Wouldn’t safeguarding mean they still need to attack an aggressor?
Wouldn’t safeguarding mean they still need to attack an aggressor?
If they are vulnerable during pregnancy, why wouldn’t the woman evolve stronger muscles? Then they could also make the men care for infants. I guess suckling would still be a woman thing but that doesn’t take the whole day right.
In your third option, why would the men protect the group and the woman protect the children?
The snoot droops
Fat is more calorie dense than sugar so the added sugar would lower the calories per gram I think
Prime US mentality
I’d guess no, the number of digits and limbs is conserved very well across tetrapods (it’s in their name after all). Fucking with the amount of limbs will probably lead to some developmental errors in the early embryo.
I recently had a course in developmental biology and this is what I can remember the best:
From the moment of fertilization, the egg has a ‘polarity’, thus a direction like up and down, left and right etc. This can be established by e.g. the entry point of the sperm or protein produced by the mother in one side of the egg. From here on out protein gradients and interactions on cell membranes specify where cells are and thus what kind of tissue they should become
This early polarity leads to a certain pattern of cell division. An important part of this is the folding in of tissue layers called gastrulation, creating the beginning for the gastrointestinal tract.
In vertebrates a streak starts to form in the embryo. This is the start of the vertebrae and the neural tube in it. Also blocks of cells called somites start to form. These blocks are very important for all kinds of tissues in the body.
Hox genes make the cells in somites get an identity like head, arm etc. So in the end Hox genes are probably what you are looking for. If leg Hox genes are expressed where fruitfly normally have antennae, you get this horror:
Sounds like it isn’t entirely enjoying it hahaha
I would, but I also think this would turn bad as soon as this was a big commercially available thing.The people pumping would probably be exploited to the point their kids actually needing the milk would get less.
fr fr
Need it for food 7/10
Damn, interesting! And that chemist sounding name sure does add extra credibility
Just thought about this, isn’t it a bit silly that we all use milli Ah while all the values are above the thousands? Like, 5000 mAh is just 5 Ah
Nah sorry just kidding around, I think you stumbled upon a classic philosophical problem. You cannot 100% truly know that your senses are correct. I agree with ChatGPT on pragmatism here: you can try proving it all you want, you will never get there. Better to just look at all those pretty flowers nature created in this weird universe!
The philosophical question you’re raising is known as solipsism, which is the idea that one can only be sure of the existence of their own mind and not of anything external to it. While it’s an interesting concept to explore, proving the absolute reality of the external world can be challenging.
Philosophers have debated these questions for centuries, and there isn’t a definitive answer. However, there are some common responses and arguments:
Pragmatism: While you might not be able to prove the absolute reality of the external world, it is generally more practical and beneficial to assume its existence. The way we navigate and interact with the world is based on the assumption that it is real.
Consensus Reality: The fact that multiple people can agree on the existence of certain things suggests a shared reality. If others can perceive and interact with the same objects or events as you do, it adds weight to the argument that there is an external reality.
Scientific Method: Science provides a systematic way of understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and verification. While it may not provide absolute certainty, the scientific method has proven to be a reliable way to gain knowledge about the external world.
Testability: While you may question the authenticity of your perceptions, you can still make predictions and test them against your experiences. For example, if you drop an object, you can predict that it will fall, and when it does, it provides some validation of the external reality.
Regarding your doubt about whether people are real or if the responses are from AI, the same principles can apply. If there is consistency in responses, coherence in conversations, and a shared understanding among users, it adds credibility to the reality of the interaction.
It’s important to note that these responses don’t necessarily provide absolute certainty but offer practical and reasonable ways to engage with the external world. The nature of reality is a complex and debated topic in philosophy, and there may never be a conclusive answer.
Is it just me or does it also kinda give not so wholesome colonialism vibes
Ahhh didn’t know beetles could be so cute