|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PEikGKDVsCc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
|
So let's all go bananas....
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/3355/ls7p.jpg What do you have in common with a banana? Even though we might not look alike, all living things—bananas and people included—are made up of the same basic material. Just like houses are made up of smaller units such as bricks, all living things are made up trillions of microscopic building blocks called cells. Within an organism, each cell contains a complete set of "blueprints". These directions determine the organism's characteristics. Background If we could zoom in on a single, tiny cell, we could see an even teenier "container" inside called a nucleus. It holds a stringy substance called DNA, which is like a set of blueprints, or instructions. DNA contains a code for how to build a life-form and put together the features that make that organism unique. Segments, or pieces, of DNA are called "genes". In living things, such as us, each gene determines something about our bodies—a trait. In our DNA there are genes that are responsible for hair color, eye color, earlobe shape and so on. We get our DNA from our parents. Some characteristics, like eye color, are pretty much entirely determined by DNA. Some are determined both by DNA and by your environment as you grow up, like how tall you will be as an adult. And some traits are not very directly tied to DNA at all, like the kind of books you like to read. Just like us, banana plants have genes and DNA in their cells, and just like us, their DNA determines their traits. Using only our eyes, we couldn't see a single cell or the DNA inside of it. If we remove DNA from millions of cells, however, we will be able to view it without a microscope. That is what we will do today! How to extract DNA from a banana: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...g-science-home |
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5234/pw7g.jpg
Antarctic Lake Vostok buried under two miles of ice found to teem with life Analysis of ice cores obtained from the basin of Lake Vostok, the subglacial lake that Russian scientists drilled down to in 2012, have revealed DNA from an estimated 3,507 organisms. While the majority were found to be bacteria, many of which were new to science, there were also other single celled organisms and multicellular organisms found, including from fungi. The diversity of life from the lake has surprised scientists as many had thought the lake would be sterile due to the extreme conditions. Lake Vostok was first covered by ice more than 15 million years ago and is now buried 12,000 feet beneath the surface, creating huge pressures. Few nutrients were expected to be found. However, samples of ice that had formed as water from the lake froze onto the bottom of the glacial ice sheet above have revealed it is teeming with life. This will raise hopes that life may be found in other extreme environments on other planets. One of Jupiter's moons, Europa, for example, is covered with an icy shell that may hide a liqud ocean below where life could exist. Dr Scott Rogers, a biologist at Bowling Green State University, in Ohio, and led the DNA analysis of biological material found in the ice cores, said: "We found much more complexity than anyone thought. "It really shows the tenacity of life, and how organisms can survive in places where a couple dozen years ago we thought nothing could survive. "The bounds on what is habitable and what is not are changing." Lake Vostok is around 160 miles long and 30 miles wide, covering an area of more than 6,000 square miles beneath the Antarctic ice sheet. Among the bacteria found in the samples brought to the surface were those commonly found in the digestive systems of fish, crustaceans and annelid worms, raising the prospect there could be more complex life still living in the lake. Isolated from the rest of the world for 15 million years, some of the DNA sequences were found to be unique to science and may belong to new species that have evolved in the depths. Writing in the journal PLOS One, Dr Rogers and his colleagues said: "The sequences suggest that a complex environment might exist in Lake Vostok. "Sequences indicating organisms from aquatic, marine, sediment and icy environments were present in the accretion ice. "In addition, another major proportion of the sequences were from organisms that are symbionts of animals and/or plants. "Over 35 million years ago, Lake Vostok was open to the atmosphere and was surrounded by a forested ecosystem. At that time, the lake, which might have been a marine bay, probably contained a complex network of organisms. "As recently as 15 million years ago, portions of the lake were ice free at least part of the time. During these times, organisms were likely being deposited in the lake. "While the current conditions are different than earlier in its history, the lake seems to have maintained a surprisingly diverse community of organisms. "These organisms may have slowly adapted to the changing conditions in Lake Vostok during the past 15–35 million years as the lake converted from a terrestrial system to a subglacial system." |
Quote:
|
Tissue engineering: How to build a heart
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/7513/u96j.jpg <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pd3TFB0wOI0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> More info in link at the top. |
|
Your sneeze sound is just attention whoring...
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7922/f56h.jpg Why deaf people sneeze silently An online magazine for the deaf community, Limping Chicken, recently ran an item on how deaf and hearing people sneeze differently. The article by partially deaf journalist Charlie Swinbourne got readers talking - and the cogs started turning at Ouch too. Swinbourne observes that deaf people don't make the "achoo!" sound when they sneeze, while hearing people seem to do it all the time - in fact, he put it in his humorous list, The Top 10 Annoying Habits of Hearing People. Nor is "achoo" universal - it's what English-speaking sneezers say. The French sneeze "atchoum". In Japan, it's "hakashun" and in the Philippines, they say "ha-ching". Inserting words into sneezes - and our responses such as "bless you" - are cultural habits we pick up along the way. So it's not surprising that British deaf people, particularly users of sign language, don't think to add the English word "achoo" to this most natural of actions. For deaf people, "a sneeze is what it should be... something that just happens", says Swinbourne in his article. He even attempts to describe what an achoo-free deaf sneeze sounds like: "[There is] a heavy breath as the deep pre-sneeze breath is taken, then a sharper, faster sound of air being released." Very little deaf-sneeze research exists, but a study has been done on deaf people and their laughter. So do deaf laughs sound different to hearing ones? In a paper called Laughter Among Deaf Signers, the deaf guffaw or titter is described as "obvious and easily identified" but "more varied than the typical laughter of hearing people". Speaking to Ouch, Prof Bencie Woll, director of the Deafness Cognition and Language Research Centre at University College London, calls actions like these "vegetative sounds". She says we can modify the noise, but we can't stop it. "When we laugh, we are not trying to go 'ha ha'. That's just the sound that comes out as a result of the changes we make in our throat. The influence we have over our sneezing and laughter allows us to stifle them or put more power behind them, depending on what feels socially appropriate." |
Happy Birthday to Nikola Tesla. One of the most brilliant mother****ers ever to grace the Earth. Sometimes crazy, but always brilliant...
