🔥 Popular | Latest

Save
Save
Save
Save
bogleech: iratusmagus: acesirius: spongebobsquarepants: hey guys, i know some things about sharks because my boyfriend loves them even though they horrify me this is a frilled shark (one of my least favourite shark species, second only to the greenland shark)  this is what it looks like from a side angle it’s much more recognisable as a shark, yes? much less terrifying, yes? it only grows to about 2m long (which seems big but compared to other sharks is fairly small)  by ‘dinosaur era’, they mean that it exhibits many primitive features that suggests that it hasn’t evolved much in a few million years, and it has been dubbed a ‘living fossil’  that does not mean that it is from the age of the dinosaurs and has only just reappeared as far as i can tell (like i said, i know nothing about sharks) these have been around and known of for a long time. they pose no danger to humans and have rarely been encountered alive can we please stop making sharks out to be these terrifying creatures? it’s just a fish A silly fish that does fish things! Leave our fishy friend alone. These went around the news years ago like they were “just discovered” but were first described generations prior and I basically see that happen to another animal almost daily : bogleech: iratusmagus: acesirius: spongebobsquarepants: hey guys, i know some things about sharks because my boyfriend loves them even though they horrify me this is a frilled shark (one of my least favourite shark species, second only to the greenland shark)  this is what it looks like from a side angle it’s much more recognisable as a shark, yes? much less terrifying, yes? it only grows to about 2m long (which seems big but compared to other sharks is fairly small)  by ‘dinosaur era’, they mean that it exhibits many primitive features that suggests that it hasn’t evolved much in a few million years, and it has been dubbed a ‘living fossil’  that does not mean that it is from the age of the dinosaurs and has only just reappeared as far as i can tell (like i said, i know nothing about sharks) these have been around and known of for a long time. they pose no danger to humans and have rarely been encountered alive can we please stop making sharks out to be these terrifying creatures? it’s just a fish A silly fish that does fish things! Leave our fishy friend alone. These went around the news years ago like they were “just discovered” but were first described generations prior and I basically see that happen to another animal almost daily

bogleech: iratusmagus: acesirius: spongebobsquarepants: hey guys, i know some things about sharks because my boyfriend loves them eve...

