If sexual attraction evolved to promote reproduction, why isn’t exclusive same-sex attraction considered a biological dysfunction? Is it because biology defines “dysfunction” differently than simply reduced reproductive success?

Genuine question absolutely not intended to be homophobic

When a person lifts weights their muscles experience micro-tears which trigger the healing and regrowth of muscle. This process is the foundation for body building.

My question is simple. If the entire process is ultimately rooted in your muscles healing from past damage, would causing muscle damage outside of exercise trigger muscle growth?

Say a person had their biceps needled like some do with dry needling for muscle and tendon pain. Would you not be able to induce hypertrophy through this type of controlled damage?

Not because its so exciting but because it gives you chills.

I was thinking about how some of our muscles work, such as the arm for instance. Flexors, extensors, pronators.

I'm not exactly sure how to pose this question, but how does something like the musculature system for a limb (for example...) evolve? Does it start with just one muscle which moves the bone in a simple way?

Whether it's a hose or some stream, it seems like dogs are programmed to bite and attack water that's flowing.

Why is that?

Hi everyone,

I had a thought experiment that I can't stop thinking about, and I'm curious whether anything similar already exists in mathematics or theoretical physics.

We usually imagine scales as an infinite sequence:

galaxies → stars → planets → humans → cells → molecules → atoms → nuclei → quarks → Planck scale.

But what if the space of scales isn't an infinite line?

Imagine that scale itself has a closed topology. Instead of reaching an absolute smallest scale, continuously moving toward smaller and smaller scales would eventually bring you back to the largest scales—not by teleportation, but because the geometry of scale loops back on itself.

I'm not claiming this is a physical theory or that nature works this way. I'm only asking whether any mathematical framework or theoretical idea resembles this kind of "closed scale space."

Does this connect in any way with topology, quantum gravity, string theory, or any other area of mathematical physics?

I'd really appreciate any references, papers, or similar concepts.

For artists they say: "Create more art than you consume, that's the way to level up."... Or something like that.

What about science? Should scientists consume less and create more, or the other way around?

I know, that's bigger part philosophy and smaller part science, but I definitely need scientists to answer.

Also, I think it can vary a lot between fields, so let's see the opinions.

I've been watching X Files reruns and I'm trying to figure out exactly what happened to Scully that left her sterile (spoilers ahead) and I'm hoping someone here can help me out.

Now, X Files is a show that has no problem contradicting itself, retconning, leaving things unexplained, or just dropping whole subplots entirely. It was also written by men, but I I'm not satisfied with that as an explanation.

That being said, in season 4 we learn that during her abduction, Scully had all of her ova stolen by inducing superovulation. Scully (a medical doctor) only finds out about it later but my first thought was wouldn't she have noticed that? Even if it didn't trigger menopause, wouldn't her periods have stopped? I know you can have bleeding without ovulation (like on bc). But what would happen if you literally had no eggs/follicles left?

I feel like I heard somewhere that the "you were born with all the eggs you ever had" was recently debunked and your body does continue making some eggs, but I looked it up and I think I must have misremembered. I saw another explanation that you're not born with all your eggs but rather all the cells that will make your eggs. I assume that taking all her eggs possible would mean "using up" all those cells as well.

When she ends up getting pregnant anyway there's never any definite explanation of how but it seems like CSM altered the chip in her neck to "cure her infertility." The only way I can think that could work would be if her body grew new follicles, which again makes me ask: wouldn't she have noticed that?

I guess you could chalk it all up to alien technology superior to our own. Also, if you've never seen X Files you're probably thinking "WTF is this show" but somehow it doesn't feel nearly as weird as you watch it.

Mind you these are two of many creatures and are a work in progress but i would like to fully get the biological characteristics down before i continue to delve deeper into creating the creatures but i dont quite know how to do so. I figured this would be the place to ask for assitance from people knowledgable in biology.

Atzitzimitl (Meaning [unless I am mistaken of course] "Water Bone-Demon")
I mixed crocodile body, the long dorsal and anal fins like an eel, Gator like skin, pectoral fins that are large and meant to assist in quick burst ambush attack, super tough and scaly skin, with a head covered in armor like bone to defend from predators that target the head as this used to be the weak spot of the species until they evolved via the ones with stronger heads being the survivors while the ones with weaker heads died off. Their bodies are like a fusion of Dunkleosteus and an Alligator Gar. They are medium/large predators with some predators of their own being only "Predators" via taking advantage of wounded Atzitzimitl. They lay eggs in the water just like fish do and deposit sperm in the same fashion. The females can lay thousands of eggs at the same time however their young's natural predators, Namely the "Tlacuani" as the locals call them. The "Tlacuani" are crustaceans and in the breeding seasons their black and brown chitin masks them from the prowling Atzitzimitl looking for a quick snack. During breeding season a well fed "Tlacuani" will have its underbelly turn an orangish yellow color due to the sheer volume of eggs they consume.

