18 Chicken Keeping Mistakes You Must Avoid

Tips On Canning Water

Elon Musk Wins A Lot By Alot

Mr. Trump Went to Capitol Hill and the Democrats Went Nuts

Ever put your foot in it by presuming that someone’s date was actually their sibling? It’s surprisingly easy to do, and a pretty unfortunate way of kicking off a social interaction. If you were looking for a handy guide to help prevent you making these kinds of faux pas, we’re sorry that we’ll have to disappoint you. Science tells us that there are some very good reasons why the game of “siblings or dating?” can be so tricky to play – let’s explore a few of them.Spousal concordanceWhen you spend as much time in someone’s company as you usually do with your spouse or significant other, it makes sense that you’d start to rub off on each other. The broad scientific term given to similarities that develop between romantic partners is spousal concordance.While often studied in the context of health – recent evidence suggests a high prevalence of spousal concordance in high blood pressure among older heterosexual couples, for example – some researchers have looked into how this phenomenon might affect facial appearance.An early study on this, published in 1987, compared photographs of married couples as newlyweds and after 25 years, finding that people judged the couples to look more similar after a quarter-century of marriage. “Kin resemblance, therefore,” the authors concluded, “may not be simply a matter of common genes but also a matter of prolonged social contact.”However, later research has called this into question. A 2020 study found that while it’s true that a lot of spouses resemble each other physically, there’s no convergence effect over time – they don’t get “more similar”.But while your actual face might not change noticeably, how you use it might. Humans are good at mimicry (not as good as some of our animal friends, but still). We don’t always know that we’re doing it, but we start to mirror the mannerisms, behaviors, and even accents of those we’re closest to. It’s thought that it helps us form tighter social bonds, so it makes sense that this would be observed in romantic partnerships, arguably among the closest bonds we experience.A tendency to take on each other’s characteristic facial expressions and other quirks of behavior might lead others to view your partner and you as more similar over time. But this is all talking quite long term. Sure, you might start to resemble your spouse if you’ve been living together for decades – what about when you’ve been dating for a few weeks, and someone chases you down a hallway to ask whether you’re actually twins (this may or may not be a true story)?Opposites attract – or do they?Studies, including recent research from the University of Queensland, have shown that lots of people are physically attracted to potential partners who look like them.“We found that participants rated partners who had geometrically average faces and faces similar to their own as more attractive,” said lead study author Amy Zhao. While most prior research on this topic had had people rating photos on a computer screen, this team had put almost 700 people through several rounds of speed-dating to see how people’s facial preferences stacked up in real life.“Participants also received higher facial attractiveness ratings from partners of the same ethnicity, compared to those from a different ethnicity,” Zhao added.While this preference is pretty much subconscious, it can be uncomfortable.“It would freak me out, especially when someone would ask, ‘Are you twins?'” writer Zara Barrie recalled to Time Magazine, thinking of previous partners with a strong resemblance to herself. It’s certainly not universal, and clearly there are plenty of happy relationships between people who look nothing alike, but there are some scientific reasons why people might be drawn to similarity. One is that humans just generally like things to feel familiar, because that’s easier for our brains to handle. Another is the phenomenon of ingroup bias, wherein people may have preferences for dating those from the same ethnic group. There’s also the peculiar finding that people are attracted to composite photos of faces containing a percentage of their own facial features – a 2013 study explored this, and found that 22 percent of one’s own face was the ideal level. Importantly, this was again an unconscious preference – when asked, the participants weren’t aware that their own faces had been used to create the composite images.Siblings or dating?Whether it’s a couple about to celebrate their golden wedding anniversary or two people in the very first flush of romance, it can be extraordinarily difficult to answer the question, “Siblings or dating?” There’s a reason why videos with this hashtag have taken off on TikTok and other social platforms. Fortunately, when you’re meeting people in real life as opposed to through a screen there should hopefully be some behavioral cues you can use to inform your judgement. If those two people you thought were definitely twins start making out, perhaps it’s time for a rethink.[H/T: Particle]

