ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
A thread for those questions you wouldn't dare ask in real life/normally!(415 Posts)
Please feel free to ask questions and if I know the answer I will tell you, also feel free to answer others questions!
stupid question is
Would I be able to see nits in my sons very short hair if he had them? (He has short brown hair)?
It can feel a bit tingly & arousing to BF, esp when you get the let down of milk. After all oxytocin is the same hormone that causes milk ejection & orgasm!
I posted a load of nonsense there. Basically I did not find it arousing at all but I don't like my partner sucking them. It feels nice to bf. Apart from early days when it's very ouchy.
Sorry for the repeat posts.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Regarding memories I was always taught that you can't recall memories from before 2-3 years old.. So memories and language are related. People's earliest memories tend to be about three year old once they have acquired language. I don't know though why some people have memories pre language acquisition tho??
I'm not a mum but I have always wondered, what does breast feeding feel like? I mean is it ever arousing...like having your nipples sucked by a partner would be..?
I'd like to know what happened to the gold, frankincense and myrrh that were given to the baby Jesus.
To answer Lioninthesun's question.
When mosquitos bite you they inject you with an anaesthetic so that you don't notice them sucking your blood. When a mosquito feeds off a person with malaria they take up immature parasites which go through several stages of their life cycle within the mosquito. When they are ready to infect a person they move into the glands that produce the anaesthetic so they can be injected into a new human host.
HIV doesn't do any of those things. Viruses are small enough that there's the possibility that there would still be a couple hanging onto the mosquito's proboscis if it had very recently fed on someone with HIV but it is unlikely that one or two virus particles would be enough to actually lead to HIV infection.
That's actually how they normally find genes that are involved in a particular disease. They get a load of people, half of whom have the disease and the other half don't. Then they look at a certain number of sites on each chromosome that are known to be variable. Then they see if any of the variants are more common in people who have the disease than in the people who don't. If anything stands out then they can look in more detail at that part of the genome by looking at lots of variable sites in that area. Then it's a case of looking at the genes in that area to see if they can come up with a reason why any of them might be involved in a particular disease and comparing the gene sequence from people with the disease to that of people without it.
QueenStromba - that's a brilliant explanation. It really points out that the notion that "the survival of the fittest" doesn't mean what it's often believed to mean. But it also points out that although the media tends to talk about a gene for "this" or a gene for "that", (and, to be fair, scientists are often looking at specific gene sequences), what actually happens in the swapping of genetic material in sexual reproduction isn't always precise.
The rhesus negative thing looks to me like a case of there being some reason why (historically at least) there has been an advantage to having either one or two rhesus negative genes which is greater than the disadvantage of losing some of your children because of it.
You see this in the case of sickle cell anaemia. Having two copies of the gene makes you sick but having one copy makes you resistant to malaria. The advantage you get from having one copy outweighs the fact that having two copies makes you sick so the gene stays in the population at a much higher rate than it would usually.
A quick google tells me that some people think that toxoplasmosis might have been the reason why there are fare more rhesus negatives about than you would expect.
It's also possible that the rhesus negative gene isn't beneficial at all but just happens to be very close on the chromosome to a variant of a gene that is highly beneficial. Say you have a gene variant that extends your child bearing years by a few years - that means you have a few more children and some of them will have a few more children etc. The number of the people in the population with the gene increases. If one of those people picks up a mutation in the rhesus gene which is right next to the beneficial gene then that will also increase in the population. There might only be a 0.01% chance that those genes will end up on different copies of the chromosome in your offspring so these two gene variants would likely stay next to each other for thousands of years.
While the genes aren't very common in the population you are very unlikely to end up being rhesus negative because both of your parents would need to have the genes so you get all of the benefit and none of the downside. By the time it is prevalent enough that you start getting rhesus negative people you've also got a decent chance of having a partner who has one copy of the rhesus negative gene. Even if all of your babies are rhesus positive it may not be a problem. The effect of having two copies of the good gene may not be entirely cancelled out by losing some babies due to them being rhesus positive or you might just end up a little bit worse off in terms of number of offspring compared with someone who has no copies of the good gene. The latter would be cancelled out by the people with one copy having more children so the genes stay in the population.
What is 'nothing'? if you imagine nothing to be a big space then it can't be nothing because there is a space there which must be comprised of...something. I lay in bed as a child thinking about that one.
I'm O negative, where does it come from? why do I have a blood group that, until recently and the intervention of medicine, would have killed off my positive babies? foetus rejection because of blood incompatibility is unheard of in any other species. For what reason? does nature not want negative and positive people to procreate? if not, why not? Other blood groups are accounted for, why not mine? Is it possible that we're a slightly different species of human being, in the way you get different species under the primate umbrella, hence naturally we have problems producing healthy children? science has made this a non issue and + children born to - mothers are perfectly normal so what was the problem in the first place?
Nature has it's reasons for all it does so I do wonder why nature made it so difficult before medical intervention and anti-d.
Why can anybody receive my blood safely? Is there really a registry of us that the government watches? <X-files music> in the event of a major, world changing disaster will we be harvested to transfuse for important people?
The last bit was a joke btw <hopes>
Brilliant thread idea!
