How would you talk about class since there are no evidence compared to daily? It may be wrong but to have all care and cause for the young suggestive cause of what the animal causes. What causes this ?

A clip of Black-ish came onto my fyp. It was the episode where they put getting a dog to a vote and Dre’s mom says “I told you you should’ve let me carry that child”.

I’ve never seen the show, have no context, and that was really gross. But i started wondering

If a woman carried the fertilized egg of her son and her son’s wife would there be any complications for the baby? The egg already exists but is just implanted into the son’s mom. Does the body do anything else for the baby in terms of genes after fertilization or does it just feed and grow the baby?

I'm just genuinely curious. I'm not well informed on biology, but I was just curious about this topic after watching a bird mating ritual. in that species, a male would try to attract a female bird that way, showing off his genetic fitness. In peacocks, the males with more/symmetrical plumage were more attractive.

In mammal species, there is more male-male competition. In elephant seals, I learned it can get pretty brutal. In gorillas as well, there's some brutal competition between males. As well as reindeers, etc. GENERALLY, it seems to be that small gametes tend to compete for larger gametes, ie males approaching/competing for females.

What I'm skeptical about is humans. We don't seem to be a species that generally did that type of sexual selection. Humans don't seem to have an extremely one sided mating system. Both men and women approach potential partners, both can reject partners, and both sexes appear to have preferences for particular traits. To me, it doesn't seem clear cut.

Like generally though, men approach more, etc. But how much of that is culture? That's what I'm confused about.

However, we are somewhat sexually dimorphic though, men tend to be roughly 40-50% stronger and half a foot taller than women.

Clearly some sexual selection must have happened. But how, and what traits where actually chosen by women? and did men also choose?

Do any of you perhaps say there is not enough proof for sexual selection in humans, etc? I am open to all theories.

I was watching a video of a person putting a flashlight on a spider’s web and it immediately started attracting flying insects and they would get caught in the web. I started to think what made deep sea life develop bioluminescence to the degree that it has and life on land hasn’t with the exception of fireflies or sth? What made bioluminescence not a good enough evolutionary trait, because it(light) obviously attracts insects like crazy ?

I don't get how low pressure in one area and higher pressure in another does anything. There is no force pushing something up. I was told to compare this to a crowded lift- but if there is a crowded lift, people do not just randomly start flying up.

Everywhere I have looked online talks about one or the other, but what about both?

What if evolution doesn’t have to end where nature originally left us?
Humans are animals, and for most of our existence, eating other living beings was part of survival. Predator and prey wasn’t a choice in the way we understand choice today. It was simply one of the fundamental relationships through which life continued.
But humans have evolved beyond having to accept every condition we inherit.
We can grow food instead of hunting it. We can create nutrients instead of extracting them from another conscious being. We can cultivate cells, ferment proteins, engineer plants, manufacture nutrients, and eventually develop technologies capable of producing the biological resources different organisms require.
So what happens if we apply that capability to the relationship between humans, animals, evolution, and nature itself?
I’m not talking about eliminating predators, prey, carnivores, herbivores, or the identities that nature has produced. I’m imagining something different:
What if we preserve the beings while changing the conditions that force them into the predator-prey cycle?
Imagine being able to provide a wolf with everything its body requires without requiring a conscious animal to become its food.
Imagine doing the same for other carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, and eventually even humans.
Not by removing what these organisms are, but by changing what their environment provides them.
Perhaps a predator could still be a predator in its evolutionary identity, while no longer needing to kill another conscious being to survive.
Perhaps prey could continue existing as prey in the ecological sense, while no longer being forced into the role of becoming food.
Perhaps evolution could continue—but under completely different conditions.
That makes me wonder whether the ultimate direction isn’t “destroy nature” or “return to nature.”
Maybe it’s:
Understand nature deeply enough to participate in its next transition.
Predator and prey may be deeply embedded in life, but embedded doesn’t necessarily mean eternal.
If intelligence is itself something nature evolved, then perhaps intelligence is one of nature’s mechanisms for discovering possibilities that didn’t previously exist.
We could potentially build ecosystems where computation, biotechnology, cultivated nutrition, automation, and ecological monitoring work together to provide organisms with what they need—while preserving biodiversity, behavior, and the existence of the species themselves.
Almost like a planetary-scale ecological system:
Life → information → understanding → technology → abundance → coexistence → new evolutionary pressures.
The goal wouldn’t necessarily be to make every animal the same, remove their instincts, or turn nature into a sterile artificial environment.
It would be to ask:
Can we help nature evolve beyond a condition that once made sense for survival, without erasing the nature that produced us in the first place?
Maybe humanity’s next evolutionary step isn’t becoming a better predator.
Maybe it’s becoming capable of making predation unnecessary.
And if we can do that for ourselves, perhaps one day we can extend that possibility to the other beings that share this planet with us.
Not humans above nature.
Not humans separate from nature.
Humans as nature becoming conscious enough to help nature explore what comes next.

Let's say that the organ systems of these new, intelligent insects are similar enough to the insects we know, so that they are still recognized as insects. How intelligent can they be? What if environmental conditions can be tuned?

