Science facts that amaze you?

Karl Stein · 05-09-2014 8:42am

If you leave a tea cosy near where people are having a few drinks it's a statistical improbability that it will not be worn on the head of at least one person before the night is out.

.jacksparrow. · 05-09-2014 8:45am

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

if you shoot a bullet parallel to the ground, and drop a bullet from the same height with your other hand, both will hit the ground at the same time. (Will be slightly off due to atmospheric conditions.

I just tried this with 2 bits of paper and my hands.

Doesn't seem to be correct.

.jacksparrow. · 05-09-2014 8:47am

take everything wrote: »

Basic one that might interest people is that before you decide to do something your brain has set the process of deciding in train. A sense of agency is largely an illusion that "we" are in control, not our brains. Consciousness is epiphenomenal in that sense.
Crazy when you (er your brain i mean) thinks about it.

Yep the biggest con ever is free will.

Free will is an illusion.

AndyBoBandy · 05-09-2014 8:52am

mike_ie wrote: »

The Amazing World of Nature

Male dinosaurs, when isolated on a tropical island, have been known to spontaneously change sex from male to female in that single sex environment.

Well, that's what happens when you fill in the gaps with frog DNA!

Barely There · 05-09-2014 9:11am

It's impossible to touch your left pinkie toe with your right thumb, but most people can easily touch their right pinkie with their left thumb.
This is due to the unsymmetrical nature in the positions of the internal organs within the human body.

Other than humans, frogs are the only other animal on earth capable of feeling shame.

Women with red hair are three times more likely to be emotionally unstable than brunettes.

Relative to their size, squirrels are the strongest animal in the world.

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 9:24am

bnt wrote: »

At the risk of being pedantic, the details are a bit different. It took thousands of years for stable atoms to form, mostly hydrogen with some helium and lithium. All elements heavier than those only came about after stars formed, fusing atoms in their cores to form bigger atoms.

And anything heavier than iron had to wait until those stars exploded spectacularly before they could come into being, so you're also made partially of supernovae.

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 9:26am

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

I just tried this with 2 bits of paper and my hands.

Doesn't seem to be correct.

Paper's low density and high surface area mean it is affected by drag to a far greater degree than a bullet. Technically, he should have said "in a vaccum", but in the case of a bullet the time will be very close regardless.

Oink · 05-09-2014 9:30am

Barely There wrote: »

It's impossible to touch your left pinkie toe with your right thumb, but most people can easily touch their right pinkie with their left thumb.
This is due to the unsymmetrical nature in the positions of the internal organs within the human body.

?

I'm a freak. Unless you meant not without warming up?

Or I've just been trolled. Dammit.

Tar.Aldarion · 05-09-2014 9:31am

That is why I mention atmospheric conditions. Regardless the times are practically the same!

endacl · 05-09-2014 9:53am

Andybobandy wrote: »

Well, that's what happens when you fill in the gaps with frog DNA!

Leads to another interesting scientific fact! Deoxyribonucleic acid is common to all organisms. There's no 'frog DNA', human DNA', 'lizard DNA', 'cabbage DNA'...

The molecule is the same in each instance.

Wibbs · 05-09-2014 10:02am

Candie wrote: »

* Some people (mostly Europeans) have a deletion on the CCR5 gene and this gives them strong resistance to HIV, smallpox, bubonic plague, Lassa fever, and other viruses including Nile fever.

Likely because Europeans suffered more rolling waves of various plagues for longer than any other population. Every European reading this are the end result of their ancestors surviving the black death and many other pathogens(including malaria as far north as here in Ireland. Cromwell's end was hastened by it and he may have caught it here). In the middle ages and on to the 18th century there was usually at least one "plague" per year in Europe. Going further back to Rome it was very common too. It's one theory why Europe hasn't suffered nearly as many HIV/AIDS infections and deaths compared to other populations. IIRC there are two types of resistance. A large chunk of the European population has one or the other, a smaller percentage have both and having both means you're essentially immune to HIV infection.

take everything wrote: »

This is more what science can't tell us.
My perception of blue could well be very different to your perception of blue.
You can extrapolate that beyond mere perception obviously.