Our usual world map (called the Mercator Map) distorts the true size and shape of land areas in order to make the map more useful for ship navigation. For example, on the Mercator map, Greenland is shown as huge: larger than China when it's actually a quarter the size. Alaska is shown as dwarfing Mexico (Mexico is much larger) and Europe seems larger than South America (Europe is actually half the size of S. America).
Hasn't this distortion caused problems for land travellers or people who need to accurately size land areas? And why don't schools use more accurate representations of country sizes rather than the Mercator version? Is the distorted picture too set in our minds?
Re: the PMS/Chocolate/windy pops question: I think it's the milk in the chocolate that causes the wind, and the love hormone thing that causes the choc craving. It just happens to be 'the perfect storm' just before you're due on because ( for me) only a twirl or three will do!
Thanks, wannabe. I hadn't thought of the practicalities of shaving. I had wondered whether the lower lip tuft was some kind of statement, but it sounds more like men deciding what they will and won't shave, which is a good thing.
No, my BIL has a wierd one apparently...They all joke about it...
Do all boys have the same willy as their dads? Given that they've only got one Y chromosome - from their dad natch. So will they grow up to have an identical penis? I've ALWAYS wanted to know this
I once asked a good male friend why he left that bit and he said it was painful to do and was tricky to make sure he didnt cut his lip. So some days he cant be bothered to take the time to do it.
I eat three pieces of toast when I have poached eggs. But if I am having toast and jam, say, I agree. It feels odd to eat three pieces.
I have another question, why do people have either 2 or 4 slices of toast? I normally have 2 but was really hungry at the cafe the other day and they do gorgeous granary toast for 39p a slice, so I asked for 3 slices but felt really odd, like I was asking for a piece of moon cheese or something!!
My toaster is a 4 slice one so I can do 3 at a time, but just don't. I can understand having 2 slices if you only have a 2 slice toaster.
Maybe it's just the people I know? Or is there some toast law I am unaware of?
I hope you haven't killed the thread, PunkHedghog, though your "trivialanche" reminded me that avalanches are not only snow, but can be rocks as well.
Anyhow, I did ask on another thread, ages ago, why some men who obviously shave yet leave a tiny tuft of hair just under their bottom lip. The only reply I got was of the "you really don't know?" variety. Well, no, I don't know, that's why I asked. I suppose I could ask my DH or my (adult) DS, but daren't in case the reason is embarrassing and they would snigger, or that they wouldn't know either and just snigger anyway.
Oh dear. Trivialanche kills thread.
Blind people dreaming - some do 'see' in their dreams, some don't. It's not necessarily related to whether they were born blind or not. Oliver Sacks' book 'In the mind's eye' is a great read if you are interested in this sort of thing and general questions about how we see.
Carrot seeds - are you familiar with the plant cow parsley (or Queen Anne's lace)? That's the same family as carrots and has the same type of flower, like a lacy umbrella hence the name for the plant group 'umbellifera', which produces the seeds.
What's outside the universe? Excellent question and one that it's impossible for someone inside the universe to answer, because it's impossible for us to see out. We might be inside another bigger universe, or there might be lots of other universes not attached to ours, or there might be nothing (but it's a complicated sort of nothing, not just a vacuum with no 'stuff' but also no space or time for the 'stuff' to be in).
'Up' and 'Down' aren't absolute, they are in relation to other things. There is no up or down in zero gravity in space. Earth is in space, so it doesn't really have a 'top' and a 'bottom' - we've only decided the southern hemisphere is the bottom half because the people who started making maps lived in the 'top' half. Things fall 'down' when we drop them on earth because of gravity - they are attracted towards the centre of the planet underneath them, not to the south pole. If you are in Australia you still have your feet on the surface of the planet, gravity still pulls towards the centre, so that is still 'down', not 'up'.
Cain and Abel married women from the land of Nod (which is also where Cain was banished to after killing Abel). Nod was already full of people.
Genesis does not 'get everything in exactly the same order as evolution'. In fact if you read it you will find Genesis actually contains two accounts of the creation, and doesn't even have things in the same order in both of those. (See also the two gospels giving completely different family trees for Jesus, and tracing his lineage from David to, er, Joseph.)
The bible contains a lot of metaphors but isn't entirely metaphor. It also contains bits of history, although they've been very garbled by being passed down as stories for thousands of years - the flood, for example, appears in various forms in a lot of cultures from the Middle East and adjoining areas; versions can be found in Indian religious stories, and writings by the Egyptians, Babylonians etc. They are all a bit different but there are enough similarities to make it likely that they are all accounts of a real event. See Robin Lane Fox's book 'The unauthorised version' for a comparison of the bible with other historical records. The mishmash of stories and histories from lots of different times and sources were compiled into the current 'official' bible in the 4th century - some were kept in, lots were left out, Christianity could have been very different if other bits had been selected.
Adjectives are describing words for nouns. So a red book or a tall child. Describing words for verbs - a fast walk - are called adverbs.
Who made the map of the world? There isn't one map of the world, there are thousands (or maybe millions). All made by different people, and none of them completely accurate.
Join the discussion
Please login first.