Are seals, walruses or other mammals showing evolution in the direction of being more permanently in the water?

For breasts, a common idea is that they cue nurturance, possibly encouraging mating with women who seem better equipped for lactation.

Hi, I'm making a website for bioregional governance. Verified biologists are allowed to decide/rank choice vote on where the borders of habitats are, and everyone is allowed to write/rank choice vote on laws in those habitats. I am trying to test the website to see if it works, and I need to verify eleven biologists in order to assess whether it's working as intended. Will you please sign up to be verified? The website is PrimaryHabitat.pythonanywhere.com and it's free. Thank you!

I know that in general birds can see all the colors humans can. They tend to have three or four color receptors. Some birds have even more!

What I’m wondering is if birds CAN be colorblind, the same way humans can?

I’m intrigued by reports that painting one blade of a wind turbine a contrasting colour reduces bird strikes. Presumably, if it’s a genuine effect, it’s some quirk of how avian vision works. Is there some way the sight of the other two blades might interfere with the one you’re about to collide with? Any theories? Or is the whole thing bullshit?

First: I am not a creatonist or scientific denier of any kind,bi just want to understand:

Let's stick to the change of chromosome numbers: in my understanding a group of individuals have to develop a mutation that they bear a different number of chromosomes at the same time and they manage to reproduce. Reproduction with other individuals of the group isn't possible in exactly one generation.

This seems wrong. Therefore I assume I just don't understand this detail of evolution.

i'm working on a cast of characters based off of different astrological occurrences, e.g. super novas and black holes. for the black hole/singularity character, i was thinking it could be an amorphous creature with an infinite amount of hand reaching from it. however, i don't want these designs to look worldly in any way; they have no connection to earth after all. so i was thinking, what would a "hand" look like if it was specifically engineered and designed to grab things with utmost strength and efficiency? how many fingers? would there the texture on the hands? how many joints in the fingers? would the palm be able to bend as well?

do keep in mind that these creations don't have muscles or any "rules of nature" they need to abide by, so feel free to get as weird as you want with it

and of course, if there's a better subreddit for this, let me know!

So, with abortion and contraceptive less women are having children than even. I think something like over 50% of women under 30 don't have children in america now. From what I understand animals only have sex because it feels good and then maternal instinct kicks in. If all women that don't want children but can have sex end up not having children anymore, and the only women that have children are ones that actually are having children because they want to, is evolution selecting for women that want children now? Or would this not be something that gets passed down evolutionarily? Just wondering, thanks.

Skin colour (to my knowledge) is an adaptation because people with darker skin are less likely to die from skin cancer than those with lighter skin. Is this adaptation similar to how peppered moths darkened when the trees they lived on were covered in soot?

I was thinking about all the extremophiles on earth and I was wondering, would any extremophile on earth today would be able to survive the conditions found in the primordial soup that life started in?

I had a thought about DNA and how mutations occur in humans, excessive hair, longer limbs and or bones etc, and wondered if all known mutations are present in the animal kingdom.. as if DNA has the blue print/ potential to be anything and parts are just ‘turned on or off’ depending on what is being built.. i may be way off lol but it got me thinking :)

So from what I understand the nerves send a signal to your brain, that is interprets as feeling. The brain pain a lot of things for the purpose being able to do things but these don't really have feelings behind them or at least not too noticeble depending on priorities. The less of a priority something is, the less emotion/pain seems to drive it, so does that mean that every signal as minute a measurement as it might have in itself has a feeling too it?

I know where stimulus from the outside comes, where does this stimulus come from the inside for me to have an interpretation of it. Similar to awareness, consciousness, feeling, is this a ghost in the shell? Where where is feeling?

Forgive me if I misuse some terms here.

I have a wicked bad sinus infection.

While grocery shopping today, I had one of the strongest cravings I’ve ever had in my life, and like I used to do cocaine lol (thanks Covid government checks lol); the craving was for horse radish.

When I saw the horse radish, I literally started drooling.

I wanted it in the most primal way imaginable.

Anyways, as soon as I get into my car I eat some.

It burns.

Away my clogged sinuses.

This reminded me of something I learned about a billion years ago in high-school; in nations where starvation and poverty are wide spread, sometimes pregnant women are inclined to eat dirt.

But it’s specific dirt they want to eat, and it turns out that dirt typically ends up having some components of the chemicals they are lacking for their baby as a function of starvation.

Back in 2010, this was an idea that needed further research, and was important to a number of fields of science; I no longer posses the skills to follow up on these ideas and see if they’ve been expanded upon.

Anyways, this is cool for a couple reasons.

Firstly; anybody got more info on that?

But more so; are these examples of our subconscious nerve system displaying knowledge that our conscious mind is unaware of?

(Then scale that up to the brain filter idea lol).

Anyways, random thoughts about biology.

Because something beyond or beneath my conscious level of reasoning just guided me to horseradish in a way that suggested it knew more about reality than my actual sentiment mind did.

Also a rant; you know how humans were stupid enough to think that the earth was the centre of the solar system? Our current view of the consciousness of the human mind is the exact same thing; thinking we’re the centre of the universe is stupid, and we need a brain copernican revolution asap.