Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology

I've done a bit of scientific research and found we're hardwired for more than one partner. Here's a few facts I've learned. * A survey was conducted on 16,000 people from every continent. Participants said they wanted more than one sexual partner. https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-innate/4cc92d41-21f1-4a52-a89a-721658f096be/ * Biologists say women are hardwired to have multiple sex partners to boost the chances of having healthy children with the best chances of survival. Females across the animal kingdom are promiscuous. Since we evolved from other animals, women are likely hardwired for promiscuity. The strongest evidence of promiscuity is in testi…

How good are elephants' vision? better than our 20/20, or our 10/20?

My aim in this topic is to explain why lamarck is not completely wrong. I'm impacted by twitter discussions that HIT the hammer, without references, that such a thing is a proven scientific hypothesis and such a thing is a refuted hypothesis. To say that Lamarckism is a refuted theory is correct and we should not revisit it to explain the evolution of living things. But this is not to say that all the premises assumed by Lamarck have been refuted. In this sense, it is noteworthy that premises are also hypotheses. So without further ado, let's get to the point of this topic: 1) Confusion between causation and correlation Character transmission BY repetitive effor…

I'm 27, my husband is 29. TTC for about 18 months. We're both overall healthy. My tests have all come back normal, my husbands morphology came back at 1%. He doesnt smoke or drink, doesnt even drink coffee. We eat pretty healthy and walk a lot. He's been taking a mens multivitamin , coq-10 , l-carnitine & alpha liporic acid since the 1st SA results. He retested after a few months on the supplements and was still 1% Has anyone had a similar situation?? Were you able to concieve naturally? How long did it take ? Or did you need iui or ivf? Any info is really appreciated

Why feelings and emotions are better for survival than instincts (like in lower animals)?

It’s very common in this society that you see men (and sometimes women) being very attracted to someone of the opposite sex (or even the same sex) and the person generally tends to not always feel an attraction back, especially with men liking women. Every girl I liked; wanted nothing to do with me. Why would I be attracted to someone who isn’t genetically capable of liking me? It just seems like an evolutionary flaw. Is their a science theory behind why so many times the attraction isn’t mutual?

I recently heard a girl talk about how she says she likes sweet, nice guys, but when she actually meets one, she finds that she finds them boring and that she is attracted to guys who treat her like trash. Is there some evo psych explanation to this and why girls like bad boys more generally and why nice guys are boring?

People, A bacteria cell has water in it, so once that freezes does not the cell lyse/explode? As in ice forming, expansion, and cell wall bursts? Sure, there is not just pure water inside the cell, salts/proteins/etc, but mainly water. There has to some kind of "anti freeze compound protecting them, correct? Thanks, people.

I am wondering what is the purpose of humans based on how we evolved to be. What does the design of our bodies say about what we are meant to be doing with our lives. What age are we meant to live up to? Also we break up humans into ethnic groups, I am wondering have some of these ethnic groups evolved to do something better than other ethnic groups due to genetic mutation/have ethnic groups evolved differently to have certain attributes about them. One last question is how does genetics shape our personality?

How do genetic replication and mutations occur? Wouldn't it be simpler if everything remained in a static state? And how does transcription sometimes turn out to be inaccurate? What makes it go wrong?

After making another post about evolution and genes, where it was moved to speculations, probably because of a lack of citations and proof, I am going against something a moderator told me. I throw myself at the mercy of their final judgements, in light of references which verify my opinion that all genetic mutations that drive adaptation and evolution are not always random. I described the process as "inspiration". I didnt know any of the following info before I posted that thread. I had built up beliefs over 25 years of study, that all mutations were not random. Of course, these beliefs don't really conflict with Darwin, yet, only amend the ways in which gene…

I’ve read some claims that the synapsids (theropsids) had smooth, glandular skin rather than scaly skin like modern reptiles – Estemmenosuchus is often cited in this regard –, and that the scale-like structures that they did have, their belly-scales, aren’t homologous to lepidosaur scales. While the latter claim may be the case, I do have qualms with the former claim. After all, this study (see https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160624154658.htm for an overview) has proven that modern reptiles have anatomical placodes just as mammals and birds do, and that mammalian hair, modern reptile scales, and bird feathers are all homologous to each other and come from th…

First of all, forgive my language and technical errors: My questions are a mix of concrete science and phylosophycal ones What makes proteins, ribosomes, and mRNA do what they do? I mean, i.e. ribosomal protein HGNC 14275 moves and then interacts with some other proteins because of its size, weight, electrical charges? Example: If me, as a human go to watch a movie, it’s because ‘I want’ = I am 'moving' because I have 'WILL'. So, I go to the theater, pay the price and watch the film… But a protein? If left alone inside a nucleus cell, will it move because ‘it wants (HAVE IT WILL ?!)’ or because the reactions caused by its physical properties and its interactio…

May I ask if someone could suggest a good and friendly zoology forum. I have a question about snails. I found their shells in the field where I walk with my dogs gathered in heaps in a dozen or two numbers. I'm wondering if they have the ability to gather together for any reason themselves or they are being collected by other animals (mice?). Just interesting… Thanks!

