To elaborate, I've been rewatching the first season of HBO's The Last of Us, and in the prologue of the first episode, an epidemiologist suggests that a fungal pathogen may, as a result of global warming, adapt to the human body's temperature (which is typically too high) and thus cause a pandemic. We later see that he was correct, as the O. unilateralis species of Cordyceps is able to infect humans and sets the story in motion.

My question is because of WHERE the cordyceps came from. In the game, early collectible newspapers say that the cordyceps originated in South America. In the show, it was S.E Asia, speciffically Indonesia. In both cases, the fungus spread through contaminated foodstuffs.

Hypothetically, could it not be both? From what I understand, O. unilateralis exists in tropical and rainforest regions in South America, Africa, and S.E Asia. Considering that global warming is global, could it be reasoned that, should the show's logic be applied, wouldn't all these populations undergo the same adaptive process? Thus causing three distinct sources for the pandemic?

Lamarckism is a common one. As far as I know some have argued that even Lamarckism, while in principle possible, requires some smaller amount of typical biological evolution. So maybe the soften version of the question (if necessary) is how little typical biological evolution can you get away with in an alternative system?

I was told that repeated exposure to capsaicin can generate tolerance to it, making you more resistant to chilli.

If capsaicin binds to the heat receptors in your tongue, does that mean that repeated heat exposure also generates tolerance?

Good day all,

A little background, which may be unnecessary but I want to share anyway (skip to TLDR if you want): I'm moving soon, and my new apartment complex has an offer that you can do one free unit switch before you move in, so I've been periodically checking the website for potentially better units. Last night, I found one that:

• Has the same layout as the one I already signed up for
• Is $160 less per month
• Offers a free month's rent
• Has a better view
• Will be quieter as it's less affected by highway traffic

But! ... It's right across the street from a medium-sized electrical substation (it won't let me share a pic, but I can provide the address via DM if you're interested in seeing the equipment). My living room window is about 40-50 feet from the equipment.

I've heard all sorts of opinions on substations. I've heard that the studies generally don't claim that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between living near a substation and developing terrible diseases, but I'm still hesitant because:

• Health studies cost millions, so it's unlikely that people would want to spend those millions unless they think they will get a return on their investment, and a conclusion that substations cause disease is unlikely to return any investment. In fact it's more likely the opposite
• There have been a bunch of other things that scientists claim are healthy until the proof becomes undeniable, such as cigarettes, lead-based paint, etc.
• Our bodies are mostly water, and they also include electrons, neurons, and all that other jazz, so my intuition tells me that this highly charged electronic stations can mess with our bodies in bad ways

With this said, I understand we're surrounded by electricity and magnetic waves and all that stuff all the time, and perhaps a cell phone could be more powerful in some regards than a substation (is that true? I have no clue, pardon my ignorance).

My health is more important than money or anything else, but I elected to switch apartments to live across from the substation anyway, and I feel a bit silly and scared right now.

What are your thoughts? Should I be worried? Should I stay on the lookout for signs? Should I get an EMF reader (or whatever it's called) for reassurance? Is there evidence supporting short-term exposure vs long-term exposure?

Anything you can offer is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

TLDR: Is living within 50 feet of a medium-sized electrical substation bad or potentially bad for your health?

Genre si tu mets la tomate au frigo ses chromoplastes vont redevenir des chloroplastes ou je suis juste debile?

It seems to me being a hermaphrodite is more advantageous than not. Primarily because a hermaphrodite can reproduce with every single member of its species (sometimes including itself), while a gonochorist can only reproduce with a half of its species. As I understand it, hermaphroditism is older, so… what kind of advantage could possibly be worth reducing the amount of potential partners by half?

I’ve heard that we naturally fear spiders, snakes, and big animals, but how much of that is from our evolved habits? And could some of those fears be learned?

Like, are there some animals that we tell each other are dangerous, and that knowledge causes us to be scared? So for example would an uncontacted island tribe be scared of the same animals as someone who lives in a city and has internet access? And are there examples of people from different continents being more afraid of certain types of animals than someone from across the world?

