Mokele

Yes, condoms *do* prevent STDs, both viral and bacterial. They're not 100%, but nothing ever is, even vaccines and antibiotics. The only exceptions are those diseases which can *also* be spread via other means, such as oral herpes or HPV.

Welcome to reality. Really? You can give me a little box that, using purely empirical measures, will light up green for "human" and red for "not human"? Because otherwise all people have done is come up with personal, subjective, arbitrary definitions that have no grounding in outside reality. Since it's got human DNA and is recognizably human, you consider a fetus with anencephaly to be human? Even though it's got nothing more than a brain stem? False comparison and dishonest tactics. Neglecting the mother in this is a standard trick from pro-lifers, and I will not tolerate it. I'd be mostly pro-life if humans laid eggs. But we don't. The ENTIRE issue is due to the fact that the mother is involved too, yet you simply ignore the fully, undoubtedly human individual to focus on a possibly, maybe, someday human. Because there are situations in which that simply cannot work. What if you're 4 months along, and suddenly you lose your job and entire financial support network, and will be utterly incapable of raising a kid? Sucks to be you? That *is* taking sides. You're DENYING people the choice. Really? Condoms prevent rape? Um, yes, they do. Yeah, that whole 70%+ of the public supporting this bill will really put some pressure on. Oh, wait, sorry, wrong numbers - 70%+ support it *with a public option*. The numbers are even higher without. Yes, once you learn to make rubber, then rape, birth defects, medical complications, domestic abuse, and child abuse all magically vanish, just like in the US. Oh, wait..... If I give money to a chairity, they're robbing me? You seem to mis-understand this whole "democracy" thing.

What logic? There's no logic. There's only an assumption, with no empirical basis, about the start of personhood. Why should the law force everyone to adhere to your view, rather than letting people decide for themselves? And if the parents wanted their kids neutered? That's OK with you? Let's say you and I agree to build a supercomputer at home. One day we meet and collaborate to decide the specifications. Then, for the next nine months, I drop my job to part-time, spend all of the money for components, and do all of the work. Unfortunately, this results in too much economic hardship for me, and I call it off and decide to sell it. If I decide to sell it, why should you get any say in it? You didn't contribute anything except the plans - I did all the actual work, put in all the money, and it's my economic future it's damaging. Same thing. Why should you get any say over her body? Especially if she's the one taking all the costs. Oh, and nice strawman, so I'll repeat it more clearly for you - find me a single case where a woman has terminated a third-trimester pregnancy to 'get back at a man'. So you never step on bugs? "Life" is not a metric of personhood. Cells in a culture dish have "life". What consequences? It's as safe as any other medical procedure, the supposed breast-cancer link is a flat-out lie, and most women's only psychological problems with the decision are only due to society's reactions and pressures. Ahh, this old fallacy, that women can't be misogynist and can't support the patriarchy. A woman runs Playboy, does that make it suddenly not objectifying? Ann Coulter suggested women shouldn't be allowed to vote, does that make the suggestion not misogynistic? Yes, it is. Simple issues that have obvious right answers turn into long debates all the time - look at gay marriage, or civil rights in the 60's. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Really? So your wife should be able to say "No, you can't have chemotherapy, you need to go back to work so I can have the money you'll make before you die"? You support that? Because the moment you allow someone who is physically unaffacted to make decisions for someone else's body, you have effectively deprived them of personhood and reduced them to a walking incubator. Why should a woman have to carry a child which may endanger her health (physical or mental), just because a guy she may not even have a relationship with anymore wants a kid? Because it's her body. Simple as that. Why can't we harvest organs for the sick out of the healthy? You've got a spare kidney, give it to me. Now. Missing the point for $400, Alex? The point is that you cannot simply use genetic difference as a criterion for personhood. A cancer is genetically different, as is a tapeworm in your intestines. The point, which you missed, is that the "pro-life" crowd never actually sits down and decides what a person is, never considers it logically, never examines the consequences, and never admits that these definition of 'person' are arbitrary social constructs.

So, by your logic, cancer surgery is illegal. Different genetic makeup, therefore it's a person by your rules. Yep. Last time I checked, parents do not *own* children's bodies like pieces of meat. And a parent's decision cannot override their child's in this matter - that's basic medical ethics. Strawman. Show me even one, single incidence of this happening. One. Go on, show me one. You can't, because people do NOT undergo major surgery just to piss other people off - especially when there's only 3 places in the entire US which will perform that surgery. Or were, until anti-women loons shot one of the doctors. The only "reasons" for restricting it all trace back to simple misogyny. Do you support equal rights for all, or not? It's as simple as that.

It's not lack of oxygen, it's lack of glucose. Neurons are extremely energy-intensive cells, fueled entirely by glucose. When your glucose drops, your nerves can't get enough nutrients, and start firing less, shutting down, etc. causing the negative effects you feel. Now, there *is* a lack of oyxgen component to diabetes, which is what causes blindness, ulcers, peripheral nerve damage, etc. in diabetics, but this is a simple physical effect - high blood glucose increases blood viscosity. This isn't much of a problem some areas with coarse capilary beds, but in areas with very, very fine capilaries of tiny diameter, such as the retina, the fingertips, etc, the viscosity slows blood flow, depriving the cells of everything - oxygen, nutrients, waste removal, immune cell transport, etc.

