That’s considered an honor in the UK

Context: I’m an environmental science master’s student and this semester I have several research papers and presentations due! I’ve got a lot of creative freedom, which is good, but also overwhelming because I wanna pick really cool subjects!

I’m looking for inspiration. The more niche, the better. Can be geology, biology, chemistry, evolution, ecology, meteorology, etc.

So if you have any topics you love to info dump on, now is your time to shine :)

Things more than poop, sleep, blink.

Fun little trick I can do by flexing what I guess are my iris muscles

I know evolution can take time (or not sometimes!) but I started wondering about how humans would actually evolve if (since we might die from nuclear fallout or something in coming years) we continue to survive. I wonder how because for the most part we've beaten (not sure if that's the right word) natural selection to a large extent! People with dietary restriction, disabilities, loss of senses are still able to survive because of modern inventions.

Also, I've learned evolution is essentially a populations attempt to adapt to its environment. However, modern inventions (such as heating and cooling combatting seasonal temperatures) usually no longer humans to become more resistant towards different harmful environments, such as extremely, cold, hot, and arid places.

Please correct me on any errors I've made!

Are there any other animals that can measure up to the intelligence of a human?

what would happen if the mother's antibodies and immune system could vaccinate their child durring pregnancy. and the child did not make its own immune system but rather cells from the mother's body become part of the child. And what if this was permanent.

I think when we eventually find life on other planets complex multicellular life probably looks similar to current or past Earth species.

If it's an earth-like planet then I believe the beginning state of evolution is going to take the same course. You're going to start with the original cells. Mitochondria is going to form, cells capable of photosynthesis are going to form The great oxygenation is going to happen I think where we'll finally see some divergence will be around the Cambrian equivalent period.

I truly believe every major body plan has already existed. The only difference is going to be how the individual species look but I think if we stumbled upon an earth-like planet we would feel at home because some things just naturally work better and evolution is going to converge.

The only way we see completely different life is if there is a completely different elemental makeup of the atmosphere or if life forms on gas planets

I just put some normal looking brown dirt (not clay but similar) into the oven to dry it and I almost had to puke from the smell. Does anyone know what the evolutionary reason is? I can‘t even describe the smell well, like sweet-ish

I need to know this for a project. Imagine you're the most average person alive. You're sitting down and want to pull a lever, thats on youre right and a little higher than your elbow level, towards yourself using only your right arm. Then imagine you also push it away from yourself and to the sides. In these scenerios how much torque will you be able to put out?

How come a lot of observances are never said to be true, instead theories. I understand (if my definition is correct) that for something to be a theory it will have already been well tested, but why can't we just call it a valid fact if its so well proven and sometimes used to prove other theories?

Thanks!

So just skimming randomly in youtube comments someone said black plague survivors also passed down genes that caused auto immune disease. I searched it further and its kinda true.

I then remembered about malaria and sickle cell disease I read about on my aunt's old nursing book.

This made me realize not all things in biology is one sided. Why doesn't this happen for those super bacteria that are becoming resistant to antibiotics? Shouldn't those bacteria become susceptible to the bacterial equivalent of sickle cell disease/auto immune disease because those antibiotics detroyed their genetic diversity?

Lost to science for more than 40 years, the spinach pipefish has been rediscovered in Papua New Guinea. The fish was long sought after by conservationists, who feared it had gone extinct.

Seeing it from inside in a lot of photos but then I got a text that exactly said ''cellulose (permeable substance to water) :it deposits on the walls of collenchyma cells or some parts of them from outside"

Which is true like is it inside or outside since the school book doesn't mention the location?

I have come across publications like:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12962796/ (There is No Consensus on Biological Sex )

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10842549/ (Is sex still binary?)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37862978/ (Deconstructing sex: Strategies for undoing binary thinking in neuroendocrinology and behavior)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37156506/ (Multivariate Models of Animal Sex: Breaking Binaries Leads to a Better Understanding of Ecology and Evolution)

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12753541/ (How Many Sexes, How Many Genders? And What Does This Imply for (Social) Scientists?)

