The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XL

[aimeeandbeatles]

I'm glad I don't have to lay an egg every month. That would be uncomfortable.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

...Can an egg break while it's still inside the hen? I don't think the shell hardens until it's about to be laid though.

 

[Synobun]

...Can an egg break while it's still inside the hen? I don't think the shell hardens until it's about to be laid though.

Yes. Can be fatal. Causes infection if not extracted and treated by a vet.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

 

[MaryKB]

Same thing would happen to you or I if we had an unviable fetus and it isn't removed. But some people want to codify it into law that we'd have to just die.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

But some people want to codify it into law that we'd have to just die.

Example: Clinic 554 debate in New Brunswick.

 

[Lexicus]

But there are other modes which could have made the same possible, of which one is apparently more ancestral than the current mode.

If you want to go down this route, sexual reproduction itself is the "mistake." So much more efficient for us to just be able to multiply without having sex.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

*suddenly explodes into a zillion spores*

 

[Takhisis]

Why is Crème fraîche called Crème fraîche when it is kind of the opposite of fresh cream?

As always, Wikipedia has the answer to all of life's important questions:

A literal translation of crème fraîche is "fresh cream". However, in French-speaking countries, crème fraîche may refer to either: (A) the thick fermented product, crème fraîche épaisse or fermentée, or (B) to a liquid cream, crème fraîche liquide or fleurette. In these countries, crème fraîche without qualification normally refers to liquid cream, with the thick form usually called, crème épaisse. In other countries, however, crème fraîche without qualification, usually refers to the thick, fermented product.​

 

[cardgame]

Depending on how broadly you want to take this question, there are dozens of mistakes in humans. For example, the spine isn't very good for bipedalism, therefore we get back pain.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Depending on how broadly you want to take this question, there are dozens of mistakes in humans. For example, the spine isn't very good for bipedalism, therefore we get back pain.

I think the reason that human babies come out underdeveloped (lots of animals can walk right after birth for instance) is because if they stayed in the womb any longer their heads would literally be too big to come out.

 

[Takhisis]

Also human beings weren't evolved with computer games in mind.

 

[Cutlass]

*suddenly explodes into a zillion spores*

Did you read that in an old Piers Anthony scifi novel?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Did you read that in an old Piers Anthony scifi novel?

I don't think I've read anything from him so no.

 

[bernie14]

Again, it's not an error. It's necessary.

isn't that what JK Rowling said?

 

[Farm Boy]

*suddenly explodes into a zillion spores*

I'd fear the intelimold.

 

[Zkribbler]

.. the spine isn't very good for bipedalism, therefore we get back pain.

...oh yeah.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you want to go down this route, sexual reproduction itself is the "mistake." So much more efficient for us to just be able to multiply without having sex.

If we assume that humans - and any other relatively complex organism - developed into two sexes out of calculation, it would be because back when humans were still another dumb monkey they could benefit from having one parent look after the infant at all times. Now it isn't that important, since you usually don't run the risk of being eaten by wild animals while on your crib. That comes later.

Another positive from needing two parents instead of just creating your own offspring yourself is that the genetic code gets variated. This too won't be an issue in the future, I suppose, should the human species last as long so as to become able to calculate what changes in an individual's genetics are needed and just grand those to them in the form of a pill.

 

[MaryKB]

If we assume that humans - and any other relatively complex organism - developed into two sexes out of calculation, it would be because back when humans were still another dumb monkey they could benefit from having one parent look after the infant at all times. Now it isn't that important, since you usually don't run the risk of being eaten by wild animals while on your crib. That comes later.

Are you suggesting the evolutionary purpose of males is to spend their entire time devouted to caring for the young?

 

[Kyriakos]

Are you suggesting the evolutionary purpose of males is to spend their entire time devouted to caring for the young?

Of course not. Males have missed the whole 9-month bonding thing so back when humans were a monkey they likely would just take off.
They are known to do so even now