Biology - August 2007

give me your thoughts.

2007-08-10 15:42:41 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-10 13:43:18 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

if the pH level is 7 does this mean the water is fresh and what would cause the water pH to be 7 if the water sample was taken near a stream flowing out to the ocean

2007-08-10 12:53:07 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

is fresh water ment to have a ph level of 7 and if it does what is that telling me about the water

2007-08-10 12:47:32 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

i am conducting a research project involving identifying bacteria. i obviously as a high school senior don't know how so i need some tips or books i can buy or a website. i can identify characteristics just have never obtained any knowledge of names. any help????

2007-08-10 11:10:48 · 10 answers · asked by Jess... 2

If two animals are dependent upon each other for their survival did they evolve at the same time some how knowing that they would need each other?

2007-08-10 11:10:38 · 13 answers · asked by Danny K 5

2007-08-10 10:31:04 · 4 answers · asked by chato r 1

Scientifically speaking, what are the ideas which explain the actual beginning of life? I've heard phrases like "primordial ooze" being thrown around, but what exactly does that refer to? Is there an accepted theory? Most of us are only familiar with the "survival of the fittest" aspect of the process of evolution, but there are other aspects such as genetic drift that most people are undereducated about. Is there an aspect of evolutionary theory that explains the origen of life, or are there any other interesting ideas to explain it?

2007-08-10 09:45:44 · 5 answers · asked by Aleksandr 4

2007-08-10 08:20:59 · 42 answers · asked by onekmb2003 2

I am not a scientist, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on this subject. But based on the premise that a group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor, would Adam (and Eve) qualify as a common ancestor? Is this at least a possibility according to this theory? If not, why? Thanks....

2007-08-10 06:33:58 · 10 answers · asked by whitehorse456 5

design primer for PCR

2007-08-10 04:36:06 · 2 answers · asked by kaka 1

I say yes! Embryonic cells should be used TOTALLY to human research!!!! Embryos are not humans. Kill them if needed to save REAL living humans! We should not create them for just that, but once they are to discarded, then use them for science

2007-08-10 04:28:25 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-10 03:43:41 · 10 answers · asked by surya 1

Before you answer, keep in mind that the more often than not "shady" goverment is rumored to be about 50 years ahead in technological advances when compared to the general populace.

2007-08-10 02:38:33 · 6 answers · asked by icyhott4urmind 1

In December, the (British) government proposed a ban on creating the hybrid embryos because of public unease at the idea, but it later bowed to protests by scientists who feared Britain could lose its leading role in stem cell research.

Opponents say mixing even a tiny amount of human genetic material with that of an animal is unnatural and wrong.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL3122001120070731

2007-08-10 02:16:02 · 5 answers · asked by bruce b 3

2007-08-10 02:10:17 · 8 answers · asked by kieran m 1

2007-08-10 02:08:10 · 8 answers · asked by chismaxqueen 2

2007-08-10 01:34:53 · 5 answers · asked by Kev E 5

2007-08-09 20:26:29 · 8 answers · asked by zue 1

There must be some mad scientest that has this thing figured out by now.

2007-08-09 18:54:11 · 23 answers · asked by Carolyne J 1

2007-08-09 18:33:29 · 8 answers · asked by chellu k 1

...because it seems that things are a little opposite right now.

2007-08-09 18:31:10 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

How could evolution be disproved, if at all?
Is this not imperative for a theory to be considered viable?

2007-08-09 18:22:52 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

This is a genuine reqest for an answer to a question I'm to embarassed to ask elsewhere.

2007-08-09 18:08:44 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Every time new evidence comes forth that either contradicts the evolutionary paradigm, or supports creationism, it is either trivialized to the point that it cannot hurt the core belief, or is added to the paradigm by slightly modifying the supposed "mechanism" of evolution. The core belief has never been questioned, and is actually being called a "fact" now by most people (which is scary). Is this some sick sociological experiment to see how many people will accept a blatant lie based on logical fallacies and misinformation?

2007-08-09 17:50:02 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-09 17:26:29 · 7 answers · asked by samuel g 1

2007-08-09 16:32:50 · 4 answers · asked by samuel g 1

2007-08-09 16:01:02 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-08-09 15:59:01 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

im speaking for all age groups. I look through old yearbooks, and senior classes looked alot older than they do now. And just a couple of years ago, fifty seemed so old, and now sixty seems young. And my parents always told us how old their grandparents seemed, and they dont seem too old. is it just because im getting older too and seeing myself as neither old or young, or are people aging slower these days.

2007-08-09 15:58:39 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous