rhamphotheca:

Brain Evolution by Dwayne Godwin and Jorge Cham
(via: Scientific American magazine)

rhamphotheca:

Brain Evolution by Dwayne Godwin and Jorge Cham

(via: Scientific American magazine)

Reblogged from Juhyeon Pyun

mpreg-tony:

CALDERAS!
I LOVE THEM!
THEY ARE LIKE TINY WORLDS INSIDE DEAD (AND SOMETIMES *NOT* DEAD) VOLCANOES!

Reblogged from MelzWhimzy
I am lonely, yet not everybody will do. I don’t know why, some people fill the gaps but other people emphasize my loneliness.
— Anais Nin (via onlinecounsellingcollege)
Reblogged from MelzWhimzy
Was Carl Sagan a religious man? He was so much more. He left behind the petty, parochial, medieval world of the conventionally religious, left the theologians, priests and mullahs wallowing in their small-minded spiritual poverty. He left them behind, because he had so much more to be religious about. They have their Bronze-Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the universe.
— Richard Dawkins (via whats-out-there)
Reblogged from MelzWhimzy
scienceyoucanlove:

Evolution is awesome!  A native group of people living on the Soloman Islands northeast of Australia called Melanesians is famous for their beautiful dark skin and naturally blonde hair. The odd combination has got scientists wondering about how such a color combo develops over time. According to the Global Financial Newswires, many scientists have long thought that their blonde hair was a result of a diet high in fish, perhaps bleaching by the sun and salt water, or a reminder of the island’s historic relations with people of European descent.In fact, the blonde Melanesians have blonde that is unique solely to them. According to the study in which scientists compared 43 blonde hair islanders to 42 dark hair islanders, blonde Melanesians have a variant of a native gene called TYRP1 that plays an important role in the melanin biosynthetic pathway. This variant is completely separate from what causes blonde hair in Europeans, and doesn’t even exist in the European genetic set.What’s truly beautiful in this fascinating discovery, as so perfectly stated by the study author Sean Myles, a geneticist at Nova Scotia Agricultural College, is that “it’s a great example of convergent evolution, where the same outcome is brought about by completely different means.”Found on http://tinyurl.com/6u8kwhl
source 

scienceyoucanlove:

Evolution is awesome!  A native group of people living on the Soloman Islands northeast of Australia called Melanesians is famous for their beautiful dark skin and naturally blonde hair. 

The odd combination has got scientists wondering about how such a color combo develops over time. According to the Global Financial Newswires, many scientists have long thought that their blonde hair was a result of a diet high in fish, perhaps bleaching by the sun and salt water, or a reminder of the island’s historic relations with people of European descent.

In fact, the blonde Melanesians have blonde that is unique solely to them. According to the study in which scientists compared 43 blonde hair islanders to 42 dark hair islanders, blonde Melanesians have a variant of a native gene called TYRP1 that plays an important role in the melanin biosynthetic pathway. This variant is completely separate from what causes blonde hair in Europeans, and doesn’t even exist in the European genetic set.

What’s truly beautiful in this fascinating discovery, as so perfectly stated by the study author Sean Myles, a geneticist at Nova Scotia Agricultural College, is that “it’s a great example of convergent evolution, where the same outcome is brought about by completely different means.”

Found on http://tinyurl.com/6u8kwhl

source 

Reblogged from MelzWhimzy

You will always be too much of something for someone: too big, too loud, too soft, too edgy. If you round out your edges, you lose your edge.

Apologize for mistakes. Apologize for unintentionally hurting someone — profusely. But don’t apologize for being who you are.

— Danielle Laporte (via splitterherzen)
Reblogged from MelzWhimzy

sagansense:

With all the hype surrounding the untapped abounding resources of cannabis - medicinally, agriculturally, or otherwise undetermined knowns as of yet - the pictures above provide you with a glimpse into the beauty of the plant, unfettered from government or political divides or opinion.

Sativa and Indica strains of cannabis get their close up through a scanning electron microscope in Ford McCann’s book “Cannabis Under The Microscope: A Visual Exploration of Medicinal Sativa and C. Indica.

Source reference: LeafScience

Want more SEM photography? Wander over to Rose-Lynn Fisher’s site and indulge in her gorgeous book’s ‘BEE’ and ‘The Topography of Tears’

Reblogged from MelzWhimzy
Under the anger, under the fear, under the despair, under the broken heartedness, there is a radiance that has never been harmed, that has never been lost, that is the truth of who one is.
— Gangaji (via sun-hawk)
Reblogged from MelzWhimzy

thedragoninmygarage:

a-wak-e:

The lie is over now.
The truth is out.

Its time to wake up and accept the fact that the people on the top, don’t have your best interest in mind. All they ever wanted, want and will want is money over your and your children’s dead body. Its Eugenics. Nothing new.