There may be something to that. It can vary across cultures too. The Greeks described the colour of the sky as "bronze" and the sea and sheep and goats as "wine coloured". Dodgy wine they were drinking. Bronze to them was shiny not dark brown as we would think of it as they polished their bronze to look like gold. Still they had no word for blue. Neither did the writers of the Old Testament and the Japanese used to use the same word for green and blue. In the ancient world colours were pretty much restricted to black, white, yellow, green, red, metals like gold and silver and descriptions of bright or dull. The rainbow was described as only having three colours. Mad or wha?

The naming and evolution of colour perception continued up until quite recently too. Take the Robin redbreast bird. It clearly has an orange breast, but was seen as red. To the degree that the folk tales of it it trying to remove the nails from Christs hands left his red blood on their chest. It was named before the naming of the colour "orange". That came from the fruit that was introduced to Europe in the 1500's. Pomme d'Orang(sp) by way of Arabic and Persian. To us we can see and perceive orange as a separate thing, but to someone in 1400 AD they obviously saw the same colour but called and perceived it as "red". So in a way by naming a colour we see it.

Contrary to popular the human brain is getting smaller. Throughout our evolution it got larger and larger, peaked about 30,000 years ago in our own species and has slowly gotten smaller since. Some have posited that the average Homo Sapiens "caveman" may have had, or had the potential to have a higher intelligence and problem solving ability(because of the stresses of the environment) to the average human today. Maybe, maybe not. The biggest brains in any human? Neandertals. And while they were a very clever people they weren't close to us in smarts or abstract thought. We were different. Very different. In the entire evolutionary history of our species before modern humans, possible examples of art and abstract thought so far found would comfortably fit in a small briefcase. Then we come along...

SoundWave · 05-09-2014 10:04am

There is no such thing as a fish.

Wibbs · 05-09-2014 10:12am

endacl wrote: »

Leads to another interesting scientific fact! Deoxyribonucleic acid is common to all organisms. There's no 'frog DNA', human DNA', 'lizard DNA', 'cabbage DNA'...

The molecule is the same in each instance.

Which leads to another conclusion. Life kicked off here, but it only did so the once. All living things are related. There are no "aliens" on earth. So far found anyway. Life likely exists elsewhere in the universe. The sheer scale of the place pretty much guarantees it. However we're arguing this debate from the position of a planet that has life. and that life only kicked off once. And most of the time it was and indeed is bacterial/single celled in nature. Complex life that we can see with our eyes is by a long way the minority in the biomass and has been for the history of our world.

It took some pretty flukey happenings to come up with complex life too and to come up with a creature like us was impossibly flukey. Humans have been around for over 1 million years. Were never very common in the landscape and nearly died out on a fair few occasions. Even so humans like us were very different and even more flukey(and at one point were down to 10-20,000 individuals).

So life may not be that common in the universe and if it is present it's overwhelmingly likely to be unicellular. Complex life will be rarer and intelligent abstract thinking philosophical life like us is likely to be vanishingly rare.

So the current vibe that well we're not really that special, we're just another animal is decidedly bogus. Every single person reading this is an incredibly rare creature that is here in the face of almost impossible odds.

smash · 05-09-2014 10:20am

Wibbs wrote: »

Which leads to another conclusion. Life kicked off here, but it only did so the once. All living things are related. There are no "aliens" on earth. So far found anyway.

Jesus, I might be the first person to prove Wibbs wrong on boards

At their conference today, NASA scientist Felisa Wolfe Simon will announce that they have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today. Instead of using phosphorus, the bacteria uses arsenic. All life on Earth is made of six components: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. Every being, from the smallest amoeba to the largest whale, share the same life stream. Human DNA building blocks are universal on Earth.

This alien bacteria appears to be completely different. Discovered in Mono Lake, this bacteria is made of arsenic, something that was thought to be completely impossible.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/12/epic-discovery-nasa-discovers-new-non-dna-based-life-form-to-be-annouced-at-2-pm-est.html

And this was a few years ago now.