I think the mistake isn't departures from the underlying assumptions of Bernoulli's equation, it's that we're considering blood flow across numerous, branching pipes. For instance, imagine I jump out at you with a knife and try to kill you. Among the many effects of the resulting adrenaline surge are that you get vasoconstriction in the gut, in order to route blood flow elsewhere in the body. This is a useful example, because of the layout of the circulatory system. Here's normal: Descending Aorta | | | | | | | ------- | -------Foregut (Stomach etc.) | | | | | | | ------- | -------Midgut (small intestines, mostly) | | | | | | | ------- | -------Hindgut (most of the large intestines) | | | | | | (blood to legs and lower body) So, in a normal situation, blood goes down the descending aorta, and along the way, some is pushed off to the sides to the various sections of the gut. Now, here's what happens when I try to kill you: Descending Aorta | | | | | | | ======Foregut (Stomach etc.) | | | | | | | =====Midgut (small intestines, mostly) | | | | | | | =====Hindgut (most of the large intestines) | | | | | | (blood to legs and lower body) Notice how the arteries going to the gut have all constricted. This causes increased resistance to flow, so more blood will bypass the arteries and go straight to your legs to help you run away. You can try it yourself. Get a garden hose and poke a bunch of holes it it. Water will come out the holes and the end of the hose. Now, cover those holes loosely with your hand, reducing the flow but not shutting it off. What happens to the flow out of the end of the hose?

All rights, ALL, begin and end at the right to control one's own body. Take that away, and nothing else matters. Either you're pro-choice or anti-freedom. Period. There is no other option.

Actually, glucose suppy doesn't in any way influence oxygen supply, and hunger sets in long before the brain begins to starve. Basically, hungry is the default state of being. After eating, your adiopcytes secrete leptin, which inhibits hunger. Over time, leptin levels decline, resulting in production of ghrelin, which stimulates hunger.

Don't make your decisions based on stereotypes, especially ones that are wrong, as both of these are. While engineers build the applications, scientists are the ones who actually make the discoveries, and there's a LOT of 'inventing' in pure science (consider the LHC). Also, I've been in both engineering and biology, and IME bio majors are *far* more extroverted, open and fun. Finally, don't be afraid of changing your major, multiple times, even (as long as you don't run out of money). LOTS of people do so, and many times you can't really know if you like something until you try it.

The Bernoulli effect applies to changes in *one* pipe. Vasoconstriction decreases blood flow because, due to the increased resistance, more blood flows into *other* arteries.

green, COPD is not the same as restrictive airway disease. scilearner, think of it this way - imagine two rubber bands of identical size and shape, but one is stiffer than the other. You won't be able to stretch that one as far. Lungs only stretch, and are *always* stretched. Their natural (unloaded) state is almost completely empty, and is what happens when you get a collapsed lung. During exhalation, a lung of any stiffness will simply passively recoil to the minimum size allowed by the body.

It's all in the connective tissues. A limb bud is initially just a mass of connective tissue. Some of that tissue turns into cartilage (then bone), other connective tissue is colonized by myocytes and becomes muscles. But the connective tissue is where it all begins.

I would actually *discourage* this switch. Don't go into something for the sake of ambition, go into something because you truly love it. Ask yourself "would I be happy in this field as a mid-level professor who never gets profiled on TV or has anyone read his work beyond a narrow circle of academics?" Because that's what describes ~99% of working scientists, and the difference between making a huge discovery that gets you recognition and not is pretty much just luck. If you do what you love (regardless of ambition or dreams of sci-fi futures), you'll do good science and make the small, incremental contributions to science upon which all change is actually based on.

It's innate for me. My first word was "bat", and not the sort used in sports. I've been catching frogs and lizards since I was old enough to walk. Winding up in biology is pretty much my natural destination.

No, vinegar will destroy the mineral in the bone, leaving you with little more than a rubbery blob.

Aspirin *is* a blood thinner. That's why folks take it to prevent heart attacks - it makes the blood less viscous and allows flow through nearly-clogged arteries.

If the mind were on a separate "dimension" from the body, why does physical damage to the brain alter the mind?

I doubt it'll ever be useful. The massive disparity makes it obvious where priorities lie. There's not even an entry for "muscle". That's not just lag, that's neglect.

Look closely, Moontanman. He's holding the ruler much, much closer to the camera than the tank. You can get an idea of the scale by looking at the tank stand the stuff around it (looks like a good 75 gallon to me).

And the media ****s it up again - the discovery is the glue, not the thread. We already know the genetics of the threads.

Absolutely useless for biology. Contains pretty much nothing, not even the most rudimentary information, and frequently misdirects. Vastly overshadowed by wikipedia.

If you have an invention, you can patent it, but you cannot copyright a scientific idea, and to do so goes against all principles of science. If you publish your idea in a reputable scientific journal with supporting experimental evidence (assuming it's correct), you'll be cited and gain a reputation, but that's it. We don't do science to get rich, we do it to advance human knowledge.

Dermatomes are purely sensory. Motor innnervation in the body doesn't correspond to the dermatome map.

Your ribcage is curved, and your scapula slides along it. Thus, as you move your scapula away from your spine, it'll also slide forward with the curve of your ribs. Reverse the motion to get retraction.

We have 6 kidneys. During early embryonic development, we form one pair, the pronephros. They never come fully "on-line" in humans, but are the kidneys of lampreys and hagfish. Next, we form a second pair, the mesonephros, as the first begin to degrade. These are temporarily functional with ducts and everything, and become a portion of the kidneys of fish, frogs, etc. In amniotes (mammals, birds, and reptiles), the mesonephros completely degrades, and is wholy replaced by the metanephros (which forms the posterior portion of the kidney in fish and amphibians). There's also the fact that our retina is on backwards (making it easy to get a detached retina), that we've had to bend our knees in at a bizarre and damaging angle to function as bipeds, that the female reproductive system is open to the body cavity (allowing ectopic pregnancy and lethal infection), and that males have to stick our testes out through a hole in the bodywall (the inguinal canal).