're saying traits that evolved later and according to you are advanced and better do not have a selective advantage? This makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What? Human women are second class to dinosaurs? If you're trying to make some kind of metaphor or analogy, it's not working very well, especially considering your immediately prior references to cold blooded animals. No it wouldn't, Pioneer. If a research scientist wanted to accurately gauge the average intelligence of a given species or a given gender in that species, then they would take into account confounding environmental conditions and make as accurate judgments as possible. What is it you're trying to say? That science is incapable of determining when genetic change does and does not occur? Firstly: please do not use analogies and metaphors and terms like "history fossils." They only bemuddle and confuse whatever point it is you're trying to make. Your arguments lose credibility drastically when it seems like you're incapable of making a concise and clearly understood point without resorting to vague analogies and terms you invented yourself. Secondly: you're saying that by looking at historical information alone, scientists would conclude that women were not as smart as men. You're talking about written records by people, cultural artifacts which every archaeologist knows are tainted by the beliefs and biases of the people who wrote them and are limited in the amount of actual, reliable, biological information they contain. Human cultural artifacts and written history are not equivalent to fossil and biological evidence. This type of evidence reveals actual patterns and phenomona that did in fact exist at one point in time. And yes, based on spotty information sometimes incorrect deductions are made, but science is always open to change and adjustment based on new evidence found from multiple different disciplines, not just those of archaeology and paleontology. Pioneer, you are in no position to berate other members. You have consistently shown a lack of understanding of basic biology, and have consistently displayed a lack of effort to update your understanding. A debate with you is not an actual debate but a biology lesson with a stubborn student.

I don't see why you're restricting this to "higher" lifeforms. Life has been "active" for a long time - because those that were more active in gaining reproductive success spread their genes better than those who didn't. But then again, even mammals "chance across the right conditions." When the ancestors of new world monkeys somehow got across the ocean to south america, there was an explosive speciative radiation - probably because there was nothing there for them to compete with. When the ancestors of lemurs somehow got to Madagascar, they also experience a huge radiation, probably for similar reasons. The same for when the ancestor of Darwin's finches got blown to the Galapgos islands. I was not directing it to you. It was directed to Pioneer. I had hoped the extra space between the two sections of my post would make it clear to whom each was addressed. My apologies for the confusion.

Repeated for emphasis.