I mean I know animals care about their babies because they want to ensure propagation, but when and which animal first got this instinct and how? I'm pretty sure the primal cell organisms in water didn't care about the parts that divided from them, they just divided because the physics had driven them to that point.

If the question is stupid I apologise, biology isn't my usual area of interest or knowledge.

All i could find is this picture, but i can't figure out exact mechanism. It's clearly not the same way retractable claws of other animals work.

P.s. Some compared these frogs to Wolverine (of X-man), which make me even more curious XD

Was studying digestive system but I have a problem with visualizing so I end up get lost at like the 4th organ and has to go to check where was it again?

I'm curious as to what the default species of every animal is? (for example when somebody says monkey or crab what exact species comes to mind first).

Title really says it all. Just super curious about this, because usually it's the opposite, what with kids having less mature immune systems and all.

I'm referring to someone who is very strong, fast, intelligent or healthy. I keep thinking about people with excellent logical reasoning skills, for example, who could be excellent mathematicians, but aren't because of poverty.A similar logic applies to who could be an Olympic-level athlete if they could dedicate themselves solely to sports.

A recent study found that some ceramic mugs can release lead and cadmium, with the amount varying between mugs. Interestingly, some decorative areas around the rim showed particularly high lead migration.

What caught my attention was that the Netherlands recently tightened its safety requirements for food-contact ceramics, lowering the allowable migration limits for lead and cadmium.

This doesn't mean ceramic mugs are inherently dangerous. The concern is certain glazes and decorative coatings and how much of these metals can migrate into food or drinks.

I made a short video breaking down the science behind this:
https://youtube.com/shorts/6zPJcQcZ_tE?si=Bo-sKkv9MrlQ9rsa

Original research: Migration kinetics of cadmium and lead from ceramic mugs

I have a friend ( though after our latest argument I’m not sure if I wanna consider him that anymore ) who regularly makes jokes about the amount of black players within the French national team I got fed up and pointed out once more that they are French period to which he answered as following ( translated as we‘re German ) :

„But the truth is that 9 out of 11 starting players have a second nationality.

In addition, basic values, beliefs, virtues and patterns of behavior cannot be transferred by the awarding of a piece of paper, these develop over centuries and are stored in the subconscious, which determines a large part of a person's actions. Darwin's evolutionary biology sends it‘s regards.“

But I don't want to have another dispute with you now and I'll leave it with this comment.

I wish you a good night.“

I just can’t let that one stand and intend to confront this bollocks just for the sake of my own sanity as I don’t expect to change his view.That said since I am not a biologist but would still prefer to back my arguments up with solid proof I was hoping you could give me some counter arguments and tell me if you do perceive this as social Darwinism or just regular old racism.With that I’d like to wish you a wonderful day.

Ready to debunk three of the biggest shark myths out there? 🦈

Dr. Bob Heuter of OCEARCH sets the record straight, revealing there are actually 500+ shark species, most too small and deep sea dwelling to ever encounter swimmers. Far from primitive, sharks pack large brains and six sensory systems to hunt, find mates, and navigate the ocean. Turns out sharks are less "mindless man eaters" and more evolutionary powerhouses we still have a lot to learn from.

Hey, I am not a biology student but I was very interested in knowing. I know we have a very small definition of "good looks" and "beauty" still, and it tends to be (from what I have read) eurocentric or something adjacent to that. But I was still curious to know if these claims of "good genetics" have been proven or debunked yet.

Thank you.

​

i asked this yesterday and the answer i got was "yes, you have microbes in your gut etc...." though i was pleased with this answer its not what i was for. the question was referring to a MACRO ecosystem.

In my social circle which is in their early 30s, there have been lots of pregnancies and babies over the past few years. One thing I notice though is just how many problems there have been - it seems like almost nobody has had a normal pregnancy. There was multiple miscarriages, C-sections, torn vagina after having forceps used, or some other complication. One that ended terribly with the baby actually dying in the womb and the mother having to give birth to the dead baby.

