Auburngirl05

I recently read Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin, and she talks about how issues related to how animals process pain, and she pointed out that there is a difference in pain and suffering . Apparently they involve two different parts of the brain, and in humans those two are extremely linked, she talked about people who suffered from chronic pain resorting to a procedure similar to a lobotomy (I think it was called a leucotomy?). It involves the destruction of some of those connections. Afterwards, they said they could still feel the pain, but they were almost cheerful about it, they weren't bothered at all after the pathway to their processing centers for 'suffering' was disconnected.

Look at life on our own planet: microscopic organisms vastly outnumber everything else. An anthropogenic view of "life" is misleading' date=' our planet had 'life' for billions of years before the first primate appeared. Also, there are an extremely small number of primates that have developed [i']in identical conditions to humans[/i] , and the only reason they're so similar to us is because we stemmed from the same ancestor. I'm no statician, but I'd say the odds of a parallel evolution on an alien planet are pretty neglible.

I think it's highly likely that life exists somewhere else, although I think it is either microbial or in a form we wouldn't readily recognize as "living", there is no way to imagine some of the possibilities that could be out there, at least in my opinion. Has anyone else ever read about the possibility of silicon as opposed to carbon based life?

I would think that if individuals in a hyopthetical wild population were living longer and longer, their populations would boom (similar to what is happening now with people as we live longer and the elderly population increases) and would strain the carrying capacity of the environment. The older individuals would probably be out-competed by the younger, more vigorous ones for resources and would eventually succumb anyway, or at least that's my take on things. Also, you'd have to evolve a way to replace teeth (for mammals) and indestructible joints, skin and hair (or fur) that don't get thin with age, etc etc, living eternally would mean you'd wear out a lot of body parts over time without extreme adaptations.

It can (but not always) be a signal of an electrolyte imbalance. Last fall I had an annoying eye twitch for a couple of days, and at a doctor's visit for something else discovered I had a severe imbalance and was at risk for a heart attack...the doctor said in restrospect the spasms were a signal. most of the time eye twitches aren't that serious, but muscle spasms can be a sign of chemical imbalances.

Don't worry, you're talking to the person who turned recently turned in a paper in Government class about "Pubic Policy"....

I think it's ectothermic, if you mean 'cold-blooded.' I have always wondered about the growth rates also. You may want to look up some of R. McNeill Alexander's publications, he's done a lot of biomechanical analyses of dinosaurs.

I would place a wager that a Troodon could outsmart my airheaded yet mammalian Golden Retriever any day of the week.

Try Googling "sublimation".

I was raised Catholic but later left the church...but I have a deep respect for John Paul II, he did many great things and was a strong leader. I know this is a devastating time for the Church, but I have to say that I am glad he's not suffering anymore, and can have a well-earned rest after a long, full life.

Yup, I've got both. The addresses are a bit self explanatory but I'll post them anyway. http://www.livejournal.com http://www.myspace.com

There is a pretty strong theory that the legend of the Griffin originated when locals found Protoceratops skeletons (the neck shield was seen as wings).

Aren't there some large species of fish that are functionally endothermic? Or maybe homeothermic would be the more correct term because I'm not sure if their heat is internally generated, but I'm pretty sure there have been some noteworthy studies on the topic.

In the case of something involving radiation, like Chernobyl, it was probably a mutation, but sometimes I think that deformities like that result from a parasitic/undifferentiated twin, I have heard about several cases of humans having "spare body parts" like that from the remains of a twin.

Stephen Hawking was a major proponent of the "big crunch" theory, but not long ago he issued a statement saying that he had been wrong about many things in the postulation, basically "recanting". Astronomy and cosmology isn't a strong subject for me so I don't know the details of what he was mistaken on, just felt like it was worth mentioning.

I recently read a book review of The Red Ape , and I learned that apparently that orangs and humans have a more common ancestor than chimps and humans, despite the fact that chimps have more common DNA with us. I haven't read the book itself and it was the first I'd heard of that theory, so I don't know much about it, but thought it was worth mentioning.

I personally think she should be allowed to die....but the fact that she has to starve to death is painfully ironic, considering it was her bulimia that caused the chemical imbalance that put her in this position...

We did that too, I thought it was pretty amazing to see everything while it was actually working...we even gave the frog a dose of caffiene to see the heart rate increase.

I have always wondered about how many calories are burned just "thinking". Would you burn significantly more sitting and working, say, difficult math problems than you would if you were just sitting, "vegging out" for the same period of time? Obviously you're always thinking of something, but does more strenuous brainwork expend significantly more calories?

If that's a tip from personal experience, it definitely sounds like a story worth hearing....

I just pulled up this page to explain what I was talking about, it's titled "Linebreeding vs. Inbreeding, The Importance of Breeding for Variety" http://www.compusire.com/linebreedinbreed.html and here is another good explanatory article: http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/Genetics/Inbreeding.html

I read that article last fall, and if I remember correctly it gave an example of some lines that are traditionally "inbred" to some degree that have virtually no major defects, and also mentioned some cases of malformations etc in other lines....it all goes back to what Mokele said about heterozygosity, the risk of defects depends on the gene pool you have to start off with, some gene pools are "deeper" than others and could stand up better to intermarriage. As a side note, (and the link Coral Rhedd provided talks about this) with some breeds of dogs (German Shepherds are an example) "line breeding' to a certain degree is valued, it involves the same ancestor appearing on both sides of a dog's pedigree (paternal and maternal sides), it's done purposely by professional breeders, and is considered distinct from careless inbreeding.