Wake up and Care and Share before too late.

- There are people out there that think vaccines cause autism. They have some “celebrities” in their ranks. Never mind that these people are just plain WRONG in their assertions, but they are a public health risk in their stances.

- You’ll find that the pseudoscience pushing crowd love logical fallacies because, frankly, they are so easy to use. And they work so well, because it shifts the argument from evidence and facts to rhetoric and disinformation. Because the science denialist crowd, which include (but not limited to) creationists, homeopaths, anti-vaccinationists, global warming deniers, alternative medicine pushers, and sasquatch fans, have no evidence supporting their positions, they have tended to use logical fallacies to argue against the skeptical side.
- The Strawman Fallacy is admittedly my favorite, because it takes such creativity to invent it, and the fallacious arguer will use it until their last breath. Basically, a strawman fallacy is an attempt by an arguer to invent a position for the other side, then dismiss the other side because of the invented position. For example, the anti-vaccination crowd will say “you don’t care about our autistic children,” then in the next breath, state that because we don’t care about their autistic children, vaccines are bad. It’s called a strawman because you look at that argument (we don’t care about autistic children) rather than the evidence that vaccines do not cause autism. It’s frustrating beyond belief.
* Pro-disease anti-vaxers want vaccines that are 100% safe. This is never going to happen, as all medicines carry some risk. However, the relative risk of injury from vaccines is significantly lower than the risk of injury from getting the disease naturally. For more information, see the CDC website.
* This is so important, I’ll say it again: The only people that insist vaccines are (or should be) 100% safe are the anti-vax pro-disease advocates.
* Reduced vaccination rates lead to higher incidents of infection. This has been illustrated in the U.K. following Wakefield’s bogus study, in Germany in 2006 (including two deaths in unvaccinated children), in California, in MN (where an unvaccinated child died from hemophilus influenza type b).
* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that “Big Pharma” makes lots of money from vaccines. If vaccination rates dropped, however, there would be an increase in preventable illnesses, many of which have high rates of complications resulting in hospitalization and expensive treatment. See the link about Germany above for information on costs associated with the measles outbreak there. The money to be made from the diseases far outweighs any money to be made from vaccines.
* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that better hygiene has led to a decrease in disease, rather than vaccines. However, many of the diseases prevented by vaccines are airborne, and are not greatly impacted by improved sanitation or hygiene.
* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that too many antigens (the parts that make the vaccines work) are given at once, ignoring that infants and children are exposed to thousands of antigens every day by touching things and putting their hands or the object in their mouth, through absorption or by inhaling.
* Some in the anti-vax movement say that an alternate, spaced-out schedule is better, yet they have no scientific studies to support such a protocol. They also claim that the schedule recommended by the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics is not backed up by science. This is not true. Each year, the schedule is reviewed in the light of the latest scientific studies on vaccines and revised as necessary, with the newest recommendations being published each January.
* Another claim made by anti-vaxers is that so-called “natural” immunity (i.e., immunity gained by infection with the disease) is better or lasts longer than immunity gained by a vaccine. This is not necessarily true. For example, natural immunity to pertussis, similarly to the vaccine, wears off after about 10-11 years. Therefore, even if an individual had pertussis as a child, they may still become infected as an adult, suffering the full effects and passing it on to others.
* Some anti-vaxers will ask “why worry” whether they immunize their child or not, if you and your child(ren) have been immunized? There are a number of reasons. First, not everyone is able to be immunized, due to a variety of medical reasons (e.g., egg allergies, age, etc.). Second, vaccines are not 100% effective, though most are very close. This means that in order to prevent an outbreak, a high number of individuals needs to be immunized so that a virus or bacteria does not have enough potential hosts to sustain itself. There is a small possibility that even with vaccination, you will not gain immunity. Finally, there are some individuals (the elderly, AIDS patients, transplant recipients, some cancer patients, etc.) for whom vaccines just will not work or not work as well, because their immune system does not, or cannot, mount a full response to it. These individuals are also unlikely to gain immunity from infection, either. For all of these reasons, it is very important to keep vaccination rates up, so that those who do not or cannot benefit from vaccines are protected by herd immunity.
* Something for people concerned about overwhelming the immune system, take into account that in 1985, doctors vaccinated for seven diseases using 3,000 antigens. Today, health care providers can vaccinate against 16 diseases using only 200 antigens.
* There have been no properly controlled studies establishing a causal link between vaccines and autism.
* There have been numerous properly controlled studies sponsored and run by various people and organizations around the world that have shown no link between vaccines and autism.
* There is a phenomenon called “Herd Immunity”. So even if you have your children vaccinated, the irresponsible pro-disease anti-vax people are still endangering your child with their antics.
Reblogged from MelzWhimzy