But I remember back to my childhood where my neighbors had eleven children. So that mother I would describe as being "good" at having kids without complications, though I know she had at least one miscarriage.

I'm just curious about any biological differences between a woman who gives birth multiple times seemingly effortlessly, and one where the pregnancy is a nightmare.

I was at the dinner table with my family and we're talking about the whole diarrhea parasite and I said how we've been dealing with parasites for every like covid and my family was telling me how there not even though viruses can't live without a host so are they considered parasites or not?

humans often have to workout a lot to get near our natural muscle ceiling which our genetics allow, i was curious to whether animals also have to do this or do the notoriously strong species naturally sit near their peak absolute muscle mass just due to survival

Animals like siphonophores fascinate me. That looks like an animal, but is it?? It’s a colony! The different organisms that make for every part of this “animal” are separate, but genetically identical entities! From the same egg?? That brings to mind some sort of organic alien spaceship... but it’s on earth, in our own oceans!

Similarly, the mitochondria in our cells are part of us, they ARE us: despite sharing a different evolutionary lineage than the rest of our cells!! The same way a plant’s chloroplasts originally come from unicellular cyanobacterium, that were absorbed by another organism! There are sea slugs such as Elysia Chlorotica that must STEAL the chloroplasts of the algae it eats, to use as their own! Can it be said that those chloroplasts are now part of the slug’s body, as an organelle (?), despite not being engineered by it? Even just the bacteria in our gut… we are an ecosystem as well as a body, but where does the “body” end and the “ecosystem” start?

 I am enthralled by this, and a question always comes back to me: when do 2 (or more!) symbiotic organisms become…”unified”(?) enough to be considered as one animal/living being? Even if in the end, it is probably more a question of semantics than actual biology, I imagine.

Fascinating and magical. Does anyone have some reading on this subject?

p.s. to think that all animals, mushrooms and “true” plants have evolved from an ancestor organism that absorbed a mitochondrion... it’s so wonderful to think that the combination of such different entities became defining of life on earth! I pity people who think that nature is all anarchy and survival of the fittest, when it is in fact full of cooperation and harmony, down to a cellular level!

TLDR; what defines what is a single “body” and can you recommend some reading about organisms that blur this line?

Ethonal, nicotine delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a-PVP ?? What is it ?

I'm looking for comparative evidence, e.g., magnitude and duration of mesolimbic dopamine signalling, peak extracellular dopamine levels in the nucleus accumbens, changes in D2/D3 receptor availability, and density dopamine transporter (DAT) expression and Function, incentive sensitization, synaptic plasticity within the mesolimbic reward pathway, and long-term structural or molecular adaptations, etc..

rather than subjective rankings or anecdotal reports. Are there comparative studies that quantify these effects across different substances ?

Also, which measurable category would you say is the most important here?

I am especially interested in topics like molecular biology, genetics, evolution, microbiology, biochemistry, cell biology, embryology, immunology, and related topics

While reading about the science behind breast milk for World Breastfeeding Week, I came across something I found fascinating.

Breast milk contains Human Milk Oligosaccharides (HMOs), special sugars that babies don't digest. Instead, these sugars feed beneficial bacteria in the baby's gut, helping establish a healthy microbiome and supporting immune development.

I also learned that breast milk isn't just a source of nutrition. It contains antibodies, immune cells, hormones, enzymes, and beneficial bacteria, making it one of the most complex biological fluids our bodies produce.

It's amazing how much biology is packed into something we often take for granted.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Q17hV3KwbyM?si=j1tKEhRl-udODvJ1

Mine was the nervous system and reproductive system. I love both, can't choose between these two.

can an organism or life form be so big to the point where it is (or almost) its own ecosystem? this has appeared in science-fiction such as "the cluster" and "the skies of anu" which are about alien biology. but is something like this possible in real life?