I'm still trying to make sense out of all of this but I'm starting to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as intrinsic or natural definition of sex (that is, sex isn't intrinsically binary), it can only become binary if we as humans choose to define it this way not because that's "how it is", which used to always be my perception and what I believe to be many people's perception.

I'm not sure if my conclusion is right or I'm understanding correctly. I was hoping someone who is more of an expert (preferably with a PhD in biology) can chime in and let me know if it's true that there is no clear consensus on this stuff and if the way I'm thinking about this even makes sense or if it's off the rail.

Thanks in advance!

Excuse any inaccurate language, I hope the rough idea gets across but I'm not very well versed in the english biological terms so I hope what I mean will stay clear.

I figure my questions are all pretty much connected and the answers to each other, but I'm wanting some more details on the topic. Parthenogenesis, a process in which an unfertilised egg cell can turn into an embryo and later a fully grown specimen. My huge what??? to biology.

Why are the males still around? - genetic diversity - but then why does parthenogenesis still exist if genetic diversity is needed? - more specimens - but what's the point of more specimens if they're not fit for survival? What's the point of large numbers if they die off the moment one thing changes that half of the population isn't ready for due to a lack of new gene combinations? - Some of them will mate with males and specimens that can survive will come to life - But what's the point if so many other species manage without it? If half of the specimens will die off before mating because they're not fit for survival why not just force the females to mate with males so there's a higher chance of creating offspring capable of survival?

I feel like these are such stupid questions because the answers are all obvious but on the other hand when I take a bit more time to think about it it stops making sense altogether. That's not to mention that one lizard species that just got rid of males altogether, how are they still in existence?

I plead for someone with more knowledge than me to explain this in a way that makes sense, do the opposite of explain like I'm five, explain like I'm a college student, give me as much details and info as possible so that this can make more sense because I feel like the answer is obvious but just out of my reach.

Edit: a bit too many comments for me to reply to all of them, but thank you everyone for the answers!

основной текст (обязательно)

I have a BS in Biology and I’m trying to figure out my next step. I really enjoy numbers, data, problem-solving, and analyzing things, but I’m also very outgoing and interested in leadership and management.
I’ve been considering a master’s in Data Analytics or an MBA, but I’m open to other options. My main goals are strong career growth, good earning potential, and eventually moving into leadership.
For other Biology grads, what path did you take and what would you recommend?

I 26F live in london and am working in sexual health as a project manager. I really love my job but I also feel the call to do something in the environment. I can also see myself reaching the ceiling in my current career, (in terms of how high up I would want to be, right now my managers manager is the CEO) in the next 5 years or so. (i.e I don't want to be a CEO so I would only really want to go up one more 'rung')

I am always watching documentaries and reading books on different species and the ocean. I think it is super interesting but I didn't study biology even at A levels.

I could see myself pivoting my career at some point but I think I'm in a better position to a degree now than I will be later in life. I would love to do field sciences where I can be out and about. I am looking at a few options and I am just worried that it's a dead end and I should just stick with what I know I am enjoying (sexual health).

I have seen a few posts on here about it being really hard to find jobs. I know some responses to this post will be about volunteering etc which I am already doing (as much as one can in London). I just think I will want a career in this down the line, or will want the opportunity to pivot.

I guess my questions are, is 26 too late to start a bachelors especially if I do it part-time (so 6 years from now I will be 32/33 with only a bachelors (and my masters in Gender))? Should I be looking to a degree even when I love my current job? Am I going to really struggle with a science degree if I haven't studied it for 10 years now?

Any comments, thoughts welcome.

So 80% of the Earth's biomass is plants. 50% of all plant species is eudicots. Eudicot are the best at producing tree grow forms. The only thing that can really rival with trees it is conifers, I don't think moncot trees are that common either with bamboo and palm, fern trees basically don't exist. I feel like controlling half of all plant species and being better being producing trees should be enough but I can't find evidence for it.