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8352/j5yr.jpg |
Bump. **** Edison!!
Quote:
|
Just went to a lecture at work on bubble science. Been looking at bubbles since childhood and never watched a single bubble long enough to see its whole life cycle as the soap weighs down and collects at the bottom. The top of the bubble gets thinner and thinner, changes color predictably, and then turns black before popping. Really cool physics on something I've just always taken for granted. I enjoyed the lecture. It also included lighting gas filled bubbles on fire so there was excitement too!
p.s. Tesla was awesome. |
We've confirmed almost 1,000 extrasolar planets now. Which just a few decades ago would have been considered unlikely to the point of being unpossible. But we now know that the universe is flourishing with planets.
And yet on a truly cosmic scale, we've barely peeked through the keyhole looking into our own solar backyard.... http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3271/lrej.jpg |
|
It's called sonoluminescence. No one knows exactly why this occurs, but there are a lot of different hypotheses. One of the most common explanations is that when the bubble collapses, the air inside gets pressurized. Increasing the pressure on a gas increases the temperature of the gas. During sonoluminescence, the temperature inside the tiny bubbles becomes so great that the gas begins to glow.
Another hypothesis is that the collapsing bubble lends energy to prolong the life of the otherwise quickly annihilating photons that are spontaneously generated in a vacuum. Sonoluminescence could also be the product of the way photons can pop into and out of existence; the sudden collapse of the bubble making the photons noticeable to those in the macro world." http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5817/opih.jpg |
The TMT. It's dynomite.
Near the center of Pasadena, California, a team of scientists, engineers, and project specialists is busily planning and designing what eventually will become the most advanced and powerful optical telescope on Earth. When completed later this decade, the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) will enable astronomers to study objects in our own solar system and stars throughout our Milky Way and its neighboring galaxies, and forming galaxies at the very edge of the observable Universe, near the beginning of time. http://www.tmt.org/science-case http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1253/zocp.jpg The 30-meter aperture permits the telescope to focus more sharply than smaller telescopes by using the power of diffraction of light. The large aperture also collects more light than smaller scopes, allowing images of fainter objects. TMT will therefore reach further and see more clearly than previous telescopes by a factor of 10 to 100 depending on the observation. In addition to providing nine times the collecting area of the current largest optical/infrared telescopes (the 10-meter Keck Telescopes), TMT will be used with adaptive optics systems to allow diffraction-limited performance, i.e., the best that the optics of the system can theoretically provide. This will provide unparalleled high-sensitivity spatial resolution more than 12 times sharper than what is achieved by the Hubble Space Telescope. For many applications, diffraction-limited observations give gains in sensitivity that scale like the diameter of the mirror to the fourth power, so this increase in size has major implications. |
If you like astronaut type stuff, this is really really interesting and surprisingly hilarious....
This is the complete transcript from the Apollo 10 mission. http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/miss...ns/AS10_CM.PDF Here's a neat excerpt: http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/3671/ocee.jpg |
When the Navy SEAL swam to the Apollo 11 capsule to open the hatch, he fell back into the water with a shocked look on his face, when the astronauts asked him if they really looked that bad, he said "its not how you look, its how you smell".
I guess that thing just gets putrid inside. And pooping in space is apparently such a huge pain that some guys took a medication that kept them from going at all. |
Quote:
|
Never-before-seen GIANT virus found that's so unusual it may have come from Mars
-The Pandoravirus is one micrometre big - ten times the size of other viruses -It is found underwater but is not considered a threat to humans -The virus has been spotted off the coast of Chile and in an Australian pond -Only six per cent of its genes resemble those seen before on Earth Scientists have found a new virus thought to be the biggest ever seen on Earth. The virus, dubbed Pandoravirus, is one micrometre big - up to ten times the size of other viruses - and only six per cent of its genes resemble anything seen on Earth before. This has led French researchers to believe the virus may have come from an ancient time or even another planet, such as Mars. However, the researchers, who published their findings in the journal Science, believe that the virus opens up a range of questions about the history of life on Earth. Dr Jean-Michel Claverie of Aix-Marseille University in France, who found the virus, told NPR: ‘We believe that these new Pandoraviruses have emerged from a new ancestral cellular type that no longer exists.’ Many traditional viruses range in size from around 10 nanometres (nm) to around 500nm. The Pandoravirus is around one micrometre big and there are 1,000nm in a micrometre. This means the Pandoravirus is big enough to be seen under the most basic microscopes. Dr Claverie explained that because the virus is very big and lacks the regular shape normally associated with viruses, he initially thought it was a small bacterium. His team went on a hunt for giant viruses after a survey identified signs of them in seawater. They took sediment samples from the coast off Chile and from a pond in Australia. They took the samples to their laboratory and put them in a solution packed with antibiotics in an attempt to kill any bacteria present. The Megavirus, pictured, was previously thought to have been the biggest virus on Earth at 440nm - half the size of the new Pandoravirus These bacteria-free samples were then exposed to amoebas knowing that if they died, there must be something else in the samples killing them. This proved to be successful and large amounts of Pandoravirus were spawned. When the team studied them they found that their genetic code was twice the size of the Megavirus, which was previously the biggest virus ever found at around 440nm. However, they were in for more of a shock as only six per cent of its genes resembled genes seen before in other organisms on Earth. Dr Claverie told NPR: ‘We believe that those new Pandoraviruses have emerged from a new ancestral cellular type that no longer exists.’ He went on to explain that it is possible that they have come from another planet, such as Mars. The researchers do not yet know why this cellular form became a virus but they speculate that it could have evolved as a survival strategy. Alternatively, its unusual genome could have developed as a result of it picking up genetic material from its hosts. The researchers say that they now expect to find more giant viruses. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...39_634x506.jpg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...en-planet.html |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Dotn reed gud I guess. |
I climaxed..
