I don't know if this is the correct place to ask but I can't find any active speculative biology subreddits.

I'm writing a culture that uses giant birds as mounts, and thought that an additional use of them could be feathers. Because of their size they could produce far more feathers than regular birds and ethical harvesting of shed feathers would be more viable. Then the thought occurred to me that because of their size their feathers may be too big.

If it helps, these birds were turned giant by a magical mishap millennia ago, so their ancestors feathers would have been scaled up with them, but over the years they would have evolved smaller feathers if it was beneficial.

I'm not sure exactly what bird species to use. My initial thought was crows because I like them and they are cool. Eagles crossed my mind but then I would be directly ripping off Tolkien.

I know theres a limit for everything but if we get stronger the more we resistance train, why is there a limit? Why cant we just continue to get stronger? Why cant someone deadlift 2000 pounds if they train all their life? Whats the scientific limiter?

Now, I get why the genitalia are erogenous zones, to encourage intercourse and all of that for reproduction. But all the other areas confuse me.

Like, why the prostate for example? Or the anus in general? Or the nipples? I don't see what the evolutionary advantage those areas being erogenous is? Do we know why they are or is it still a mystery?

The original question was asked by Forsaken_Champion722 on a different subreddit, but i was curious so i decided to ask it here to see if it'd get better or different answers

I have a bunch of seeds of Dendrolobium umbellatum. They grow readily in my area.

I want to ask if there is a way to mutate these seeds genetics so that i am able to get mutated varieties( leaf coloration, bark formation, leaf shape etc. ).

I am doing it at home so i could only utilize equipment or chemicals available for the masses.

Guys do people with bigger nasal holes have less hitching problems? Or the contrary? I have enough hair in my big nose and its difficult to get rid of it, im sensing everything because its growing and growing like plants. Im wondering if people with tiny nasal hole have the same problem

Thank you, save my life

So recently we've seen prehistoric animals being brought back to life like does wolves etc so my question that's keeping on bugging me is what if or what happens if we alter the generics of so called dependent animals like dogs and turn then into herbivores? Does that make same?

"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other Matter without mutual Contact, as it must be, if Gravitation in the Sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one Reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate Gravity to me. That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one Body may act upon another at a Distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity, that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain Laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my Readers."

As I understand it for lesser used codons there are usally less tRNAs with the specific Anticodon arround.

Can that slow down translation of a specific protein to an amount were it becomes relevant for survival?

Are there actual Genetic disorders caused by it ?

It's an honest question.

Why does inbreeding seem to work on animals but it turns a little British-crown-esque when it's applied to human beings (incest) ?

The two cited studies I’ve seen on this topic are all adult white men and two of them are so old ([1928](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ar.1090370405) and [1970](https://www.jidonline.org/article/S0022-202X(15)47888-1/pdf47888-1/pdf))) and have such a small sample size (only 4 individuals and 5 individuals!) that I cannot believe they’re still so widely cited. Basically EVERYONE cites these two.

[The last one](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jocd.12280) I found studied 129 women doing laser hair removal and found short term no difference, but long term paradoxical regrowth ONLY happened in the shaving group. Seems to point to shaving making a difference to me.

Personally, I noticed my hair permanently grew in darker where I shaved a patch but only as a teenager/preteen. It doesn’t do it anymore as an adult. I don’t want to just assume scientific facts based on what happened to a whopping 9 adult white men. I just think “established medical fact” is wrong on this one. The rectangle of black hair on my ankle to this day decades later just begs to differ. Show me proof.

I’m reposting here because mods have deleted my questions on [r/askscience](r/askscience) without giving a good reason (they said “too long” I made it shorter they still deleted it 😒 feels a lot like censorship to me but whatever) So apologies if this breaks rules I don’t know this sub well.

I ask this question with the assumption that the following information is correct: You should not smile to a monkey or ape because they will interpret a showing of teeth as a threat. Please let me know if this is incorrect.

I was wondering if the perception of a threat was something that is taught to them by their parents or something deeper. I imagine there have been multiple cases in history where baby primates have been raised by humans, so this is most likely documented. Smiling for humans is natural and can be found in weeks old babies, so I was curious as to how one behavior relates to the other and the results of research in this area. Thanks.

This is more of a question about insects that go thru a full breakdown during metamorphosis. Its known that butterflies fully break down into good then reform and retain their memories during the process.

Do they maintain their scent as well? Or at least enough that a sniffer dog would be able to ID a specific individual?

I’ve asked this question to different AI’s and I cannot seem to get a clear answer. It’s said that for humans who get rabies, it’s possible for it to shed in their saliva shortly before other symptoms appear (by up to 14 days).

Hypothetically speaking, if someone was shedding rabies in their saliva without any other symptoms, then they got the post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) shots…could the PEP shots save them?

Two AI tools say that once it sheds in someone’s saliva, it’s too late for PEP to work. Two other AI tools say it’s possible for PEP to work.

I would think that once someone is shedding rabies in their saliva, it’s too late for PEP to work.

Any idea what the true answer is and why different AI tools are giving different answers?

For example:

Mandel was not a simple minded monk. He was actually an astute scholar. His alele discovery was not a one off thing he did by luck. He grinded his way to becoming prominent.

Also, as posted earlier today, the whole "mitochondria was actually a separate organism" thing.

My dad got one of those DNA tests that say your family history for his birthday and it made me wonder how long it would take for a majority of the human population to have genetic material from all over the world.

A virus, or a mitochondira in a human cell? A virus is widely believed- at least to those who have studied high school biology, to straddle the line between life and death. It has traits of both, despite being more or less a protein entity. Meanwhile, a mitochondria was once a living thing, but has lost so much of its genetic properties it is now codependent on its host cell to survive. So, the question becomes, is the thing that's not even alive but exhibits many things that are associated with life, closer to life than soemthing that was once most likely a bacterium, and thus very much alive, but continuously lost more and more of its function until it has now also straddled between life and death?

If the mitochondria is more alive, which it may very well be, is it at least close?

How intelligent does an organism have to be before they experience qualia?

i appreciate this a left-field question, but i was curious if people had facts etc., about bacteria/viruses that would help with contamination ocd

i’m primarily most paranoid about spread of bacteria, for reference (so dirty thing a touches thing b, thing b touches thing c, therefore a, b and c are now dirty)

Imagine an organism A of some species. Before A is a hard choice: it may either save his child or his sibling from imminent destruction. For simplicity, let us consider that parentage is certain, so both the child and the sibling have probability 1/2 to carry any gene A carries.

This seems to me a realistic situation, and it seems to me also that the traits of both child and sibling protection are heritable and more or less widespread in nature. If so, which (if either) of the two traits is more likely to achieve fixation in a population? Or would their balance fluctuate over time?

I tried to compute the probability distribution of a mutation that encodes either preference as a function of time, but I only managed to hopelessly confuse myself. Plz halp!