Rare gene variants passed down from our Neanderthal relatives have been linked to the development of autism in a new study. Scientists at Clemson University and Loyola University New Orleans found that rare Neanderthal variants are significantly more common in autistic people compared to non-autistic people at a population-wide level. These rare variants occur in less than 1 percent of the population, but are significantly enriched in the genomes of autistic individuals across three ethnic groups in the US (black non-Hispanic, white Hispanic, and white non-Hispanic).This “strongly suggests” that Neanderthal-derived DNA plays a significant role in autism susceptibility, the researchers write.  Although a link has been found, it’s unclear exactly how the genes are associated with autism. It's still uncertain what even causes autism, although it's likely to be a combination of genetic and environmental factors.It’s also worth highlighting that this research doesn’t suggest that autistic people are “more Neanderthal” than non-autistic people. “Our results are a little more nuanced than ‘autistic people are just more Neanderthal.’ For background, the human genome is made up of over 3 billion nucleotide pairs. The vast majority of our genomes is pretty identical to one another. But there’s a few places in the human genome that are sites of variation,” Emily Casanova, study author and an assistant professor of neuroscience at Loyola University New Orleans, told PsyPost.“Neanderthal DNA provides some of that variation and some of those variants are common (1 percent or more of the population has that particular variant) or they can be rare (less than 1 percent has that variant). In our study, we’ve found that autistic people, on average, have more rare Neanderthal variants, not that they have more Neanderthal DNA in general,” explained Casanova.Most modern humans have genes from our “sister species” as a result of ancient interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals. Rampant interspecies romping appears to have occurred between the two hominins during a period when our ranges overlapped in Eurasia around 50,000 years ago.It’s estimated that genes from Neanderthal make up an average of 1 to 4 percent of the human genome, although this concentration varies from population to population. People of European or Asian descent tend to have the highest proportion – around about 1 to 2 percent – while people of African descent generally have less – zero or close to zero percent.The legacy of this affair still lives on in today's human population. A long reel of studies have also found how Neanderthal DNA is linked to an array of different traits and health conditions. The genes have been implicated in everything from lower pain thresholds and higher vulnerability to COVID-19, to depression and drug metabolism (not to mention bigger noses).The study is published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.

As you read these words, do you have a voice that is essentially saying them in your head? If so, then this is what is referred to as subvocalization, or silent speech. It’s a common reading habit that many people have and is often useful for comprehension, but some claim you can suppress or even eliminate it to improve your reading speed. Is there any truth or value to this claim?It’s not all in your headSubvocalization is more than just “thinking” words as you read them. It engages with body parts as well, such as the eyes, lips, throat, tongue, vocal cords, larynx, and jaws. Believe it or not, even when you are “silently” reading, you are still making tiny movements that are similar to those you make in active speech. You just don’t realize it.In fact, researchers have been able to transcribe materials being silently read by participants by attaching electromagnetic sensors to their speech organs.Even our brains seem to respond to the act as if they were dealing with actual speech. A study conducted in 2012 found that silent reading activates similar brain regions to those associated with overt speech, like the Broca’s area, which is involved with language prediction.Why do we have a voice when we read silently?Although scientists are not completely certain, the current consensus is that subvocalization has several benefits associated with comprehension and memory. For instance, research by Alan Baddeley suggests that our working memory relies on something called a phonological loop, which may relate to subvocalization.According to this model, we have a passive store in our minds that holds verbal information for a short period of time (a few seconds). This phonological store is responsible for holding onto the sounds of words we hear. In order to learn the words, we then have an “articulatory rehearsal process” that actively processes the sounds we hear and refreshes them in the store by way of subvocal repetition – like silently rehearsing the words to keep them in our memories.If this model is correct, when we silently read, we convert the written information into a phonological form which allows us to engage with it as if it were spoken information. This puts the words in the same phonological store. In doing so, the phonological loop helps maintain the sequence of words and phrases, so that we can understand their syntactic and semantic structure.  Is here a bad side to subvocalization? Subvocalization is something many people do. It is a common reading habit that is probably developed through the way many of us learn to read – by reading words out loud, slowly. Most deaf people do not subvocalize as they are usually taught to read in a different way, but they do exhibit some form of sub-gesturing/sub-imaging whereby they make small muscle movements with their hands and forearms when reading.For most of us, subvocalization is an innate aspect of our reading process, but for some, it is regarded as a hindrance.The argument proposed by advocates of “speed reading” strategies suggests that subvocalization slows down our reading speed. This is because it can trigger hyperfixation, which can interfere with comprehension.At the same time, subvocalization matches reading speed to the speed of speech. So if the average person can say around 200-250 words per minute, then the average reader will be able to process 200-250 words per minute (less for those who hyper fixate).But despite some claims by reading gurus who claim it is possible to eliminate subvocalization so you can become a super speed reader, this innate habit is not going anywhere. However, you can limit the influence subvocalization has on your reading through some tricks that can help you speed up, but only to a certain extent. And, I’m afraid, they are not glamorous.The answer, as with all things, is practice: read more, read more often, and read more widely. Reading skills depend on knowledge of language. The more you read the more you’ll learn about the structure of printed speech. By reading unfamiliar content and words through novel ways we can also expand our knowledge of how texts are put together. Different writers have different styles of writing, just as different genres – fiction or non-fiction – will use different language to express their ideas.The more we expose ourselves to varied content the easier it will be for us to follow it, comprehend it, and ultimately get through it. As with so many skill-based activities, there are no impressive gimmicky short cuts to become a pro.

