The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of Nizzle
  3. Show Posts
  4. Thanked Posts
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - Nizzle

Pages: [1]
1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does planet size determine life form size?
« on: 03/02/2012 08:19:39 »
Nice rhetoric Don_1. Just sone additional comments:

Quote from: Don_1 on 02/02/2012 13:13:47
A dinosaur (Sauroposeidon) might have weighed 60 tons. But since these huge animals disappeared with the demise of the dinosaurs, one has to wonder if perhaps the Elephant is the largest practical size for a terrestrial creature, since the only bigger animals which have fared so well are those which are aquatic.

The fact that we don't see animals with the size of dinosaurs has nothing to do with practical size, but rather with the Oxygen percentage in our atmosphere. In the dinosaur era it was much higher than it is now, so in Earth's ecological system, O2 concentration is a limiting factor to the size of land animals.

Quote from: Don_1 on 02/02/2012 13:13:47
A planet with the gravity field of Jupiter might be unable to support life due to the size an animal would need to be to be strong and resilient enough to survive the crushing effect of both the atmosphere and the gravity itself. Too small and bone/cell strength might be insufficient, but as size increases to accomodate greater strength, so the need for still greater strength increases.

You're only thinking of our known Calcium-based skeleton now. Who's to say that animals who evolve under higher gravity pressure don't evolve with a skeleton made of sturdier materials?

The following users thanked this post: Zer0

2
Physiology & Medicine / Why Do I Sometimes Miss A Word From A Written Sentence ?
« on: 15/11/2011 06:18:39 »
Simple answer: Your brain is much faster than your hands.

Your tongue is also faster than your hands, that's why you'll never have this happen when you speak, only when you write.

Try to do this experiment: Notice what word is in your head while typing a sentence. You'll notice that the word in your head is often a couple of words further along the sentence than the one you are typing at that moment :)

So it's easy for your hands to skip a word sometimes. This isn't dyslexia in my opinion..
The following users thanked this post: lpmm

3
Chemistry / A Chemicals Point Of View !
« on: 17/12/2009 11:59:55 »
Quote from: http://wizandchips.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/the-first-picture-of-a-molecule-anatomy-ibm-does-science/

Pentacene: The first picture of a molecule's anatomy. Made bij an Atomic Force Microscope with a CO molecule at the tip.



The following users thanked this post: Electron spin

4
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why is natural selection so much slower than human-led selection?
« on: 15/09/2009 08:57:03 »
SOOOOOooooh,

on topic: Natural selection is much slower than human selection because natural selection occurs at random, and human selection has some reasoning and purpose behind it.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0

5
Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How do cold-blooded species cope in cold water?
« on: 18/08/2009 10:23:00 »
For an important chemical reaction, poikilotherms [cold-blooded animals] may have four to ten enzyme systems that operate at different temperatures. As a result, poikilotherms often have larger, more complex genomes than homeotherms [warm-blooded animals] in the same ecological niche. Frogs are a notable example of this effect.

Because their metabolism is so variable, poikilothermic animals do not easily support complex, high-energy organ systems such as brains or wings.[citation needed] Poikilothermic animals do not use their metabolisms to heat or cool themselves. For the same body weight, poikilotherms need half to 1/10 of the energy of homeotherms, and thus eat half to 1/10 of the biomass.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poikilotherm

So to answer your question: They have specialized enzymatic systems.
The following users thanked this post: charles1948

Pages: [1]
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 33 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.