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NeVCR1qfMaU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Neil deGrasse Tyson Says Long-Awaited Cosmos Sequel Tells ‘Greatest Story Ever Told’ SAN DIEGO — Space fans have been waiting a long time for a sequel to Carl Sagan’s groundbreaking documentary series Cosmos — 33 years, to be exact. Next year they’ll finally get that long-awaited follow-up, and it’ll be hosted by everyone’s favorite astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, which will air on Fox in 2014, is meant to take the groundwork of Sagan’s brilliant 1980 series and expand it for modern audiences. It will also, according to Tyson, build on that show’s ability to be more than just a televised science book. “[Cosmos] spent time learning—exploring—how to make science matter to you, as a human being, as a citizen, as a species with the capacity to reflect on its own existence. And those kind of messages are timeless,” Tyson told reporters following a screening of the documentary at Comic-Con International in San Diego. “They’re layered onto whatever is the science of the day, but it’s the science of the day that gives us knowledge about how to think about our place in the universe.” Sagan’s widow Ann Druyan, who co-wrote and produced the first series along with Sagan and Steven Soter, is producing Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. She noted that while the original was about how science discovered Earth’s coordinates in space and time, the new Cosmos looks to the future. “This series is still about that same thing, but we’re telling a completely different set of stories, establishing the coordinates, but then jumping off from there,” Druyan told reporters. The show’s crew includes a who’s who of science fiction veterans, including director Brannon Braga, who won a Hugo award for his work as a writer and producer on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and director of photography Bill Pope, who was also the cinematographer on the Matrix trilogy. The particular expertise of Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane, who was instrumental in not only getting the show off the ground but winning it its prime-time spot on the Fox network, will be visible in the new Cosmos as well. In the new series, the live-action historical reenactments of the original series will be largely replaced with animation in what Braga described as “a sophisticated graphic novel-type style.” Since it’s been more than three decades since the first Cosmos, there are now far more visual effects that can be utilized to enhance the impact and the scope of the series. “As humans, we like hearing stories,” Tyson said. “We have what I think is the greatest story ever told: the story of the universe, and our place within it, and how we came to discover our place within it. And finally, we have the methods and tools to bring that to the screen.” Some of the new effects will update concepts and images introduced in the original show, like the cosmic calendar. “With Brannon’s talent we could take the cosmic calendar, which actually had cardboard dinosaurs on it in the original, and turn it into something that was, I think, even grander and more representative of that great football field of time,” said Druyan. Above all, the goal of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey is meant to recapture the accessibility and broad appeal of the first series. However, the creators aren’t looking to preach to the space-loving converted. Instead, they’ll use the show’s network placement and prime-time slot to reach the people who might not have found the series otherwise. “We’re doing exactly what Carl Sagan would have done, which is to go to the broadest possible audience and try to touch each and every person,” Druyan said. Creating a show with that level of accessibility is the best hope for a return to a science-literate—and more science-passionate—society. “That’s what Cosmos is about. It’s about a hopeful vision of the future,” Druyan said, “It’s about the future we could still have—it’s not too late—that is within our grasp if we could just awaken from this stupor that we’re in.” |
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/80/e2zk.jpg
Explanation: In a cross-Solar System interplanetary first, our Earth was photographed during the same day from both Mercury and Saturn. Pictured on the left, Earth is the pale blue dot just below the rings of Saturn, as captured by the robotic Cassini spacecraft now the gas giant. Pictured on the right, the Earth-Moon system is seen against a dark background, as captured by the robotic MESSENGER spacecraft now orbiting Mercury. In the MESSENGER image, the Earth (left) and Moon (right) shine brightly with reflected sunlight. MESSENGER took the overexposed image last Friday as part of a search for small natural satellites of the innermost planet, moons that would be expected to be quite dim. During this same day, humans across planet Earth snapped many of their own pictures of Saturn. "Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every 'superstar,' every 'supreme leader,' every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam." -Carl Sagan |
Fish still bringin' it heavy; rep.
|
Quote:
It is already mutating and infecting us.... http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thu...ommercial.jpeg |
Quote:
Holy crap...LMAO |
I'll put this in here too worth watching twice if repost :)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kI2htibwWH4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
That's no moon!! Wait.. actually, that is a moon.
It's Saturn's moon Mimas. And the smaller object under that is the moon Pandora(minus sexy blue aliens). Viewed by the passing Cassini as it buzzes by the rings. http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6336/wn08.jpg |
That's not a moon, that's a death star!
|
OK, pretty cool....
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YQIMGV5vtd4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> |
Everything you ever wanted to know about how you evolved your dangling sack of man milk... Actually pretty fascinating...
