r/AskBiology

surely having twice the potential mates is better?

Biologically what is the advantage of 1 mouth, nose or heart, but 2 ears, eyes or kidneys?

When I was wrestling with my degree in genetics in the 90s, we would (for example) slam a gene for antibiotic resistance any old where inside a bacterial plasmid -- using retrotransposons, I think? Surely genetics has moved on from that crude method and the risk of disrupting needed or wanted genes?

I noticed that this is one of the unique traits humans have in growth compared to other animals.

The closest thing I know that grow to walking on fours and then moving to walking on two are apes, and even then, they don't fully walk on two legs like us.

so what if people or a animal can molt into something smaller? how would that work? could they go back to being bigger than molt again? or would it be impossible? I feel like they would just throw up their smaller body through their bigger mouth. though I don’t know. might be a stupid question.

From my rudimentary understanding of diabetes, the theory is that (one type of it) is caused by the cells who respond to insulin becoming desensitized to the insulin and having a weaker response to it. Although this theory makes sense, I find it a little hard to believe that untold numbers of cells in the body have their response to insulin weakened, as opposed to perhaps the insulin quality being worse.

I know that insulin is cleaved from pro-insulin by an enzyme, but what if the glycation of that enzyme makes it less capable of cleaving insulin? What if the glycation of other proteins involved in the transport of insulin outside of the beta-pancreatic cells causes its quality to be degraded? It could also explain why diabetes does not get cured as the blood sugar after a person eats would remain high as it passes from the stomach through the pancreas before getting filtered by the liver or dispersing throughout the rest of the body, so if glycation degrades the insulin or proteins involved in its transport, that could be an alternative mechanism for the onset of diabetes.

I was taught feeding wild animals is unsafe for us and them, I believe that. I was also taught a bird feeder is a fun eco friendly way to interact with nature. I have a seed feeder and a hummingbird feeder. Are these 2 things not in conflict?

To Biology students and grads of Reddit, what subject in your field is often considered the most difficult by most of your peers?

I asked a rather similar question in r/Physics and r/Chemistry. The former labelled Quantum Physics as the hardest while the latter users mentioned Quantum Chem as the hardest, respectively. As for your field, what would you consider the most gut-wrenching in your experience? What Bio subject did you struggle in the most

Note: Org Chem doesn't count

When we discuss evolution, we always discuss phenotypes and genotypes. We also discuss DNA and specific sequence mutations. We know the DNA codes for proteins, and it is these proteins which have function. The modern contemporary view of allostery suggests that most dynamic proteins must be allosteric. It is precisely this mechanism that allows protein function to be more robust to mutations, as well as, allows proteins to evolve. So why is this viewpoint uncommon?

I've seen it a lot with monkeys and apes, and I'm wondering why this is? Is it a social thing or is there a practical reason for it? Do we know when it started showing up? I tried googling the question but I couldn't find a relevant answer that wasn't ai and well... I don't trust ai.

if it feeds and lives on a tree and it is still alive does it mean it's a parasite

Curious to know when an animal has lived up to its specie's standard life expectancy, and is dying due to natural senescence, what do they do and where do they go?

Some examples that come to mind 👇

* Doves

* Dolphins

* Deer

National Geographic captures them living, but what do they do and where do they go as they begin to fade?

I have been going through my institution's bachelor's course lists for every STEM degree they offer. I noticed that there is a microbiology degree, but no macrobiology degree. Why is macrobiology not a specialization?

I am wondering about how biologists create these maps which you can see on e.g. Wikipedia and which show the range of where some species lives.

Initially, I would expect that you would highlight either the geographical micro-region or the political administrative unit where a species is found. However, these maps often don't seem to follow any of these borders.

How are these maps made, then? Do they rely solely on some electronic tracking devices? Or which other methods could you use to so specifically describe an area where some species live?

Recently (Today, not even a few minutes ago), I was about to gather some water for my watering can and.. well, watering my garden, I have come across two guests that were unfamiliar for the body of water we had running down my garden. Two small orange fish. Normally, at this time of year, I would see little Crayfish in this creek/brook. I have never seen fish in it. Could somebody please give me a biological explanation?

Here is a Microsoft Doc's link for some pictures I made of the body of water: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Xfl\_yfLWhlgZPd-dseD2OA3J5HU7qy-woiUtj83L18/edit?usp=drivesdk

Okay, I say that because there are many claims made by white and black supremacists on social media, but the ones that really struck me were the black ones. They claim to be the only race without Neanderthal DNA, asserting that white people possess it and mocking other races for it. They also claim to be the planet’s original inhabitants, suggesting that others are aliens or some inferior race, essentially promoting eugenics. I mean white people also do the same thing but I want to focus on these points there because they seem more developed than the claims of white supremacists.

Furthermore, they argue that since they can pull this off so well, they must be the Earth’s original inhabitants, which is technically true. They certainly do manage to pull this off. However, if whites and blacks are both distinct races, what about brown people? Are they a separate race, or are they simply a mix of the two? I’m genuinely confused about the whole point. Can anyone explain it to me? I don’t want to sound racist; I’m just trying to understand how this works.

So I heard a lot of claims that in the past fat people were seen as really attractive because they were really wealthy, because they could afford to have a lot of food. Most people take art to prove that but what if you are just convenient and not really attractive? The question really would be if wealth can actually shape attraction, neurological attraction.

In my opinion I don't think it is the case because if we think about it, a lot of guys today are attracted to Latinas. Latinas are obviously not symbols of wealth. On the other hand we have a lot of ultra-rich people who are idealising extreme thinness but most guys don't idealise extreme thinness; it would technically represent wealth.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-greatest-mind-fucks/answer/Pete-Bahba?share=1&srid=Xs9v

Sorry this is based on a quora post and nothing mentioned is a mindfuck like he thinks. But I thought that when you lose sight in one eye you lose depth perception which makes it harder to see in 3d, which makes me think this dude is wrong.

The general post is just that our brains generate a best guess of reality, nothing special there. It's the same on this post too: https://petesbookmarks.quora.com/Virtual-reality-of-consciousness

Though IMO he takes the brain constructing it a bit further to it just being pure imagination and there is nothing going on. But I digress.

But yeah, do we see less 3d with one eye. I've tried this before and I have noticed it, so I'm not sure where he got that idea.

i ask because i saw a clip of spongebob recreating his entire form in a second and im curious at how batshit insane that is from a biological perspective.