The ark of the covenant was a sacred chest made by the ancient Israelites according to the command and design of God. It housed and protected “the Testimony,” the Ten Commandments written on two stone tablets.—Exodus 25:8-10, 16; 31:18. According to the Book of Exodus, the Tables of the Law contain the ten commandments God gave Moses high atop Mount Sinai. Some would date the event to the year 1440 BC. Among the many lessons to be found in the Bible, prominent among them is “Look, but don’t touch.” When an Israelite named Uzzah laid hands upon the Ark of… This premium content is for PLUS+ members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read. The post Ark of the Covenant: Divine Artifact or Extraterrestrial Origin? appeared first on Anomalien.com.

Queer Planet’s spin on mother nature will most likely throw you for a loop after you realize everything you thought you knew about mother nature is wrong. All living things are queer according to Queer Planet, which was released on NBC’s streaming platform Peacock on June 6, during “Pride Month.”    Yes, lions and penguins can have bromances. Shrubbery is not only queer, but also promiscuous. Some primates are pansexual, mushrooms are multi-gendered and there are fish that can change sex, according to the documentary. Clownfish also are apparently transgender and incestuous, including the fictional character ‘Nemo’ from Finding Nemo. Bradley Trevor Greive, [author and naturalist]: So in the movie, where Nemo’s mother was unfortunately killed, —what would have actually happen, is his father would then become his new mother. Narrator: They physically change sex, genitals and all. Bradley Trevor Greive, [author and naturalist]: His father would change gender and become the dominate female in the group, and Nemo would become a suitor to his new mom. It’s awkward. The ‘experts’ featured in the film try to make the case that all aspects of the ‘LGBTQ’ agenda are natural and normal for humans, as it can be found in nature. “Normal doesn’t exist anywhere, especially not in nature, and it doesn’t even exist among people,” explained Dr. Christine Wilkinson. They even go after the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, for dismissing queerness in his writings about sexual selection and evolution. Apparently, it’s his fault that people today ‘cling' to the idea that it’s not natural for nature to be queer. Antonia Forster, [biologist]: Darwin was an incredible revolutionary mind of his time, but he was of his time. And queerness at that time, isn’t something people were talking about. Narrator: So for the most part, he didn’t. Which left a troubled legacy. Dr. Ross Brooks, [science historian]: Today we talk about living in the closet. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that Darwin’s writings, and much of his science was kept in the closet. Darwin imbued his text with the gender stereotypes of his age. "Queer sex is so omnipresent, so universal in every stratum of life on earth that it’s absolutely clear that this is always what natured intended,” said author and naturalist Bradley Trevor Greive.  Never mind the fact that there are animals that eat their own, monkeys who throw poop when threatened and animals who clean themselves through licking, among many other intriguing behaviors. Some of the other shocking animal kingdom behavior highlighted in the film include dolphins that use eels & fish heads to masturbate with, a fungus with 23,000 sexes, ‘super queer’ giraffes and homosexual behavior among big horn sheep.  Various scientists have many theories for the types of behaviors covered in the film, which include assertion of dominance, stress, mistaken identity, etc. No matter what some animals and plants may be up to on this planet, it’s a huge stretch to equate these examples to human life. We are much more complicated and complex, as humans are made in the image of God.