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/2172/6yob.jpg The Scrotum Is Nuts Why are testicles kept in a vulnerable dangling sac? It’s not why you think. Soccer fans call it brave goalkeeping, the act of springing into a star shape in front of an attacker who is about to kick the ball as hard as possible toward the goal. As I shuffled from the field, bent forward, eyes watering, waiting for the excruciating whack of pain in my crotch to metamorphose into a gut-wrenching ache, I thought only stupid goalkeeping. But after the fourth customary slap on the back from a teammate chortling, “Hope you never wanted kids, pal,” I thought only stupid, stupid testicles. Natural selection has sculpted the mammalian forelimb into horses’ front legs, dolphins’ fins, bats’ wings, and my soccer ball-catching hands. Why, on the path from the primordial soup to us curious hairless apes, did evolution house the essential male reproductive organs in an exposed sac? It's like a bank deciding against a vault and keeping its money in a tent on the sidewalk. Some of you may be thinking that there is a simple answer: temperature. This arrangement evolved to keep them cool. I thought so, too, and assumed that a quick glimpse at the scientific literature would reveal the biological reasons and I’d move on. But what I found was that the small band of scientists who have dedicated their professional time to pondering the scrotum’s existence are starkly divided over this so-called cooling hypothesis. Reams of data show that scrotal sperm factories, including our own, work best a few degrees below core body temperature. The problem is, this doesn’t prove cooling was the reason that testicles originally descended. It’s a straight-up chicken-and-egg situation—did testicles leave the kitchen because they couldn't stand the heat, or do they work best in the cold because they had to leave the body? Vital organs that work optimally at 98.5 degrees Fahrenheit get bony protection: My brain and liver are shielded by skull and ribs, and my girlfriend’s ovaries are defended by her pelvis. Forgoing skeletal protection is dangerous. Each year, thousands of men go to the hospital with ruptured testes or torsions caused by having this essential organ suspended chandelierlike on a flexible twine of tubes and cords. But having exposed testicles as an adult is not even the most dangerous aspect of our reproductive organs’ arrangement. Advertisement The developmental journey to the scrotum is treacherous. At eight weeks of development, a human fetus has two unisex structures that will become either testicles or ovaries. In girls, they don't stray far from this starting point up by the kidneys. But in boys, the nascent gonads make a seven-week voyage across the abdomen on a pulley system of muscles and ligaments. They then sit for a few weeks before coordinated waves of muscular contractions force them out through the inguinal canal. The complexity of this journey means that it frequently goes wrong. About 3 percent of male infants are born with undescended testicles, and although often this eventually self-corrects, it persists in 1 percent of 1-year-old boys and typically leads to infertility. Excavating the inguinal canal also introduces a significant weakness in the abdominal wall, a passage through which internal organs can slip. In the United States, more than 600,000 surgeries are performed annually to repair inguinal hernias—the vast majority of them in men. This increased risk of hernias and sterilizing mishaps seems hardly in keeping with the idea of evolution as survival of the fittest. Natural selection's tagline reflects the importance of attributes that help keep creatures alive—not dying being an essential part of evolutionary success. How can a trait such as scrotality (to use the scientific term for possessing a scrotum), with all the obvious handicaps it confers, fit into this framework? Its story is certainly going to be less straightforward than the evolution of a cheetah's leg muscles. Most investigators have tended to think that the advantages of this curious anatomical arrangement must come in the shape of improved fertility. But this is far from proven. When considering any evolved characteristic, good first questions are who has it and who had it first. In birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians, male gonads are internal. The scrotum is a curiosity unique to mammals. A recent testicle’s-eye view of the mammalian family tree revealed that the monumental descent occurred pretty early in mammalian evolution. And what’s more, the scrotum was so important that it evolved twice. The first mammals lived about 220 million years ago. The most primitive living mammals are the duck-billed platypus and its ilk—creatures with key mammalian features such as warm blood, fur, and lactation (the platypus kind of sweats milk rather than having tidy nipples), although they still lay eggs like the ancestors they share with reptiles. Platypus testicles, and almost certainly those of all early mammals, sit right where they start life, safely tucked by the kidneys. About 70 million years later, marsupials evolved, and it is on this branch of the family tree that we find the first owner of a scrotum. Nearly all marsupials today have scrotums, and so logically the common ancestor of kangaroos, koalas, and Tasmanian devils had the first. Marsupials evolved their scrotum independently from us placental mammals, which is known thanks to a host of technical reasons, the most convincing of which is that it’s back-to-front. Marsupials' testicles hang in front of their penises. Fifty million years after the marsupial split is the major fork in the mammalian tree, scrotally speaking. Take a left and you will encounter elephants, mammoths, aardvarks, manatees, and groups of African shrew- and mole-like creatures. But you will never see a scrotum—all of these placental animals, like platypuses, retain their gonads close to their kidneys. However, take a right, to the human side of the tree, at this 100 million-year-old juncture and you’ll find descended testicles everywhere. Whatever they're for, scrotums bounce along between the hind limbs of cats, dogs, horses, bears, camels, sheep, and pigs. And, of course, we and all our primate brethren have them. This means that at the base of this branch is the second mammal to independently concoct scrotality—the one to whom we owe thanks for our dangling parts being, surely correctly, behind the penis. Between these branches, however, is where it gets interesting, for there are numerous groups, our descended but ascrotal cousins, whose testes drop down away from the kidneys but don't exit the abdomen. Almost certainly, these animals evolved from ancestors whose testes were external, which means at some point they backtracked on scrotality, evolving anew gonads inside the abdomen. They are a ragtag bunch including hedgehogs, moles, rhinos and tapirs, hippopotamuses, dolphins and whales, some seals and walruses, and scaly anteaters. For mammals that returned to the water, tucking everything back up inside seems only sensible; a dangling scrotum isn’t hydrodynamic and would be an easy snack for fish attacking from below. I say snack, but the world record-holders, right whales, have testicles that tip the scales at more than 1,000 pounds apiece. The trickier question, which may well be essential for understanding its function, is why did the scrotal sac lose its magic for terrestrial hedgehogs, rhinos, and scaly anteaters? The scientific search to explain the scrotum's raison d'être began in England in the 1890s at Cambridge University. Joseph Griffiths, using terriers as his unfortunate subjects, pushed their testicles back into their abdomens and sutured them there. As little as a week later, he found that the testes had degenerated, the tubules where sperm production occurs had constricted, and sperm were virtually absent. He put this down to the higher temperature of the abdomen, and the cooling hypothesis was born. In the 1920s, a time when Darwin's ideas were rapidly spreading, Carl Moore at the University of Chicago argued that after mammals had transitioned from cold- to warm-blooded, keeping the body in the mid-to-high 90 degrees must have severely hampered sperm production, and the first males to cool things off with a scrotum became the more successful breeders. Heat disrupts sperm production so effectively that biology textbooks and medical tracts alike give cooling as the reason for the scrotum. The problem is many biologists who seriously think about animal evolution are unhappy with this. Opponents say that testicles function optimally at cooler temperatures because they evolved this trait after their exile. If mammals became warm-blooded 220 million or so years ago, it would mean mammals carried their gonads internally for more than 100 million years before the scrotum made its bow. The two events were hardly tightly coupled. The hypothesis' biggest problem, though, is all the sacless branches on the family tree. Regardless of their testicular arrangements, all mammals have elevated core temperatures. If numerous mammals lack a scrotum, there is nothing fundamentally incompatible with making sperm at high