Random facts/myths!

[Lemon Cheesecake]

why do they stick their heads in the dirt....?

[Bassy]

I actually looked it up and they really don't do that. It's probably seen in a cartoon or photo shopped or something. It's all a myth.

[Lemon Cheesecake]

ok, here sounds like a plausible reason... goes to show you that much is how we perceive somethign and not how it really is

"Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand—they wouldn't be able to breathe! But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!"

[Bassy]

Fact: IQ tests are now less taken for companies. They use an EQ test (Emotional skills test/quotient) which is like social intelligence because they're 75% more likely to succeed than an IQ test,
-From my textboook

Myth: Shock therapy (ECT=Electrocompulsive Therapy) is harmful.
It is used in the medieval era, but is still used today! It's not harmful because with technology today, doctors give the patient anesthesia and other medication to trigger a seizure to reverse symptoms of mental illnesses. This is different than an EEG = Electroencephalogram, which is just a head cap placed on your head measuring brain activity.
-From class

?Fact/Myth: Charles Darwin didn't know about genes?

[Lemon Cheesecake]

I could maybe see electro therapy but lobotomies... what a waste of lives....looking back at cases in history it just seemed so sad how any potential at a life was taken from them.

[Bassy]

Lobotomy must be painful, for brain surgery, you have to be awake, Man, I couldn't do that. I hope there will be better technology that it wouldn't be as painful or other ways to get cures or anything else.

[Lemon Cheesecake]

I was watching a history show once on how many of the scientist's from 100's of years ago and sooner built off of one another's findings and the person who invented, discovered, calculated...didn't always get the credit.

Bassy, you asked: "?Fact/Myth: Charles Darwin didn't know about genes?"
I would think Charles Darwin had read, worked with other scientist's and came up with some realization of genes. I know we take much of it for granted now ( and yet have so much to still learn) but back then they were studying molds etc already and I would hazard to guess that, in answer to your question, that Darwin did know about genes. Did I guess right or do I have to go research it?

[Bassy]

I actually do not know, I just took it off a random quiz and trying to find the best one to have a little debate about whether it is fact or a myth. Genes werent discovered not too long before him, but he was an evolutionist. Genes can be interferes with evolution. As I did research, Chalres Did not know anything about genes. So, I'm guessing that his theories are no longer supported today

[galled]

I think his "survival of the fittest" still holds true regardless of the cause (genes and/or environment).

I was reading an essay on how humans throughout history have always ended up being wrong about everything. And in 200 years, people will laugh at us for getting most of what we think today as being wrong!

[Bassy]

I hear that Darwin was unaware of Mendels work (discovered Genetics) and that people never understood genetics. Mendel and Darwin were alive at the same era. Mendels work was rediscovered til 1900. So Im guessing that evolution was the initial belief and genetics is controversial between evolution.

[Lemon Cheesecake]

In Darwin's time period I have a sneaky suspicion that they all had at least an inkling of one another's work...but maybe they avoided joining together in some cases so that it didn't look like they were "stealing" the others work?
Obviously Medel knew of Darwin and his work:
"Darwin was one of the people to whom Mendel sent his publication, which apparently went unread. After Darwin’s death, a copy of the book was found in the Brit’s library, with the pages still sealed by the printer."
http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/201 ... ible-monk/
Mendel was influenced by the work of Abbot Cyril Napp and Johann Nestler who you could say were the precursors to modern genetics:

[+] SPOILER

In Olmutz, Mendel met Johann Nestler, at the time, rector of the university and dean of natural history. Nestler, a notable biologist, was very interested in the rules of heredity and had carried out research dealing with animal and plant breeding; it is generally thought that he influenced young Johann at the time (Wood and Orel 2001).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707027/

[Bassy]

Maybe if Darwin has read the publication, there could be some new theory on evolution linking genetics. I don't think we can really compare Ape blood, and human blood, or even relevant. I personally don't support evolution.

[Lemon Cheesecake]

I am more inclined to think that maybe Darwin had read someone else's publication or spoken to others of Mendel's work, just because the publication was still "sealed" in his library, doesn't mean that he hadn't heard of it or read it somewhere else.

My understanding is that there is a universal genetic code for all life which to me supports the fact that the creation of life is not random but intentional. Unfortunately similar genetic coding means it can also be manipulated and distorted. As far as evolution I personally believe in genetics there is a form of evolution but if life was created only by evolution then we would be constantly be seeing the forms of that happening naturally. I am intrigued by science but I in no way understand it and the more scientist learn the more they seem to change their perception. However, I like the idea that in each of us, in every living thing there is a "noah's ark" of coding because to me that is an amazing plan.

[Bassy]

Fact: Mexican General Santa Anna had an elaborate state funeral for his amputated leg.

Yes, you heard right. I guess he really loved his leg! But I think this is for is fake leg. There was not really a funeral per say but more for his peg leg getting into display is Illinois, USA. He was shot from cannon fire with the French. Not very lucky there. He was not the most iconic person for Mexico. Mexicans hate him, according to Bill Hatcher, a guide at the museum. They say that it was his fault that he lost Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and southern California to the U.S. You know, I can see why they were mad if he was the problem. "Everybody thinks we went to war in World War I because the Germans sunk the Lusitania. No we didn't. We went to war because the Germans offered the Mexicans all of that territory back if Mexico would side against us." According to the article. I guess this seems that Mexico didn't take their offer! Not exactly sure who's Mexico's allies were during world war one, I know now that the U.S. and Mexico aren't quite on good terms at the moment...
Source:

[+] SPOILER

Article of quotes used
Picture of peg leg

[Lemon Cheesecake]

General Santa Ana? I wonder which came first...the General or the name for the hot wind that blows (Santa Ana winds)?