• Can people photosynthesize?

    9 answers · 1 day ago
  • Could a shark breathe in a pool filled with nothing but blood?

    Best answer: Yes. The red blood cells bind more strongly to carbon dioxide than to oxygen. Therefore they would bind with the carbon dioxide that the shark breathes out and release the oxygen molecules they are bound to. After all the red blood cells have absorbed all the carbon dioxide, additional carbon dioxide will escape... show more
    Best answer: Yes. The red blood cells bind more strongly to carbon dioxide than to oxygen. Therefore they would bind with the carbon dioxide that the shark breathes out and release the oxygen molecules they are bound to. After all the red blood cells have absorbed all the carbon dioxide, additional carbon dioxide will escape into the atmosphere and oxygen molecules will dissolve into the water. However, since the pool is stagnant, the rate of exchange of oxygen between the pool and the atmosphere may not be high enough to sustain the shark indefinitely.

    Blood will coagulate into a solid and most of the red blood cells will be removed from the water and trapped into the coagulate. Therefore the shark may not be swimming in blood for long as well.
    5 answers · 1 day ago
  • How old is the human species?

    13 answers · 2 days ago
  • Our Humans powered by AAAA batteries?

    So you know some people say that batteries are cells and humans have brain cells but can we be battery powered??? Seems futuristic
    So you know some people say that batteries are cells and humans have brain cells but can we be battery powered??? Seems futuristic
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • Is there such thing as an EPIGENETIC MUTATION, if so, can you give an example?

    Best answer: Yes researchers have found that epigenetic changes can sometimes cause mutations. Not aware of any specific examples of how or what type of mutations have been recorded though. According to the Wikipedia "DNA methylation frequently occurs in repeated sequences, and helps to suppress the expression and... show more
    Best answer: Yes researchers have found that epigenetic changes can sometimes cause mutations. Not aware of any specific examples of how or what type of mutations have been recorded though. According to the Wikipedia

    "DNA methylation frequently occurs in repeated sequences, and helps to suppress the expression and mobility of 'transposable elements':[44] Because 5-methylcytosine can be spontaneously deaminated (replacing nitrogen by oxygen) to thymidine, CpG sites are frequently mutated and become rare in the genome, except at CpG islands where they remain unmethylated. Epigenetic changes of this type thus have the potential to direct increased frequencies of permanent genetic mutation."
    5 answers · 2 days ago
  • When has the most recent human evolved from an animal? How long does it take one to evolve the way the animals do with Macro Evolution?

    Best answer: When? Never. Why not. Evolution as promoted does not compute. Evolution simple means change over time. At the same time there is absolutely no evidence any species has changed into a different species, ever. And there is a question very few have ever asked and to my knowledge no evolutionist has ever... show more
    Best answer: When? Never. Why not. Evolution as promoted does not compute. Evolution simple means change over time. At the same time there is absolutely no evidence any species has changed into a different species, ever.

    And there is a question very few have ever asked and to my knowledge no evolutionist has ever considered seriously. And that is this. How many hominid species have become extinct before the creation of humans?

    Instead most try to promote the idea that extinct hominids are actually unevolved humans.

    Why not? Simply because the concept of special creation is anathema to them.
    19 answers · 4 days ago
  • Are humans de-evolving?

    Best answer: I think I understand what you mean, that evolution should be improving humans and mankind. Not the opposite, by doing stupid and harmful things. Prime examples like subsidising the obsolete coal and nuclear industries as a primary source of electrical power. I can see them as a backup plan or emergency option.... show more
    Best answer: I think I understand what you mean, that evolution should be improving humans and mankind. Not the opposite, by doing stupid and harmful things. Prime examples like subsidising the obsolete coal and nuclear industries as a primary source of electrical power. I can see them as a backup plan or emergency option. Yes the future is green energy, solar, wind, recycling, non polluting abundant sources. Also, science is based on truth, ethics is based on doing what's morally correct. While this country has made strides many others still do barbaric and monstrous things. As a whole human nature can and is sometimes survival of the fittest, humanity is helping others survive. Evolution is in constant flux, meaning what you and I and others do affects it. Christianity teaches us to do good deeds. Darwin says survive. Common sense says care about who and what you love. Do we become self serving barbarians? Do we become socialists? Is there a better way to incorporate all the good concepts? All I can say is every day matters, every deed, every word, every action, and yes lighten up sometimes. We have to be stronger than the barbarians, more caring than the socialists. Improving the human race begins where mother nature left off.
    15 answers · 4 days ago
  • Why is Nothing in science beyond scrutiny and criticism - except of course, evolution??

    Best answer: It is easier to accept the status quo than to think for ones self.
    Best answer: It is easier to accept the status quo than to think for ones self.
    11 answers · 2 days ago
  • How long does it take for a body to decompose ?