temperatures. Elephants have a higher core temperature than gorillas and most marsupials. And beyond mammals it gets worse: Birds, the only other warm-blooded animals, have internal testes despite having core temperatures that in some species run to 108 degrees. Any argument for why cooling would be better for sperm has to say exactly why. The idea that a little less heat might keep sperm DNA from mutating has been proposed, and recently it's been suggested that keeping sperm cool may allow the warmth of a vagina to act as an extra activating signal. But these ideas still fail to surmount the main objections to the cooling hypothesis. Michael Bedford of Cornell Medical College is no fan of the cooling hypothesis applied to testicles, but he does wonder whether having a cooled epididymis, the tube where sperm sit after leaving their testicular birthplace, might be important. (Sperm are impotent on exiting the testes and need a few final modifications while in the epididymis.) Bedford has noted that some animals with abdominal testes have extended their epididymis to just below the skin, and that some furry scrotums have a bald patch for heat loss directly above this storage tube. But if having a cool epididymis is the main goal, why throw the testicles out with it? Another proposal for how the scrotum generates better sperm is that the scrotal sac serves as a school of hard knocks. Scott Freeman of the University of Washington hypothesized that the scrotum's poor blood supply keeps the testicles in an oxygen-starved environment and so toughens up the sperm. Deprived of oxygen, sperm might react like "muscle cells to aerobic training," increasing the number and size of mitochondria they contain and therefore becoming better prepared for the herculean task of ascending a cervix, uterus, and fallopian tube. The main problem with the training hypothesis is that it was primarily concerned with the testicles’ lousy blood supply rather than their expulsion¾surely it would have been easier to evolve poor gonadal vasculature while keeping them in the body? The alternative to scrotums benefiting sperm is that in some other way, despite their fragility, they actually benefit their owner. Such a notion was first presented in 1952 by a Swiss zoologist named Adolf Portmann after he'd presented the first major attack on the cooling hypothesis. What he proposed instead was the display hypothesis. Portmann argued that by placing the gonads on the outside, the male was giving a clear indication of his "reproductive pole," a sexual signal important in intergender communication. Portmann’s best evidence was a few Old World monkeys who have brightly colored scrota. This theory is not widely accepted because such conspicuous displays are rare (many scrotums are barely visible) and bright coloration seems to have evolved long after the original scrotum. Some have suggested it’s not surprising that in its 100 million-year existence, the scrotum has been co-opted as a sexual attractant by a handful of groups. I was just about to discard the display hypothesis when two things happened. First, a colleague returned from her honeymoon in Tanzania excitedly showing anyone who'd look photos of a scrotum. The scrotum belonged, don't worry, to one of Portmann's Old World monkeys, a vervet monkey, and it was screamingly, beguilingly bright blue.* OK, it's just one monkey, I thought, but then I met Richard Dawkins. I had three minutes with the esteemed evolutionary biologist at a book signing, so I asked him for his opinions on the scrotum. After expressing severe doubt about the cooling hypothesis, he said he wondered whether it might have something to do with evolutionary biology's handicap principle. Handicap theory posits that if a female had to choose between two suitors who had beaten out all other competitors, but one had done so with a hand tied behind his back, she’d go for him because he’s obviously tougher still. It is controversial, but it does offer explanations for a number of problematic biological phenomena, such as male birds’ colorful plumage and songs that should attract predators. If the handicap theory is right, the scrotum exists to let its possessor say, “I’m so able to look after myself, I can keep these on the outside!” In the mid-1990s, Michael Chance, a professor of animal behavior at the U.K.'s University of Birmingham, came across a newspaper story about the Oxford-Cambridge University boat race that piqued his interest in testicles. He learned that after the race, the rowers’ urine contained fluid from their prostates. The oarsmen's exertions, the cyclic abdominal straining, had deposited prostatic fluid in their urethras because there are no sphincters in the reproductive tract. Without such valves, squeezing of any of the sacs and tubes that make up this system is liable to empty it, or at least rearrange its contents. In 1996, in what has become known as the galloping hypothesis, Chance argued that externalization of the testes was necessary when mammals started to move in ways that sharply increased abdominal pressure. A survey of how mammals move reveals a good deal of variety. And when Chance listed animals with internal testicles, he didn't find many gallopers. The elephants, aardvarks, and their cousins on the undescended branch of the mammalian tree don't bound or jump around. On the other side, the creatures such as moles and hedgehogs that reabsorbed their sexual cargo seem to have evolved away from internally disruptive types of movement. Among mammals that have returned to the sea, the few that have retained scrotums are the only ones who breed on land, such as elephant seals, who fight vigorously to defend their territory during rutting season. One might argue that evolution could surely have thrown in a sphincter or two, or some internal shielding, but besides the possibility that the mechanics of ejaculation would struggle with such things, another argument supports Chance’s thinking. In 1991 Roland Frey of Germany's Freiburg University reported a number of features of blood vessels of scrotal testes that ensure more constant pressure, possibly to avoid impaired blood drainage during galloping. The specific adaptations are different between marsupials and the rest of us but seem aimed at the same goal. The galloping hypothesis would be a case of evolutionary compromise—the dangers of scrotality being a necessary price for the greater advantages of a new and valuable type of movement. There are many theories in evolutionary biology. Often there's great pleasure in the detectivelike process of piecing together the available, incomplete evidence into a coherent story, but the big challenge for this science is actually testing these ideas. One exciting recent development that might provide relevant evolutionary data has been the identification of the signal that controls the testicles’ initial descent from the kidney region to the undercarriage. When the testes and ovaries are young, they are held in place by the so-called cranial suspensory ligament, while holding on loosely is a second, measly ligament termed the gubernaculum. To begin their roller-coaster ride, testicles secrete a signal that causes the suspensory ligament to degenerate and the gubernaculum to grow capable of dragging them to the base of the abdomen. To study the evolution of this signal, a molecule related to insulin, Teddy Hsu and colleagues at Stanford University turned to the duck-billed platypus. They found that the platypus has a single gene for the prototype version of the signal, and that it was this gene's duplication in subsequent mammals that allowed one version to evolve a function in testicular descent and the other in nipple development. It’s a beautiful example of a genetic event in biological history that produced mammalian specialization. However, elephants and their nondescended cousins all have the duplicated genes, so the story's not complete. A crucial next step will be determining the genes required for forming the inguinal canal and making the scrotum. Probably the best place to look will be in those mammals that have backtracked on externalization, where these genes have likely changed. It's rather humbling to realize that this basic aspect of our bodies remains a mystery. The fact that such a ridiculous appendage evolved twice surely means we should be able to get a handle on it. A successful theory will have to explain the full diversity of mammalian testicle positions, not just the scrotum’s existence. I like Chance and Frey's galloping hypothesis, but could a scrotum really be the only way to deal with undulating abdominal pressure? In addition, do scrotal sperm really differ fundamentally from internally generated tiddlers? Can we definitively prove temperature sensitivity evolved after the expulsion of the scrotum? And signaling is still an outside bet, but if scrotums were really sexually selected, where's the mammalian peacock, some species toting a pair of soccer balls? Talking of which, while we wait for a final answer, the scrotality totality, us soccer goalkeepers should probably look to our baseball-playing friends who use evolution's gift of a large brain and opposable thumbs to don a protective cup. |
Read, you damn heathens!