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 10:28am

Yeah Wibbs I'm not sure it's been proven that abiogenesis only occurred once. Then of course there's the possibility of panspermia, which, if shown to be true would render us not particularly special at all.

Really it's a totally open question because with a sample size of one we can't make any predictions about the likelihood of life developing, nor how prevalent it is in the universe.

Tarzana · 05-09-2014 10:29am

steddyeddy wrote: »

This substance causes methylation of the bee's DNA (the addition of a carbon and three hydrogens to one of the DNA bases) this causes some of the genes to shut off and other genes to turn off. Hence one substance causes a complete change in the phenotype (the genotype is the actual list genes contained in the organism but the phenotype is the expression of those genes) of that animal.

Ah gawd, this brought me back to the final year of my biology degree, five years ago. Made sense, my knowledge is holding up quite well, despite no longer working in science.

GLaDOS · 05-09-2014 10:35am

Wibbs wrote: »

There may be something to that. It can vary across cultures too. The Greeks described the colour of the sky as "bronze" and the sea and sheep and goats as "wine coloured". Dodgy wine they were drinking. Bronze to them was shiny not dark brown as we would think of it as they polished their bronze to look like gold. Still they had no word for blue. Neither did the writers of the Old Testament and the Japanese used to use the same word for green and blue. In the ancient world colours were pretty much restricted to black, white, yellow, green, red, metals like gold and silver and descriptions of bright or dull. The rainbow was described as only having three colours. Mad or wha?

The naming and evolution of colour perception continued up until quite recently too. Take the Robin redbreast bird. It clearly has an orange breast, but was seen as red. To the degree that the folk tales of it it trying to remove the nails from Christs hands left his red blood on their chest. It was named before the naming of the colour "orange". That came from the fruit that was introduced to Europe in the 1500's. Pomme d'Orang(sp) by way of Arabic and Persian. To us we can see and perceive orange as a separate thing, but to someone in 1400 AD they obviously saw the same colour but called and perceived it as "red". So in a way by naming a colour we see it.

Cracked did a piece on how language effects colour perception which I though was interesting, entry number 3

sbsquarepants · 05-09-2014 10:37am

KrustyBurger wrote: »

This is one of the fastest reactions in the animal kingdom. The ninja shrimp can punch at a speed of 50 mph...in the water! This is as fast as a bullet leaving a gun. It has the same bite force as a shark.

On top of that it gets it's name from its ability to change colour to suit its environment.

One crazy crustacean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182rEUUw7Vo

50Mph bullet doesn't sound right? Surely 500mph minimum? AFAIK rifle bullets are mostly if not all supersonic so that's something like 750 - 800 mph. They are seriously badass animals though, I read before that the shock wave they produce heats the water to something like the temperature of the suns surface!

strobe wrote: »

The Mallard duck is the only animal ever to have been observed engaging in homosexual necrophiliac rape.

Duckus jimmyus savillus to give it it's proper name:D

Ompala wrote: »

An atom is 99.9% empty space, everything is made up of atoms, so everything is 99.9% empty space

This fact absolutely amazes me, the actual figure is more like 99.9999999999999%. It works out as basically if an atom was blown up to the size of croke park the nucleus would be roughly the size of a cherry in the centre of the pitch and the electrons would be like the full stops in this paragraph popping in and out of the cheap seats, or strolling along the rooftop walking tour, the next nucleus may not even be in Dublin! It's absolutely amazing!

Barely There · 05-09-2014 10:43am

Humans and sheep share 97% of DNA.

However, on average 2nd Cousins will only share 96% of DNA!

That's why it's ok to have sex with a 2nd Cousin but not with sheep.

Ghost Buster · 05-09-2014 10:44am

krudler wrote: »

The human brain named itself

But if men, if tash problem ladies are to be believed, think with their dicks then Mr Wonga also named himself

Wibbs · 05-09-2014 11:25am

smash wrote: »

Jesus, I might be the first person to prove Wibbs wrong on boards

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/12/epic-discovery-nasa-discovers-new-non-dna-based-life-form-to-be-annouced-at-2-pm-est.html

And this was a few years ago now.