I mean the kind of limits we have in place because, if we used the full force our muscles are technically capable of, we'd overexert ourselves, possibly tearing ligaments and such.

You know how adrenaline turns off some of those limits, which is why we're faster/stronger than normal under life-threatening stress? That.

Just to narrow it down, let's say the average adult human arm had all of its limits off. What's the hardest wall we could dent/punch through? And, at the same time, would we punch that wall so hard we'd fracture/break our forearm?

Hey everyone,

For my evo-devo course I have to write an essay arguing for the fact that evolution of bodyplans and morphological innovation is scale-depent (e.g. evolutionairy processes play different roles depending whether you look at it micro-, macro- or megascopically). I also have to defend this claim in a debate.

These are the arguments I have thus far:

1. A structure may be novel at the morphological level while originating from pre-existing genetic and developmental mechanisms
2. It is hard for the enormous and spontaneous radiaton of wildly different organisms during the Cambrian explosion to be explained by just micro-evolutionary changes.
3. Morphological evolution is scale-dependent because patterns of evolutionary change differ depending on the temporal and taxonomic scale at which they are examined

Are these arguments viable for this statement and am I missing some obvious arguments which would support my case?

Thanks so much in advance!

everything leaves out the timing. i suspect it wasn't a pinpoint moment, but roughly when did the change happen? i am curious if it was after i was in school or if i was just taught wrong (would not be the first time).

thank you for any info!

What if there was a device that took a sample of blood from a patient that had cancer in their blood. The device would then separate the blood sample into compartments so small there would only be a few cells in each one.

An image would then be taken of each compartment with a digital camera. The compartments with lots of cancer cells would then be emptied out and the remaining ones would be mixed together again. This process could be repeated multiple times until the concentration of cancer cells is reduced if not completely removed.

It would be kind of like a divide and conquer strategy for removing cancer cells. Would this work?

Does she know that all of this noise, light and disruption when I'm moving around come from me, an animal? I remember reading a study about spiders learning our habits to avoid interaction with us, but I can't find the source for that anywhere so here am I.

And if you know more broadly any cool facts about spiders, their perspectives, abilities, the way they see the world, please share.

What does the biology and science say? (Before you tell me to look it up, I did. My results were confusing, and an answer from a human would be nice haha.)

In the Octonauts episode about crawfish, they have itchy green spots called “Shell Rot”, they got it from an Invasive Chinese Mitten Crab, and they were able to cure the crab and crawfish by using saltwater.

Does shell rot affect crawfish, is it a fungus, can saltwater treat it?

Also for context, the crawfish are pink, rusty, and faded red colors, live in muddy burrows on the swamp banks, and the swamp is likely part of the Everglades. https://youtu.be/O5nJYHBJJnQ?si=jLZ5tOn-G3AFTIV5

This will be easiest to explain if I just give a range of examples. We are going to assume in all scenarios that the scar tissue exists in a state where the wound is well and fully healed. How would scar tissue react to secondary injury in these circumstances?

1. A scar on the thigh, over muscle.

2. A scar on the torso over over all the darn things.

3. A scar over the tighter part of a limb like the forearm.

4. A scar going across the scalp.

5. A scar over a finger joint or some other area where fluid might have a hard time getting in or building up

So let's assume one day you just... Take a medium smack to one of these scars. Maybe you fall off a bike or have a toddler. Who knows. Would they all react the same? Would placement or surrounding tissue affect inflammation, bruising, or healing length?

Bodies are fascinating.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XKDEo-DErgcl1oB4DOinqxPrDml7Q7Tp/view?usp=sharing

Dissertation help - Hi, apologises if this doesn't match the rules, I'm needing to create a dissertation poster and need a peer to review my poster for extra credit, if someone is able to help. link is here.

For example, the body has carbon within it. Is that the same type of carbon as the carbon that makes up graphite?

And if it is or close their to it, would it be hypothetically possibly to use the carbon that comes from the body to form graphite?

I ask from a writing perspective. I'd like to know if the concept works well enough for a fantasy world I'm building at the moment!