I am not ok with ticks. If I could keep an o'possum on each hip 6-shooter style I would. But apparently we are having a tick population explosion of late, and they are spreading some pretty debilitating diseases.

We have companies giving birth control to mosquitoes that are particularly problematic (there are 3000 species of mosquito, many are pollinators, and few are particularly troublesome to humans. But a couple are among the most deadly animals to humans on the planet)

I know there are other ways to reduce tick populations (like restoring native plant life) but nothing would work quite as quickly as removing their ability to breed at alarming rates.

Ticks do not have the same gene that mosquitoes have to target, but is that a dealbreaker, or should we be able to find a similar one with some searching?

I can’t tell if it’s even possible in our life time. I’m in summer break before going to high school so I don’t THAT much about biology yet. but unless every human came together is it even possible to get rid of all of the pollution and negative affect? I really love nature so it would be nice to know we at least could fix most of it.

I keep hearing about it being so scary and stuff. Why?

Hi everyone!

I'm almost finished with my bachelor's degree in Biochemistry but still haven't decided on which master's/post-grad path I'll follow.

My initial thoughts were doing a Master's in biotechnology since it's a pretty broad field but I'm not sure if it's a "safe" path anymore since I only seem to find posts in another subreddit about how to find a job and layoffs, etc...

I'm in Europe and I don't really have peers in the field so I'm kinda lost in which field to pursue further education and one that almost grants me I'll have a job.

Which degrees would help develop skills that are most needed in the STEM field now or in about 2 years considering AI and all the layoffs that are happening?

Thank you for all the help in advance!

First of all: I do not want medical advice. So please if you would, see if you can hold it in this one time.

The other day/night after a serious bender involving a lot of drink, and some drugs something happened that reminded me of an identical state I had gotten into about 20 years ago.

I was trying to squint my way into determining if the person up the road was who I thought it was, when I decided to try with one eye, and to my surprise I was still seeing double and had to cover each each eye with a hand to confirm it.

So what is at work here, is it all the mind?

I don't get how it's possible.

Can I make a porch that blocks the sun and casts a constant horizontal shade?

I want to lay down on my porch and have my face constantly covered by the shade, but my body constantly bathed in the sun. However, the earth moves, so whatever ceiling I make will also move, and thus my face will be met by sunlight. But I don't think it must be like this. I think there's some geometry that allows the sun to go through the sky in such a manner that a horizontal line cutting my neck is constantly the border between sun and shade. Is it actually possibly, or is there something about astronomy and geometry that doesn't let that happen.

I don't care if it's a different line each day. But preferably, this line that will sit on my neck lasts the entire day on the same spot.

Thanks!

like if they could reach the same dopamine levels every time and the brain reacted the same way to that amount of dopamine. would everything give them an insane dopamine response? what would the side effects be?

I'm a just a beginner at writing and focusing on ground realism genre and stumbled down to this while creating a scene.

So say I honey I shrunk the kids myself to like smaller than ant size, but also, I already had a super powerful microscope on my person that also got honey I shrunk the kids’ed. Would I be able to use that microscope to see germs or atoms or what?

Hello! Say conditions arise to cause constant solar storms strong enough to knock out the power grid and electronics, and keep them out as the solar storms would not relent. Am I correct in the assumption that no electronics could ever work at all in these conditions?

What would happen to human civilization in these circumstances? What would the toll be in terms of food storage capacity and healthcare infrastructure, and what would be the estimated death toll for losses in those areas, and presumably the famines, wars, and upheaval that follows? How would society adapt? Would the world be knocked back to the Steam Age, technology wise? Even further, due to societal disruption? Could it cause a complete apocalyptic collapse of global civilization? I’d be interested to learn more, thank you!

The Nobel Prize earns it's prestige for a reason. Most awards are given for scientific discoveries which are legitimate paradigm shifts. Being counted among these greats is a huge honor.

But no committee is perfect, not even the Royal Swedish Academy. Many people have noted numerous scientists who should have won but weren't properly recognized by the committee (e.g. Rosalind Franklin).

But I'd like to hear Reddit's opinion on another category, Nobel Laureates who did win but who shouldn't have. Whose work ended up being of far more limited value or scope than what the committee thought.

My personal vote: Ilya Prigogine.

I was recently asked to give feedback on a book in progress. At one point the author states that scientists build their theories out of first principles. It's not a science book. The author is making a comparison with science. But I would like to know if scientists would agree that the statement is accurate, and if not, what would be an accurate description of the role of first principles in science. Thank you.

(I included this in physics because it's closest to what the author has in mind.)

^

I posted this somewhere else . But want a second opinion . Does anybody know how to trigger mitosis