Well..... Not quite. As you say that was a few years ago and a few subsequent studies have solidly debunked it.

Organisms typically adapt to such conditions not by incorporating the mimic in place of the essential salt but by enriching for the salt at multiple stages... The end result is that the fundamental biopolymers conserved across all forms of life remain, in terms of chemical backbone, invariant

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Yeah Wibbs I'm not sure it's been proven that abiogenesis only occurred once.

Well while absence of evidence and all that is in play here, it's looking pretty likely that all life on earth shares a common ancestor and those ancestors popped up and survived in a ver different environment than today. It's most certainly possible "other" life kicked off(a type of anaerobic life for a start), but then died out when our ancestors gained ground, but until there's evidence for that...

Then of course there's the possibility of panspermia, which, if shown to be true would render us not particularly special at all.

Actually it wouldn't. We're still incredibly special a creature. Take our world, however it came about the only one we know to have life and complex life with it. That life adapted to damn near every environment on said planet. To do this it evolved different strategies. Flight, swimming, walking etc. And those strategies were so successful they went across species and genera. So the "fish" shape is in fishes, sharks, dinosaurs, mammals. However intelligence as a strategy only popped up very rarely. For the vast majority of complex life for the vast majority of the time they were "dumb", with just enough brainpower to get by.

Then we get to us. Hominids were bright, very bright and the brain was their strategy and with it they did something no other creature has done or has come close to doing; they externalised their evolution. They went from herbivore/scavenger to apex predator with few changes to their bodies. Their brains built tools and used fire to do this.

Even so, as I said for the vast bulk of our time here as recognisable hominids with our big brains and external evolution, we didn't think like us. We remained pretty static in innovation. The handaxe/biface was in use as a tool for nigh on one and a half million years and varied remarkably little in that time period. They can be a right bugger to date because of this. Find a handaxe in a non dateable context in say France and it could have been made 40,000 years ago or 400,000 years ago. Then we weirdos come along out of north east Africa and things change and change in a fúcking ginormous(scientific term) way. We were the first to think in an entirely novel and abstract way. Art, religion, abstract thought, rapid innovation. There may have been lone glimmers of it in earlier humans(particularly in Neandertals), but not nearly to the degree found in us*.

In short we are special and a one off in the near four billion years of life on this planet. There is talk today of the singularity and it may come to pass, but if you want to see another one that already happened walk the cave galleries of France and Spain and hold the portable art and abstract thought in bone and wood and stone. We arrived in this world like aliens.

So regardless of how life kicked off or how common it is in the universe, on this planet the only one we know were it did kick off we are the rarest of the rare flukes within that life.

*even in anatomically modern humans this change wasn't a given. Go back 100,000 years and there wouldn't be much between us and other humans about at the time. An alien bookie would have happily taken a bet that the stronger Neandertals who had been around for far longer would win over the skinny African dudes.

Ompala · 05-09-2014 11:31am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This fact absolutely amazes me, the actual figure is more like 99.9999999999999%. It works out as basically if an atom was blown up to the size of croke park the nucleus would be roughly the size of a cherry in the centre of the pitch and the electrons would be like the full stops in this paragraph popping in and out of the cheap seats, or strolling along the rooftop walking tour, the next nucleus may not even be in Dublin! It's absolutely amazing!

Bear in mind though, if you drop something heavy on your foot its not much consolation :mad::pac:

05-09-2014 11:37am

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Cracked did a piece on how language effects colour perception which I though was interesting, entry number 3

That's cool

There is actually a thing where some people have a hyper sense on colours as well though isn't there? I was reading a wiki article about it recently

srsly78 · 05-09-2014 11:38am

bluewolf wrote: »

That's cool

There is actually a thing where some people have a hyper sense on colours as well though isn't there? I was reading a wiki article about it recently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

05-09-2014 11:40am

Nah I think it was this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

Barely There · 05-09-2014 11:52am

Researchers at the University of Stockholm recently conducted a series of tests which established that platonic friendship was possible between men and women, but only if the woman was really ugly.