Save
bogleech: cazort: marvelousgameofdisneythrones: pangur-and-grim: my favourite part of the Evolutionary Biology courses I took at the University of Toronto was learning that several bird species have 3+ sexes? the ruff bird is a great example - each male variant has a different (and successful!) reproductive strategy, and a different chromosomal sequence. unlike the ruff bird, human sex falls into a bimodal distribution - this means there are two strong peaks (”typical” male and female morphs), with a whole lot in between. evolution is nice way of saying “statistics played out longterm among living organisms”, and evolutionarily successful traits….aren’t something to hold up as natural or moral, or representative of an advanced state. it’s literally just fuck tactics that make your group size increase. (though fucking isn’t always the best route, as asexual reproduction is massively advantageous as a short-term strategy, and certain species dominate the landscape by switching between sexual/asexual depending on environmental conditions) besides all that, the strength of humankind has always been our ability to work together communally, and that’s straight science. so even if you went down the extremely problematic path of valuing fellow humans based on their potential evolutionary contribution (coughs, eugenics, coughs), there would still be zero scientific basis behind discriminating against trans, non-binary and intersex people.  tl;dr here’s a challenge to all the bigots out there: please stop using “science” as a defence when the actual science is (overwhelmingly) against you. Science: pissing off bigots of all kinds since its inception. I find White-throated sparrows fascinating. They have two color morphs, the bright one: And the drab one: The two morphs have very different behavior. The bright ones are more aggressive, setting up territories and defending them, being more aggressive about defending against predators. They sing more often. The dull ones are quieter and less aggressive. They are more attentive to the nest, and better at feeding nestlings. The morphs tend to make a good pairing for raising children because they specialize in different roles. The dull-colored birds, being more camouflaged, are safer when sitting on the nest, and are better able to hide. The bright-colored birds, being more visible, are better able to intimidate predators and rivals. Interestingly though, both color morphs occur in both female and male birds. And birds tend to pair up with both opposite sex and opposite color morph birds. The dimorphism and different roles that, in most birds, are strongly associated with biological sex, in this species has evolved to be abstracted and separated from biological sex. Some people have described this system as the birds having “four sexes”. It’s been proposed that some life may have only first split into multiple sexes in order to confuse or slow down parasites so maybe some folks get offended cause deep down they just think roundworms will get them : bogleech: cazort: marvelousgameofdisneythrones: pangur-and-grim: my favourite part of the Evolutionary Biology courses I took at the University of Toronto was learning that several bird species have 3+ sexes? the ruff bird is a great example - each male variant has a different (and successful!) reproductive strategy, and a different chromosomal sequence. unlike the ruff bird, human sex falls into a bimodal distribution - this means there are two strong peaks (”typical” male and female morphs), with a whole lot in between. evolution is nice way of saying “statistics played out longterm among living organisms”, and evolutionarily successful traits….aren’t something to hold up as natural or moral, or representative of an advanced state. it’s literally just fuck tactics that make your group size increase. (though fucking isn’t always the best route, as asexual reproduction is massively advantageous as a short-term strategy, and certain species dominate the landscape by switching between sexual/asexual depending on environmental conditions) besides all that, the strength of humankind has always been our ability to work together communally, and that’s straight science. so even if you went down the extremely problematic path of valuing fellow humans based on their potential evolutionary contribution (coughs, eugenics, coughs), there would still be zero scientific basis behind discriminating against trans, non-binary and intersex people.  tl;dr here’s a challenge to all the bigots out there: please stop using “science” as a defence when the actual science is (overwhelmingly) against you. Science: pissing off bigots of all kinds since its inception. I find White-throated sparrows fascinating. They have two color morphs, the bright one: And the drab one: The two morphs have very different behavior. The bright ones are more aggressive, setting up territories and defending them, being more aggressive about defending against predators. They sing more often. The dull ones are quieter and less aggressive. They are more attentive to the nest, and better at feeding nestlings. The morphs tend to make a good pairing for raising children because they specialize in different roles. The dull-colored birds, being more camouflaged, are safer when sitting on the nest, and are better able to hide. The bright-colored birds, being more visible, are better able to intimidate predators and rivals. Interestingly though, both color morphs occur in both female and male birds. And birds tend to pair up with both opposite sex and opposite color morph birds. The dimorphism and different roles that, in most birds, are strongly associated with biological sex, in this species has evolved to be abstracted and separated from biological sex. Some people have described this system as the birds having “four sexes”. It’s been proposed that some life may have only first split into multiple sexes in order to confuse or slow down parasites so maybe some folks get offended cause deep down they just think roundworms will get them
Save
the-dracologist: quecksilvereyes: lesbie-vague: ampledarling: queermista: literallyscreamingatthevoid: augie279: ghanas-kente-queen: ampledarling: ghanas-kente-queen: Won’t that only solve 75% of your problems? The book solves half of your problems, not all of them Say you have 8 problems. You read the book, and you have 4 problems. You read the book again gets rid of HALF, of those 4 problems. So you’re left with two. Out of the 8 problems, 6 were resolved and 6/8 is 75%. Finally Tumblr can do math So, what you’re saying, is that if I buy infinite books, I will solve all of my problems, because the sum as n approaches infinity starting at 1 of (½)^n equals 1, which would be 100% of my problems. No, you will only ever be able to become infinitely close to solving all of your problems, like this: Please stop explaining math to me im gay that’s why radioactive material is such a bitch! it only ever deteriorates relative to its mass so it will never completely vanish This post is pushing me to the limit : SammieDee01 @Dee01Sammie 7h Yesterday I saw a book called "How to solve 50% of your problems", so I bought two books M the-dracologist: quecksilvereyes: lesbie-vague: ampledarling: queermista: literallyscreamingatthevoid: augie279: ghanas-kente-queen: ampledarling: ghanas-kente-queen: Won’t that only solve 75% of your problems? The book solves half of your problems, not all of them Say you have 8 problems. You read the book, and you have 4 problems. You read the book again gets rid of HALF, of those 4 problems. So you’re left with two. Out of the 8 problems, 6 were resolved and 6/8 is 75%. Finally Tumblr can do math So, what you’re saying, is that if I buy infinite books, I will solve all of my problems, because the sum as n approaches infinity starting at 1 of (½)^n equals 1, which would be 100% of my problems. No, you will only ever be able to become infinitely close to solving all of your problems, like this: Please stop explaining math to me im gay that’s why radioactive material is such a bitch! it only ever deteriorates relative to its mass so it will never completely vanish This post is pushing me to the limit
Save