Hi: Nice to be back! I'm going to state a few views I have based on what reputable articles I have read and logical common sense. [1] The process/theory/assumption of Abiogenesis [life from non life] via chemistry is the only scientific answer we have to explain the methodology of how life came to be. [2] Any mythical "answer" relating to ID of any kind is unscientific at best. [3] In saying that at [1] science has yet to learn the exact pathway or methodology as to how Abiogenesis took place. Does [3] in anyway detract from the validity of Abiogenesis? How is Abiogenesis best described? A…

I think this is a very interesting question the article raises. First let me say, I approach this debate in a different way. I say there’s a natural interpretation of evolution and there’s an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. I think a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It’s designed to separate people from God and a natural interpretation of evolution is one of the biggest lies perpetrated on humans. It’s impossible for a storage medium to encode it’s sequence with information. This is the domain of intelligence. The sequence of objects or symbols don’t have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and th…

I think no need to talk about what properties make human idental to pig, they well known. How it become possible from the view of point of evolution?

Natural selection is self evident, there's not a person on the planet who disagrees with it! (if you die, you die! If you don't reproduce, you don't reproduce!) But how come there seems to be so many people who take this blatantly obvious undeniable fact, and then assert that life is merely about our own survival/reproduction!? (Just for the record, I'm not denying that life on our planet has developed gradually! The fossil record points to that fairly clearly!)

Hi 2 all non-fool[open-minded] people. Well, We proved that we aren't allowed deny any saying while we haven't had any source/reason for our denying Source/Reason = Experience or Knowledge/Study Otherwise we aren't anything but the fool! Well, We have a narration about Races in the Torah and we aren't allowed deny that while research and find any opposing source against that! Well, But we researched and found an opposing source! And this tells us: Ham: 1. All Blacks of the earth Japheth: 1. Gog 2. Magog 3. Slavs 4. Turks 5. Chineses Shem: 1. Jews 2. Arab…

Hi, I'm a believer in theistic evolution, and I was talking with a creationist online who linked me this article: http://kolbecenter.org/fossil-record-and-fall-of-darwins-last-icon/ There is a lot of detailed and referenced information in it and I was wondering if anyone here who is more familiar with the topic of hominid evolution might have thoughts on it.

I’m quite curious about something. Science is all out holding its findings to having to possess the quality of falsifiability. Despite this, the conclusions made by scientists are consistently perceived and treated with a high degree of factuality. As a result society has become extremely defensive of any insinuation that such falsifiable conclusions may indeed false. With that, I find myself curious as to how willing individuals would be in altering their current perceptions on the theory of Darwinian evolution & natural selection to being false in light of a new theory that not only effectively utilizes all of the same evidence, but also serves to provide logical ex…

In my 1925 version of the Chambers's Encyclopaedia, regarding the Aardvark, it says that "The flesh is edible, but from it's food is apt to taste of formic acid." I can't find any information on the taste of Aardvark meat, could anyone confirm or disprove this claim? As you can imagine, the encyclopaedia does contain a lot of false/obsolete information, so I'm somewhat sceptical. Apologies if this is wrong place to be posting this.

Life is "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." according to Google. So since everything is made up of atoms. What is the atomic structure that separates life from say a rock which we think is lifeless.

I am doing some research for a book and I have run into the wall of my own capabilities. If there is such a thing, what would the mathematics of evolution look like? How would it work? What parts of evolution are visible or could be made visible through mathematics? Can it be described to someone who is not a mathematician?

it seems that over the course of history, earths lifeforms tend to get very large before a mass extinction event happens, which reduces life back to small life forms again so, would it be reasonable to believe that earth may be headed, over the course of millions of years, back to a dinosaurlike environment again at some point in the future with large animals of some description roaming the earth, weather they be reptiles, or mammals? and the human era is possibly just one of the early phases in that process. or is there some physical reason why earth can no longer support such a thing, such as weaker atmosphere, or colder planet temperature or something …