Science

[Janny]

Incidentally Aya, do you have qualifications or are you studying? What are your real interests in scientificc study?

[ayarella]

I am a student of course. I have no qualifications yet but will complete my bachelors (major Geology) in 1 yr and a half. I am only just nineteen after all. Also, I am getting my minor in Chemistry and surprisingly have got a real knack for it (who knew)....I'll keep you updated once I get through Organic or Physical Chemistry

[Janny]

Cool! I realsied it was a dumb question after I clicked on your profile... but where do your interests lie in science? What really fascinates you?

[Lizra]

_________SCIENCE QUESTION!_________

Ok!
So I went to a garge sale today and (among other things) picked up an old (looks like it's probably from the late 50's, early 60's ) mineral souvenir card, for 50 cents. You've probaly seen this type of thing, "Minerals from the West". It looks like a bingo card, with different little rocks (obsideon, fools gold, petrified wood, peridot, etc) labeled and glued on squares, sealed up in plastic. But the bottom right hand rock says *Uranium*! . I just laughed and thought "weird", but my husband freaked out about it. So, is this rock form of uranium gonna hurt anyone?

[Mercutio]

Ugh. 70 minute chem test on really really complicated redox and we had to diagram a lead battery new, in use, used, and recharged.

I hate complicated redox.

Now were into organic---so memorize memorize memorize---fun fun fun :sarcastic smile:

But you may like organic, that just meant I don't .

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Lizra
So, is this rock form of uranium gonna hurt anyone?

I'm not sure, but if you start glowing in the dark -- start worrying.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Khamûl
I'm not sure, but if you start glowing in the dark -- start worrying.

Oi! Well, there's been a lot of hand washing!

[Earniel]

I don't think they would use dangerous uranium in a card set. That or you bought them in the garage sale of Osama Bin Laden. I'm sure there are harmless variaties of natural uranium. IIRC uranium ore has to be processed first to become instable (and thus energetic) and radio-active.

[Janny]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ugh. 70 minute chem test on really really complicated redox and we had to diagram a lead battery new, in use, used, and recharged.

I hate complicated redox.

Now were into organic---so memorize memorize memorize---fun fun fun :sarcastic smile:

But you may like organic, that just meant I don't .

I have enough problems with learning ethanol and ethene go t ethyl ethanoate and something... or was it ethane ermm... that's just GCSE.

My copy of encarta refuses to show me the half life of Uranium... but it's only gonna be what a few decades? Nothing.

[Insidious Rex]

Well since there really is no place to discuss science issues and I don’t really feel these kinds of things belong in the Creationist thread (the only place where we really talk about evolution it seems) Im gonna start posting interesting sciency things in here. If this thread was not intended for this purpose then let me know and Ill start a “Science Issues” thread. But I thought the following would be an interesting read for people here considering the issue and the celebrities named:

Handsome men evolved thanks to picky females


11:13 12 May 04

NewScientist.com news service

Today's handsome hunks may owe their good looks to a sexual power shift towards the fair sex during primate evolution.

As our ancestors evolved, the ability to attract a female mate through good looks became may have become more important in the mating stakes than the ability to fight off male rivals, suggests a new study.

By analysing the shapes and sizes of facial features in chimps, gorillas and other primates, researchers in Germany and the University of Cambridge, UK, found evidence suggesting that our ancestors may have gradually sacrificed fighting for wooing.

"Our research suggests that in early humans, a face that was attractive as opposed to aggressive conferred an advantage," says Eleanor Weston at the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, a member of the team.

She says that changes were probably driven by choosy females who began to demand handsomeness, not brute force.


Receding canines


Prominent canine teeth which still signify a male's dominance and fighting ability in many primates like baboons and gorillas, may have been replaced by less aggressive teeth and looks.

Broader faces with prominent cheekbones, not unlike those of contemporary movie stars including Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Viggo Mortensen, were picked preferentially by females.

Weston drew her conclusions after initially studying facial features of chimps and gorillas. In most primates, males have much longer canines than females, a trait that often reflects which males are dominant. This difference was much less prominent in the chimps.

Sexual selection was starting to be driven by the attractiveness of a male's face in the chimps, believes Weston, and this tallied with development of broader faces with more prominent cheekbones, plus receding canines.

The same pattern emerged when Weston unearthed facial data on other primates. Wherever males had broader faces, their canines were closer in size to those of females. The opposite was true in males with more elongated faces.

"At one end of the spectrum were humans and chimps, where mate choice may have been more important," says Weston. "At the other end where you had baboons and gorillas, competition between males may have been more important."

[Janny]

Interesting, but not entirely surprising. Was that not already assumed? What do you think the philosophical significance of this is? I mean in terms of 'it distinguishes us from the animals'?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Janny
Interesting, but not entirely surprising. Was that not already assumed? What do you think the philosophical significance of this is? I mean in terms of 'it distinguishes us from the animals'?

Assumed? It certainly makes sense if you think about it but I think a LOT of people would insist it cant be right because it ties us to primates. And because we are well above animal instincts when it comes to attraction and silly denial responses like that. And then theres some people who dont want guys to use this to justify the whole breast size thing.

Well I dont think it distinguishes us from the animals. I think it clearly shows we fit right in there on that same continum. We select the traits we find intrinsically attractive and those traits therefor florish in our species (cultural variations not withstanding).

[Janny]

lol, yeah I suppose it's kind of an excuse...
But surely it makes more of a distinction between humans and animals if humans look for an attractive mate (I dunno, 'for pleasure' maybe) as opposed to a physically strong mate, which implies purely a 'programmed' approach to mating.

[Insidious Rex]

why cant strong = attractive? attractive is whatever clicks for the observer right? what this case shows (and uncountable cases in the animal kingdom show) is that symbolic representation of a trait is safer and more efficient then picking mates based on a display of hostile brute force. look at the peacock. they never fight each other for mates. they dont have to. the females line up and check out the males displaying their feathers and choose accordingly. somewhere along the line of evolution fitness became represented by most elaborate feather display. so what do YOU wear when you wanna impress the chicks...

[Janny]

What do I where? Nothing.

No, the peacock was the example that was in the back of my mind that scuppered the point I was making.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Janny
What do I where? Nothing.

you and the baboons.

No, the peacock was the example that was in the back of my mind that scuppered the point I was making.

well thats the obvious example, yes but I dare say this is the standard in nature and not the exception. Thats why so many species have elaborate mating rituals and gaudy feathering or fur or bizare bodily extensions useless for any other purpose. Nature realized some time ago that mock displays are the way to go versus always resorting to muscle and fang and claw. bad for the gametes.

[Janny]

Nature decided? *he said playing devil's advocate*

[Insidious Rex]

Shush! Youll attract the christians.


attract

[Blackheart]

Science is useless.

Except for building giant killer robots!

Mine's almost done!

I went with the hydrogen producing bacteria fuel cells and miniature hydrogen turbines for the "green" killer robot effect.

Unfortunately I'm having trouble with the armaments. (you can't have a killer robot without weapons!)

Not nearly enough power to run a real particle accelerator, and industrial lasers just lack the punch (even though sceince and surplus sells the rods for 10$ each!!! they are the mad scientist's friend)

Using kinetic energy weapons causes stability issues, though I could upgrade my gyroscope and compensation software. But it's hard to get automatic weapons, and they really frown on purchase orders for artillary by civilians.

I'm thinking I'm going to have to go with light automatic arms and amplified microwave beams. If I tune the microwave beams tightly enough, I can get an emp effect on the target. Handy for taking out incoming helicopters and a-10's...

When I get it painted I'll post some pictures....

[Insidious Rex]

Danger Will Robinson!