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 11:59am

Wibbs wrote: »

So regardless of how life kicked off or how common it is in the universe, on this planet the only one we know were it did kick off we are the rarest of the rare flukes within that life.

See, this is the thing. I totally agree that all of that is cool and amazing and impressive, but the idea that it's special because it's the only place we know of it having happened doesn't wash with me because you have to consider observational bias. Even if intelligent life, or just boring old microbial life, is extremely common in the universe we still don't have the means to detect it, so of course we are the only known example.

For all we know the inverse could be true, maybe life normally progresses rapidly to intelligence and Earth was unusually slow on the uptake for some reason. With a sample size of one and a complete dearth of data, we just can't make those kind of inferences.

On the other hand, the amino acids which were found in the sample returned from Comet Wild-2 by the Stardust mission, complex organic molecules being detected on and around a multitude of moons and minor planets in the solar system (and even in remote clouds of gas throughout the galaxy), and the fact that abiogenesis occurred so quickly after the cooling of the Earth are pretty compelling evidence that life might be ubiquitous.

I'm biased here, because I actually prefer the idea of a universe teeming with life, but I think you're also biased by a desire to see Earth based, or human life as special.

The truth, I think, probably lies in the middle. Right now we just don't know, which for me is what makes space exploration so exciting.

Wossack · 05-09-2014 12:03pm

I love the 'Pale Blue Dot' photo, and Carl Sagan's reflection on it

Picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png

Taken by the Voyager 1 space probe in 1990 from a distance of approx 6 billion kilometers. Earth is visible only as a 'Pale Blue Dot' about half way down the brown band on the right.

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known. - Carl Sagan

Nothing quite like astronomy to make you feel pretty insignificant!

endacl · 05-09-2014 12:16pm

Imagine what the Pale Blue Dot might have looked like if Voyager was equipped with a Hubble resolution camera...

kfod · 05-09-2014 12:17pm

There is a good chance we live in a computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 12:21pm

endacl wrote: »

Imagine what the Pale Blue Dot might have looked like if Voyager was equipped with a Hubble resolution camera...

Based on the Hubble images of Pluto (taken from about the same distance) it would just have been a slightly bigger blue smudge instead of a blue dot.

It would be about 15 pixels across.

endacl · 05-09-2014 12:25pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Based on the Hubble images of Pluto (taken from about the same distance) it would just have been a slightly bigger blue smudge instead of a blue dot. It would be about 15 pixels across.

A medium blue dot?

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 12:28pm

endacl wrote: »

A medium blue dot?

Probably pretty similar to this (yes I went to the trouble of making this for you

):

Eogclouder · 05-09-2014 12:28pm

There are more atoms in a human cell than there are stars in the universe.

md23040 · 05-09-2014 12:44pm

http://earthsky.org/tonight/earth-comes-closest-to-sun-every-year-in-early-january

The sun is over 3,000,000 miles closer to the Earth on the 4th of January compared to the 4th of July?

So why is the equator much warmer than the poles, especially given that maximum variaiton of the poles to the equator from the sun is just over 15,000 miles.

Wossack · 05-09-2014 12:51pm

a woman who doesn't give birth to a daughter, breaks a chain of women giving birth to women going back to the beginning of mankind

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 12:52pm

md23040 wrote: »

http://earthsky.org/tonight/earth-comes-closest-to-sun-every-year-in-early-january

The sun is over 3,000,000 miles closer to the Earth on the 4th of January compared to the 4th of July?

So why is the equator much warmer than the poles, especially given that maximum variaiton of the poles to the equator from the sun is just over 15,000 miles.

It's warmer at the equator and in the tropics because they receive more sunlight than the poles. The Earth's tilt is fairly small, the equator points more or less directly at the sun. Because the Earth is a sphere, the polar regions receive sunlight at lower angles, meaning it has to travel through more atmosphere to reach the surface, some of it is reflected away by the atmosphere, some is reflected back into space by the icecaps, and the surface area of the Earth illuminated by the same amount of sunlight is larger.