Even by the standards of late night comedy, The Daily Show’s Grace Kuhlenschmidt is painfully unfunny. On Thursday’s episode on Comedy Central, she joined temp host Jordan Klepper to do her usual routine of playing an overly excited dumb woman who needs to be told what to do by everybody from the NBA to NASA in a ham-fisted attempt to satirize pro-lifers. The backdrop for the segment was the Supreme Court unanimously ruling that a pro-life group does not have standing to sue the FDA over mifepristone and the Southern Baptist Convention formally voting to oppose IVF. Klepper suggested, “That is a lot to process in a single day. Women must be feeling pretty overwhelmed.”     Kuhlenschmidt pretended to be overjoyed with the news, “Are you kidding? This is my dream! I get to wake up every day and get told what to do with my body by a random group of people I've never met. If anything, they don't give me enough rules.”  After Klepper feigned confusion, Kuhlenschmidt continued, “Yeah, like today, I learned I shouldn't get pregnant through IVF, but what about through missionary? Or what about reverse cowgirl? Or sitting in a jizz puddle on the subway? Ooh! Okay, just got an update from the Delaware Jehovah's Witnesses. They say that making a baby through missionary is cool if you're dating, but subway jizz puddles are not unless I'm fully married to the jizz puddle. Awesome, thank you, Delaware Jehovah's Witnesses!” It’s funny because she’s talking about sex and “jizz” on TV. Why aren’t you laughing? Klepper, still playing the role of perplexed host, followed up, “You want that to be dictated to you by the courts and religious groups?” Kuhlenschmidt affirmed that she did, “Oh, it could be any random group! A local school board, a book club, the NBA.” After Klepper suggested that wouldn’t be the best idea, Kuhlenschmidt continued, “You're right, they're busy with the Finals. But there is so much more about my life I need decided for me! I mean, I'm getting a bikini wax this weekend and I know they're going to ask: landing strip, triangle, or Sahara Desert? Hold on... Yep. Okay, there's a bowling league in Phoenix that just weighed in. Landing strip: if I'm going to a party, triangle: if I'm going to a funeral. I was excited about the landing strip, but my grandma is dead.” Klepper then wondered, “Grace, do women really need to be micromanaged this much by random organizations?” Kuhlenschmidt claimed they do, “Jordan, I can't even focus on what you're saying right now. I have not pooped in three days. I emailed NASA to ask if I could, but they haven't written me back!” The duo concluded their bit with Klepper urging her to “Walk over to the bathroom!” and Kuhlenschmidt asking how one does that before Klepper described the basic human activity of walking. Kuhlenschmidt was grateful, “Thank you, Jordan. I love this country!” Underneath the surface of the skit is the idea that you would not let an astronaut or a professional basketball player control your health care, so why would you let the Supreme Court or pro-life politicians, but it was just one giant dodge to avoid ethical questions that make pro-abortion comedians uncomfortable. Here is a transcript for the June 13 show: Comedy Central The Daily Show 6/13/2024 11:10 PM ET JORDAN KLEPPER: That is a lot to process in a single day. Women must be feeling pretty overwhelmed. GRACE KUHLENSCHMIDT: Are you kidding? This is my dream! I get to wake up every day and get told what to do with my body by a random group of people I've never met. If anything, they don't give me enough rules. KLEPPER: You -- you want more rules? KUHLENSCHMIDT: Yeah, like today, I learned I shouldn't get pregnant through IVF, but what about through missionary? Or what about reverse cowgirl? Or sitting in a jizz puddle on the subway? Ooh! Okay, just got an update from the Delaware Jehovah's Witnesses. They say that making a baby through missionary is cool if you're dating, but subway jizz puddles are not unless I'm fully married to the jizz puddle. Awesome, thank you, Delaware Jehovah's Witnesses! KLEPPER: You want that to be dictated to you by the courts and religious groups? KUHLENSCHMIDT: Oh, it could be any random group! A local school board, a book club, the NBA. KLEPPER: I -- I don't think the NBA should weigh in on your reproductive rights, Grace. KUHLENSCHMIDT: You're right, they're busy with the Finals. But there is so much more about my life I need decided for me! I mean, I'm getting a bikini wax this weekend and I know they're going to ask: landing strip, triangle, or Sahara Desert? Hold on... Yep. Okay, there's a bowling league in Phoenix that just weighed in. Landing strip: if I'm going to a party, triangle: if I'm going to a funeral. I was excited about the landing strip, but my grandma is dead. KLEPPER: Grace, do women really need to be micromanaged this much by random organizations? KUHLENSCHMIDT: Jordan, I can't even focus on what you're saying right now. I have not pooped in three days. I emailed NASA to ask if I could, but they haven't written me back! KLEPPER: What? For the love of--, Grace, if you need to poop, go poop! KUHLENSCHMIDT: How? KLEPPER: Walk over to the bathroom! KUHLENSCHMIDT: With what? KLEPPER: With your legs, Grace! KUHLENSCHMIDT: But which leg first? I'm freaking out, Jordan! I need you or a group of astronauts to tell me what to do with my body! KLEPPER: Okay, left, right, left, right! KUHLENSCHMIDT: Left, right, left, right.  KLEPPER: Left, right, yes. KUHLENSCHMIDT: Thank you, Jordan. I love this country!