What do you guys think of having a Health/Science section

[ElPunto]

^It's a multimedia class folks!

 

What else is in your video archive?

[Cara.]

^I get the feeling it's the only way to get you interested in science.

 

Let me see if I can find the diet coke and mentos vid...

[Ismahaan]

Hi all!

The question of the eye and the brain is very interesting and extremely puzzling; I think you guys covered that pretty well. However when considering the evolution of the eye, it is extremely important to consider the evolution of the brain, which is very closely tied to the eyes. Also it is necessary to consider the single eye and the third eye theory. In the evolution of the theory our ancestors only posses one eye, which amazingly divided into separate left and right eyes. It is believed that an eye remained in the place where the original single eye had been, known as the ‘’parietal’’ eye or third eye. Have you ever guys come across the expression “the third eye’’?” It refers to an additional eye situated between the two eyes. Well theoretically our ancestors possessed a third eye, a trace of which still exists within our brain. Unlike the two other eyes, the third eye is not able to capture image but it is believed that it senses light and regulates body temperature and hormone balance. Also like other two eyes, the parietal eye has a crystalline lens and a retina. What is more interesting is the fact that the eye is divided into left and right, as did the brain. However, it is not recognized whether the brain divided because the eye required evolving or whether it was the other way round. Whatever the case may be the eye and the brain both divided into left and right parts in the course of evolution.

 

For all the controversies over this issue, however, there is a basic philosophical point on which the evolutionary biologists all agree. The eye came first. In reasonably real sense, the brain is an outgrowth of the eye, and not the other way around.

 

How the eye could have been formed before the brain is both fascinating and extremely confusing.

[Ismahaan]

Originally posted by idil:

 

3. Commensal bacteria (doesn't cause harm) e.g. of the gut...why does it only become harmful when the hosts immune system is weak and not othertimes?Questions I've always wondered about...

This question is already covered pretty well by our sister Cara however let’s add some basic information to it.

 

Friendly microorganisms also known as commensal bacteria or normal flora in our digestive tract, mouth, respiratory tract, skin are the basis for human existence. You respiratory and digestive tracts, mouth, and skin are home to more than thousand species of health bacteria or normal flora. In general the relationship between you and the normal flora is mutually beneficial. You provide nutrition, protection and transportation for them, while they stimulate your immune system, synthesize essential vitamins, and help your system digest food and absorb its nutrients.

 

The immune system recognizes organisms that "don't belong" in the body, and effectively eliminates them. This process occurs thousands of times a day without us being aware of it. However, when the immune system is weakened, normal floras that usually are harmless can overwhelm the body and cause infection and disease particular when they gain access to an area of the body where they do not belong.These bacterial are called opportunistic because they cause disease only when an opportunity is presented (e.g. for example when the immune system is weak and the residents body cannot defend well against invading organisms).

 

For instance, cuts or injuries to the skin and protective layers of the body permit health bacteria to enter the bloodstream or other sterile parts of the body and cause disease. Traumatic or surgical wounds may permit bacteria from one part of the body to reach another or to penetrate into deeper tissue, where they cause disease. A weakened immune system may not be able to prevent the rapid multiplication of bacteria :cool: .

[Mowgli]

Here are some stuff on immungenic contraception for those interested

 

Phase I Clinical trial - Jones et al, 1988

 

Talwar et al, 1994

 

Future Prospects - Delves et al, 2002

 

We have nothing else to discuss folks?