Reproduction

[Msxdee77]

explain what happens to the fertilized egg as it travels towards the uterus?

[Ice.Maiden]

Here's a link for you, Msxdee, to save typing it all out. - x
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5049,00. html

[Hymie]

How long will it be until school exam answers are accepted in the form of a web link only?

[nucleardream]

Fetus's eyes are the first to protrude from the mass of tissue in the womb that is to become the child's brain. The eyes therefore are directly produced from the brain. It then follows that in human form, the eyes are the only physical extension of the brain. Think about it.

[nucleardream]

For the best literature on this topic (i.e. a scientific and illustrative description of the birthing process) look into "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder. It's a brilliant easy-read and is highly recommended.

[theprof]

nucleardream, not to put too fine a point about it, your first post is so very incorrect, that it can only be classified as rubbish, or possibly garbage as you use the US spelling of foetus. I would earnestly recommend you to consult a good textbook on human embryology.

With regard to your second post, it's obvious that you're an admirer of Schroeder. Well, as a UK and USA educated professor of biochemistry I an tell you that Schroeder's views have been ridiculed for years in Academia in Europe, Canada and the USA. His populist texts, including the one you cite, have raised many guffaws in university departments the world over. Why? Well it's simple. The man is undoubtedly a very capable nuclear physicist - I've worked at MIT myself - but a biochemist he is not.

For a text to be "brilliant" as you describe, it has to be truthful. Schroeders failure to grasp fundamental aspects of human biochemistry, such as his laughable misunderstanding of ATP and other metabolic pathways, can only lead to ridicule in the scientific community. Let me assure you, that that is exactly what he has acheived.

"The Hidden Face of God" may well be an easy to read text, which is not atypical of works aimed at the general public. Brilliant? No it's not. It's based on the the dogma of the author alone.. You may well feel it is highly recommended - find us someone else who does the same apart from yourself.

[nucleardream]

theprof: your critique of my post, or "constructive feedback" as we Americans like to call it, was spot on. However, I don't know a whole lot about Schroeder. I've just read that one book of his in which he claims to be both highly educated in Theoretical Physics and Theology. Why you chose to spend over 3/4 of your efforts in diminishing his reputation as a scholar versus challenging his efforts on substantive issues such as his scientific undertakings on the human body, I can only be ensured that you must indeed have spent a lot of time in academia, where from my graduate career have learned that much of the time spent in that educational setting is not in educating students but rather circumventing other people's work.

In other words, could you please then focus on my first post (the one with the substance) and correct any misinformation I seem to have picked up in my quest to read enlightening information?

[theprof]

OK nucleardream. Sorry for the delay in answering - I've been in a demanding conference near Santa Fe in New Mexico for most of the week with predominantly only LAN server access allowed

First of all, please accept my apologies for referring to your first post as rubbish. The problem that I have with your first post is that it's not a specific answer to the question submitted and consequently, irrelevant might have been a better word.

You are correct in that in the mammalian body, the eyes are recognised as being the first discernible protrusion in the tissue mass. However other structures are let us say, not far behind in development and I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

Yes, the eyes are directly produced by the brain, but they are not exclusively so. The same applies to the auditory structures, the spinal cord and the many other structures within the brain itself. Consequently, the eyes cannot be regarded as the only physical extension of the brain.

I trust I have outlined the problems I have with your first post above in a nicer fashion in the preceding post.

(continued)

[theprof]

Returning to Schroeder for a moment, the problem I have with him is that he consistently maintains that science, creationism and theology can happily co-exist in harmony. This is not the view of the majority of theologians and scientists in the world. I'll be perfectly honest with you and say that my esteemed colleague, Richard Dawkins, talks more sense than Schroeder.

As for me, well, I am a high-ranking academic at a UK university, but not exclusively so. I'm a visiting professor at a number of UK, USA and Canadian Universities and have spent many years teaching in your country and the UK. Due to my, let us say notoriety, I am also an advisor to the UK and USA governments on certain non-academic chemical and biochemical matters, so you might say I do get around a bit. And I don't spend all my semesters in lecture theatres or surrounded by bubbling retorts, test tubes and petri dishes.

I do very little "circumventing" of other people's work as you put it nowadays ( I assume you meant circumvent in the context of "outwitting"). Yes, I do some peer reviews of articles submitted to academic journals - someone has to do it and the money is good - but in general my remarks are constructive criticism and I don't do it for the sake of it. Now and again, I get persuaded to write the odd book or two too. Nevertheless despite all this, I like to remember that I was once a freshman myself and believe me, my feet are firmly on the ground.

Incidentally, I've never yet worked in an academic institution where the teaching staff can devote so much time in circumventing other people's work as you appear to attribute to me. I'm curious as to which particular discipline you are a graduate in.

[nucleardream]

The clarification is much appreciated theProf. What I meant by "physical extension" is not merely a growth attribute of the brain but a part of the brain that through the development of the fetus and the eventual birth of a human child can actually be seen, that is to say laying, or positioned, outside of the body. The entire nervous system for example is contained within the body (i.e. under skin, tissue, etc), while the eyes are connected via cones, rods, etc to the brain and also are visible from an outsider's perspective.

My real intention of posting the first post had nothing to do with relevancy to the original question. I suppose I took cue from the second post in being a school exam question and wanted to bring into discussion a very interesting topic, at least to me. And what's more is that I do agree with Schroeder from an idealistic standpoint: I like to believe that science and theology can coexist.

A question posed by theologians, in my experience, is who has the burden of proof? I believe in "x" and it's up to you (science) to prove that x doesn't exist. It's hard to disprove the metaphysical side of things.

(more to follow)

[nucleardream]

But through my education and real world experience, I've come to side more with the cynics and value the nature of doubt. My graduate program, Life Sciences Communication, was interdisciplinary and came from the university in Wisconsin. Maybe in line with your discipline, I took coursework in the History of Science and was taught by world renowned Professor in the integration of science and religion, R.L. Numbers. My real passion residing in statistics, I also took methodology courses in journalism, communications and educational psychology.

As I've probably demonstrated, specializing in any discipline was never my forte. Rather, as is coming to fruition in the government work I've been doing in the dc area, it is the focus on being a generalist that I think will have the best payout in the long term. What's more is that I feel my degree can lead into a doctoral program down the road in something I feel more apt at pursuing.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Do you have particular books or areas of research that you, or your colleague, Dawkins, would recommend in learning more about (from a neophyte's point of view)?

And yes, by the way, I was referring to circumventing as "outwitting" someone else.