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8688/6w01.jpg Being a Lifelong Bookworm May Keep You Sharp in Old Age To keep their bodies running at peak performance, people often hit the gym, pounding away at the treadmill to strengthen muscles and build endurance. This dedication has enormous benefits—being in shape now means warding off a host of diseases when you get older. But does the brain work in the same way? That is, can doing mental exercises help your mind stay just as sharp in old age? Experts say it’s possible. As a corollary to working out, people have begun joining brain gyms to flex their mental muscles. For a monthly fee of around $15, websites like Lumosity.com and MyBrainTrainer.com promise to enhance memory, attention and other mental processes through a series of games and brain teasers. Such ready-made mind exercises are an alluring route for people who worry about their ticking clock. But there’s no need to slap down the money right away—new research suggests the secret to preserving mental agility may lie in simply cracking open a book. The findings, published online today in Neurology, suggest that reading books, writing and engaging in other similar brain-stimulating activities slows down cognitive decline in old age, independent of common age-related neurodegenerative diseases. In particular, people who participated in mentally stimulating activities over their lifetimes, both in young, middle and old age, had a slower rate of decline in memory and other mental capacities than those who did not. More at link... |
OK, I've hooked up the gator clips to this car battery here. Who's first?
Zapping the Brain Improves Math Skills THE GIST - A mild electrical current improves a person's ability to learn math skills. - The effect lasts up to six months. - The technique could help students learn other skills besides math as well. It's barely enough to light a light bulb, but passing a very mild current of electricity through the brain can turn on a metaphorical light bulb in a person's brain. Scientists from the University of Oxford have shown that they can improve a person's math abilities for up to six months. The research could help treat the nearly 20 percent of the population with moderate to severe dyscalculia (math disability), and could probably aid students in other subjects as well. "I am certainly not advising people to go around giving themselves electric shocks," said Roi Cohen Kadosh, a scientist at the University of Oxford and a co-author of a new paper. "But we are extremely excited by the potential of our findings." The UK scientists used a method known as transcranial direct current stimulation, or TDCS. This non-invasive technique involves passing electricity through the skull to increase or decrease the activity of neurons, usually for less than 15 minutes. The amount of electricity is tiny, so small that most patients don't even know it is happening. In fact, many scientists were initially skeptical it would have any effect at all, said Jim Stinear, Director of the Neuralplasticity Laboratory at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. For this experiment the scientists directed the current into the brain's parietal lobe, which is involved in number processing. Instead of learning familiar Arabic numerals, however, the scientists had the participants learn a new series of symbols that represented numbers. Then, while their brains were being stimulated, they tested the participants ability to organize those numbers. Patients who were on TDCS showed an improved ability to order the numbers. The electric current makes it subtly easier or more difficult to stimulate a particular group of nerves, depending on the needs of the researchers and the patient. For example, if researchers want to make it easier for a patient to learn, then the nerves will fire more readily. Other studies have shown that TDCS can improve a variety of brain functions, from pain management to rehabilitation after traumatic events, said Jim Stinear, Director of the Neuralplasticity Laboratory at the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago. But what is "really remarkable," about this new research is how long the effects lasted: six months. If TDCS can improve number processing in normal people, it should be able to improve number processing in people who have lower than normal number processing skills, and that's who the Oxford scientists will be testing next. TDCS should be able to improve other types of learning, such as language, as long as they are near the surface of the brain. Structures like the hippocampus, which are buried under entire lobes of the brain, are likely beyond the reach of TDCS, said Cohen Kadosh. While the Oxford scientists don't advocate plugging yourself into a wall socket, they do eventually hope to create a device that will provide an appropriate amount of electrical current to the brain, and have filed a patent on such a device. Such a device won't instantly make you better at math, help you recover from a stroke faster, or manage pain better, said Stinear. Anybody using a device will still have to put in a significant amount of effort. Drawing a parallel between a popular stimulant, Stinear said that coffee can help you wake up,but if you just sit on the couch you still aren't being productive. The same goes for TDCS. "Electrical stimulation will most likely not turn you into Albert Einstein," said Kadosh, "but if we're successful it might be able to help some people to cope better with math." |
Crossword puzzles cover all the bases.
|
Here's your excuse, smartass....