Barely There · 05-09-2014 12:53pm

md23040 wrote: »

So why is the equator much warmer than the poles, especially given that maximum variaiton of the poles to the equator from the sun is just over 15,000 miles.

Touch you belly.
Now touch your foot.

Which was warmer?
Your belly, right?

Same principle applies with the equater and the poles.

Stuff near the middle is always hotter.

snowstorm445 · 05-09-2014 1:00pm

Honey never goes off. If stored properly, honey could last a million years and would still be edible.

Assuming a piece of paper was 0.01 cm thick, if you folded it in half 42 times it would reach the Moon.

Saturn's moon Mimas has a large crater that features prominently on its side. Under the right lighting conditions, the moon resembles the Death Star from Star Wars.

enda1 · 05-09-2014 1:08pm

Barely There wrote: »

Touch you belly.
Now touch your foot.

Which was warmer?
Your belly, right?

Same principle applies with the equater and the poles.

Stuff near the middle is always hotter.

fleet_admiral · 05-09-2014 1:10pm

snowstorm445 wrote: »

Honey never goes off. If stored properly, honey could last a million years and would still be edible.

Assuming a piece of paper was 0.01 cm thick, if you folded it in half 42 times it would reach the Moon.

Saturn's moon Mimas has a large crater that features prominently on its side. Under the right lighting conditions, the moon resembles the Death Star from Star Wars.

Now thats awesome

Wossack · 05-09-2014 1:13pm

fleet_admiral wrote: »

Now thats awesome

Whats also interesting, is that the crater resembling the 'super laser' on the deathstar is entirely coincidental, as the crater wasnt discovered until 2 years after the film was made

Egginacup · 05-09-2014 1:18pm

md23040 wrote: »

http://earthsky.org/tonight/earth-comes-closest-to-sun-every-year-in-early-january

The sun is over 3,000,000 miles closer to the Earth on the 4th of January compared to the 4th of July?

So why is the equator much warmer than the poles, especially given that maximum variaiton of the poles to the equator from the sun is just over 15,000 miles.

The main reason is concentration of solar radiation over surface area.
Consider a hypothetical cyclindrical beam of light a mile in diameter. It hits the equator dead on and creates a circle of light on the Earth's surface a mile in diameter.
The same cylindrical beam of light, as we move further north and the Earth starts to curve away from the light trajectory, hits the Earth's surface but now start to create a shape of light that is a mile in width but much more in length. It starts to become oval shaped. The further north still that we go the mile diameter beam create a light surface that is vastly elongated.

This essentially means that the same amount of radiation has to cover (heat and illuminate) a much larger area meaning it will be colder there.

sbsquarepants · 05-09-2014 1:18pm

Barely There wrote: »

Other than humans, frogs are the only other animal on earth capable of feeling shame..

Eh? Are you talking about Kermit? French people? How could we possibly know such a thing as what a frog is thinking?

Barely There wrote: »

Women with red hair are three times more likely to be emotionally unstable than brunettes..

As someone with a redhead fixation since primary school, I can absolutely vouch for this. They're all fúcking mentalists, sexy sexy mentalists:D

holystungun9 · 05-09-2014 1:22pm

strobe wrote: »

The Mallard duck is the only animal ever to have been observed engaging in homosexual necrophiliac rape.

Well if didn't waddle that cute ass around so much...

holystungun9 · 05-09-2014 1:26pm

SoundWave wrote: »

There is no such thing as a fish.

Ah ye must be codding me!

Maximus Alexander · 05-09-2014 1:27pm

holystungun9 wrote: »

Ah ye must be codding me!

You put him in his plaice.

sbsquarepants · 05-09-2014 1:42pm

The sun is roughly 150m kilometres away, 5m closer or further isn't that huge a difference.

Barely There · 05-09-2014 1:49pm

If you put a small dog and a pigeon into an airtight room and leave them for 48 hours, when the room is re-opened the pigeon will have disappeared, but the dog will be able to fly.

Ompala · 05-09-2014 1:50pm

Russia has a larger surface area than Pluto

Science facts that amaze you?

Comments