    Best answer: It varies a lot based on temperature and conditions but 8-12 years without a coffin, longer with a coffin. Show was ridiculous, unless she was meant to have been devoured by flesh-eating beetles.
    Best answer: It varies a lot based on temperature and conditions but 8-12 years without a coffin, longer with a coffin. Show was ridiculous, unless she was meant to have been devoured by flesh-eating beetles.
    9 answers · 3 days ago
  • Do you think it's possible to clone a human being in my bedroom? Does anyone have a DIY link with instructions?

    Best answer: weird science
    Best answer: weird science
    12 answers · 6 days ago
  • Are humans and rodents closely related?

    Best answer: Humans are primates, and therefore more closely related to other primates (monkeys, apes, lemurs, tarsiers, lorises, bashbabies) than to rodents. Nevertheless, primates and rodents are classified as Boreoeutherians. Boreoeutherians include carnivores (cats, dogs bears, seals, otters), artiodactyls (cows, camels,... show more
    Best answer: Humans are primates, and therefore more closely related to other primates (monkeys, apes, lemurs, tarsiers, lorises, bashbabies) than to rodents. Nevertheless, primates and rodents are classified as Boreoeutherians. Boreoeutherians include carnivores (cats, dogs bears, seals, otters), artiodactyls (cows, camels, sheep, deer, griaffes), lagomorphs (rabbits and hares), periossodactyls (horses, donkeys, zebras, rhinos), whales, bats and of course rodents.

    Elephants, dugongs, aardvarks, elephant shrews and golden moles are classified as Afrotherians. Sloths and armadillos are classified as Xenarthrans. That means yes, humans are more closely related to rodents than we are to elephants and armadillos.

    Indeed because we are quite similar to rodents biologically, it is one reason laboratory mice and rats are such good experimental animals, since what affects them will also affect us. Some data also show that we are more closely related to rodents than we are to cows, bats, dogs and horses, although more research is needed for us to be more certain of that claim.

    The various groups of mammals evolved from shrew-like ancestors that survived the end of Cretaceous mass extinction that happened 65 million years ago and that wiped out the dinosaurs. These mammals evolved 5-10 million years after the dinosaurs were wiped out, so even though we are more closely related to rodents than to, say, horses, cats and cows, we nevertheless probably last shared an ancestor with rodents at least 55 million years ago because the oldest primates already evolved about 55 million years ago.
    13 answers · 5 days ago
  • How come Blacks are so good at Boxing and fighting, but not necessarily the strongest of people?

    Best answer: Well, I think we have to be very careful ... there are a lot of myths and BS surrounding issues of race and athletic ability. Some of it is incredibly patronizing. Some of it is nonsense. Some of it might be partially true. But the point is there's very little scientific evidence to support much of what people... show more
    Best answer: Well, I think we have to be very careful ... there are a lot of myths and BS surrounding issues of race and athletic ability. Some of it is incredibly patronizing. Some of it is nonsense. Some of it might be partially true. But the point is there's very little scientific evidence to support much of what people claim.

    Every individual is genetically unique. This means that some people may or may not have advantages, due to their genetic makeup, in certain sports. For example, there are some regions in Africa in which there is a genetic trait that prevents the calf muscle developing in a manner anatomists might call 'normal'. It's actually slightly underdeveloped. This, however, gives the lower leg a greater freedom of movement which might result in an advantage when running. People who have ancestry from these regions may also have this genetic trait, which might confer an advantage in those sports. In some regions, people have a slightly higher number of fast twitch muscle fibers. This might mean they have better reaction times and an ability to use more energy in small short bursts of muscle actions.

    The point, though, is that the genetics is much more complicated than just 'race'. It depends on the population your ancestors were from, and any genetic benefit for a particular sport might actually be very localised. For example, saying 'black people have greater bone density' might not be true. Saying something like 'people with ancestry from this population living in this particular valley in Kenya have greater bone density than average' might very well be true. These are just examples to show you the problem with making blanket statements based on 'race'. Remember people are individuals and for every statement you make about race and athletic prowess in a particular sport, you can probably argue the exact opposite if you looked hard enough at populations.

    So, I think the answer to your question isn't race. It's nurture rather than nature. People are drawn towards sports that their role models participated in. People are drawn and pushed into sports based on expectation and society. The sports you play are due to culture. How many black kids in the US, for example, play rugby? Does that mean they aren't good at rugby or just never participated in that sport because basketball and American football and baseball are more popular in that nation? How many white wealthy kids go to boxing lessons? Or would their parents encourage them to take up tennis or squash or golf or horse riding?

    So I think the race breakdown of sports tells us more about our society, our snobbishness, our different expectations, our biases and prejudices, the state of our socio-economic inclusivity, and so forth than it does about the athletic ability of 'races'.
    5 answers · 2 days ago