<a href="http://www.bestmastersdegrees.com/drunken-geniuses/"><img src="http://ig.bestmastersdegrees.com/drunken-geniuses.jpg" alt="Drunken Geniuses: Sharp as a Tack, Drunk as a Skunk" width="800" border="0" /></a> |
2000-Year-Old Ancient Technology for Metal Coatings Superior to Today’s Standards
Researchers have discovered that artisans and craftsmen 2,000 years ago used a form of ancient technology for applying thin films of metal to statues and other items, which was superior to today’s standards for producing DVDs, solar cells, electronic devices and other products. By April Halloway Ancient Origins July 26, 2013 The incredible discovery, published in the journal of Accounts of Chemical Research, confirm “the high level of competence reached by the artists and craftsmen of these ancient periods who produced objects of an artistic quality that could not be bettered in ancient times and has not yet been reached in modern ones,” said the scientists who made the finding. Fire gilding and silvering are age-old mercury-based processes used to coat the surface items such as jewels, statues and amulets with thin layers of gold or silver. While it was mostly used for decoration, it was sometimes used fraudulently to simulate the appearance of gold or silver on a less precious metal. From a technological point of view, what the ancient gilders achieved 2000 years ago, was to make the metal coatings incredibly thin, adherent and uniform, which saved expensive metals and improved its durability, something which has never been achieved to the same standard today. Apparently without any knowledge about the chemical–physical processes, ancient craftsmen systematically manipulated metals to create spectacular results. They developed a variety of techniques, including using mercury like a glue to apply thin films of metals, including gold and silver, to objects. While the scientists concluded that their results were importance because they could help preserve artistic and other treasures from the past, we believe the findings have an even greater significance, for they once again demonstrate that there was a far higher level of understanding and knowledge of advanced concepts and techniques in our ancient past than what they are given credit for. Other examples of ancient technology include the 2000-year old Antikythera mechanism, an ancient metallic device consisting of a complex combination of gears which is thought to have been used for calculating the positions of celestial bodies to determine solar and lunar eclipses with accurate precision, and the Baghdad Battery, a clay pot encapsulating a copper cylinder with an iron rod suspended in the centre which appears to be the earliest form of an electric battery. The level of sophistication present 2,000 years ago and even earlier is perplexing and raises many questions about where the knowledge came from and how it originated. One thing is for sure, our history books should be rewritten to include such significant accomplishments of our ancient past and not simply cast aside in the ‘too hard to understand’ basket. http://intellihub.com/2013/07/25/200...ays-standards/ |
Interesting stuff KC, when i'm "soberer" i'll look up some very similar things to buttress that from Erich Von Danikens Chariots of the Gods... our ancient forebearers werent nearly as backward as many still believe.
|
Quote:
That's remarkable. Though my own life is a validation of this post, I had always assumed I was an aberration. In high school I had the highest score in the school on what was then the equivalent of the SAT. My IQ has been tested a couple of times at around 140, which almost got me sent to a school for "special" children, but my parents wouldn't allow it... And I was an inveterate drunk shortly after high school. When I say drunk, I mean drunk. I'm talking a case of beer a night, 6 or 7 nights out of the week. A functional drunk, but a drunk nonetheless. I'm sure it has affected my health over the years, as well as other areas of my life, and I would do anything to go back and slap some sense into myself all those years ago. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That formation flying is pretty cool...LMAO But I notice it all takes place indoors...I bet outside, even a 5 mph breeze blows their little asses all over the place. |
Quote:
|
I'm calling BS on this whole article. The ancients were primitive peoples. They had no knowledge we don't possess today. They were simpletons as we will be in a couple thousand years to the cultures then.
Any article athat mentions the Bagdad battery as some sign of anything other than possibilites needs to have the article dismissed out of hand. Quote:
|
Quote:
But yeah. On the whole, I doubt the premise of the article. |
Quote:
|
Little off topic..........My son is making noises that he wants a PHD in astrophysics. I'm thinking I need a higher paying job. :deevee:
Any experience in here with schools? Know anyone that went down this path. I don't think he realizes the work that will be needed to pull this off. But anyhow, he's thinking bachelors in engineering, minor in Physics. Master in AstroPhysics and Astronomy in 4 years and then on to the PHD in Astrophysics. |
Scientific discoveries made on ebay, movies and the internet
http://www.cracked.com/article_19517...s-pics-article |
Intelligent people binge drink so that they can put up with dumbasses.
I love drinking with other smart people because the conversation can actually challenge me and force me to think out of the box. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Search for my "Hangover Cures Part Deux" thread. |
Quote:
|
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/838/hn56.jpg
Dolphins Keep Lifelong Social Memories, Longest in a Non-Human Species Aug. 6, 2013 — Dolphins can recognize their old tank mates' whistles after being separated for more than 20 years -- the longest social memory ever recorded for a non-human species. The remarkable memory feat is another indication that dolphins have a level of cognitive sophistication comparable to only a few other species, including humans, chimpanzees and elephants. Dolphins' talent for social recognition may be even more long-lasting than facial recognition among humans, since human faces change over time but the signature whistle that identifies a dolphin remains stable over many decades. "This shows us an animal operating cognitively at a level that's very consistent with human social memory," said Jason Bruck, who conducted the study and received his Ph.D. in June 2013 from the University of Chicago's program in Comparative Human Development. His study is published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. To establish how well dolphins could remember their former companions, Bruck collected data from 53 different bottlenose dolphins at six facilities, including Brookfield Zoo near Chicago and Dolphin Quest in Bermuda. The six sites were part of a breeding consortium that has rotated dolphins and kept records on which ones lived together, going back decades. "This is the kind of study you can only do with captive groups when you know how long the animals have been apart," Bruck said. "To do a similar study in the wild would be almost impossible." "Signature whistles" offer means to test memory In recent years, other studies have established that each dolphin develops its own unique signature whistle that appears to function as a name. Researchers Vincent M. Janik and Stephanie L. King at Scotland's University of St. Andrews reported earlier this year that a wild bottlenose dolphin can learn and repeat signatures belonging to other individuals, and answer when another dolphin mimics its unique call. Bruck played recordings of signature whistles to dolphins that had once lived with the animals that made the calls. Determining whether the dolphins recognized their old companions required a methodical comparison of how they responded to familiar calls versus calls belonging to dolphins they had never met. First, Bruck would play recording after recording of signature whistles that the target dolphins had never heard before. His initial studies showed that these "dolphins get bored quickly listening to signature whistles from dolphins they don't know." Once they were habituated to the unfamiliar calls, Bruck would play a recording of an animal that he knew the target dolphin had lived with. The familiar calls often would perk up the dolphins and elicit an immediate response. "When they hear a dolphin they know, they often quickly approach the speaker playing the recording," Bruck said. "At times they will hover around, whistle at it, try to get it to whistle back." To check that the response was the result of recognition, Bruck also would play a test recording of an unfamiliar bottlenose that was the same age and sex as the familiar animal. All the behavior was scored according to how quickly and to what degree the animals responded. A clear pattern emerged in the data: Compared with unfamiliar calls, dolphins responded significantly more to whistles from animals they once knew, even if they had not heard the calls in decades. An audio reunion of old companions In one notable example, Bruck played a recording of a female dolphin named Allie, who currently lives at the Brookfield Zoo, for Bailey, a female now in Bermuda. The pair had last lived together at Dolphin Connection in the Florida Keys when Allie was 2 and Bailey was 4. But 20 years and six months after their last contact, Bailey still recognized the recording of Allie's signature whistle. That kind of performance after decades apart was typical, leading Bruck to conclude that dolphins maintain lifelong memories of each others' whistles. In the wild, bottlenose dolphins have an average life expectancy of around 20 years, though longer-lived individuals can survive up to 45 years or more. In fact, Bruck's study appears to show the longest pure memory of any kind in a non-human species. Anecdotally, an elephant can remember a mother after 20 years, but testing animals' long-term memories outside of family relationships requires more systematic study of multiple relationships. Exactly why dolphins' social memories persist so long remains unclear. Dolphins exhibit sophisticated social connections that follow a "fission-fusion" model. In the open ocean, dolphins may break apart from one group and "fuse" with other groups many times over. Such relationships could have required a growth in memory capacity. But it's also possible that memory is just one facet of the advanced mind that evolved in dolphins for other reasons. "Why do they need this kind of memory? I'm not sure they do," Bruck said. "The cognitive abilities of dolphins are really well developed, and sometimes things like this are carry-along traits. But to test whether this kind of social memory capacity is adaptive, we would need more demographic data from multiple populations in the wild to see if they experience 20-year separations." The emergence of advanced memory in marine mammals as well as in humans shows that in evolution, "there are lots of ways to get from point A to point B," Bruck said. "It's nice to see this kind of ability in a non-primate, as this is a great example of convergent evolution." Probing similarities to human names Another big question such research raises is how similar dolphins' signature calls are to human words and names. So far no one has been able to test what signature whistles signify in a dolphin's mind. "We know they use these signatures like names, but we don't know if the name stands for something in their minds the way a person's name does for us," Bruck said. "We don't know yet if the name makes a dolphin picture another dolphin in its head." For his next round of research, Bruck said, "That's my goal -- show whether the call evokes a representational mental image of that individual." |
Male fruit flies have 2.3 inch (yes inch) long sperm, and their testicles are 11% of their bodyweight.
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8298/3bxn.jpg |
FYI..... Only idiots who are bad at math order Medium pizzas....
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9606/yoyv.jpg |
Glow bunnies. For science!
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/908/t7o.jpg Could Glow In The Dark Bunnies Lead To Better Drugs? What do you get when you cross jelly fish DNA with a cuddly bunny? If researchers from universities in Hawaii and Turkey have anything to say about it, the combination could result in cheaper, more effective drugs for genetic diseases. Scientists have cloned a litter of rabbits which have been given a gene from a glowing jellyfish, effectively creating two glow-in-the-dark bunnies. Under normal light the rabbits appear just as normal and healthy as their siblings, but in a dark room the animals shine a bright fluorescent green. The scientists say the transgenic bunnies aren’t harmed at all by the foreign DNA and have only been created as a proof of concept. That 25 percent of the cloned rabbits glow tells the scientists they successfully incorporated another animal’s DNA into their genome and, if it can be done here, it may be possible in humans as well. They hope that this approach might eventually be used in humans so people with genetic diseases could benefit from receiving a transplant of healthy DNA. Associate professor Stefan Moisyadi with the University of Hawaii told the Independent the cloned bunnies shine as brightly as LED lights when the room goes dark. “And on top of it, their fur is beginning to grow and the greenness is shining right through their fur. It’s so intense,” he said. These tiny rabbits were born just last week in the lab at the University of Istanbul after the scientists injected a fluorescent protein from jelly fish DNA into the mother rabbit’s embryo. Once these embryos were genetically altered, they were given back to the mother and allowed to gestate. Out of a litter of eight rabbits, two of them were born with the glowing gene. In a statement, Moisyadi said he was quite pleased with the results, noting their method achieves a higher success rate than previously seen when cloning rabbits. Now that this gene has been introduced to the rabbits, the scientists hope to find the same jellyfish protein in the milk of the female glowing rabbits. This, says the team, could lead to better, more efficient ways to produce medicines. “[For] patients who suffer from hemophilia and they need the blood clotting enzymes in their blood, we can make those enzymes a lot cheaper in animals with barrier reactives rather than a factory that will cost billions of dollars to build,” said Moisyadi. Moisyadi and University of Hawaii professor emeritus Ryuzo Yanagimachi began this work in 2011 when they traveled to Turkey to discuss a collaboration with the University of Istanbul and Marmara University. Yanagimachi, already a renowned geneticist, has also invented a technique which inserts sperm directly into an egg, a technique that is now used in many fertility clinics. He’s also been able to use this same method to create transgenic mice in previous studies. Though the glow-in-the-dark bunnies have been developed in a lab, other animals with eye-popping colors have been spotted in the wild. For instance, just months ago researchers discovered hot pink slugs in the sub-alpine rocks of Australia. These animals are reportedly “as bright pink as you can imagine” and can cover the ground on a good morning. |
|
|
Quote:
|
This is not a painting
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=762&h=702more on a chive thread http://thechive.com/2013/08/14/the-u...all-its-glory/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__.../dc/Melfal.jpg to this: http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/...pg?w=762&h=702 in under 3 seconds... Photon torpedoes are the cat's ass! |
Quote:
|
|
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Qwd25JV-jnU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Rack city, TRICK. |
Quote:
Reindeer are actually the only mammals that can see the UV spectrum. They evolved that ability from living in snow. If they didn't have that ability they would develop snow blindness. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
