[removed]

So how do surgeons tell cancerous apart from non cancerous when trying to remove cancer? Is it just that cancerous cells (despite looking like normal cells) combine into differently shaped tissue? (Like "lumps"?)

And also how come skin cancer often shows up in "spots" that are differently colored than one's skin?

We're all just fish anyway.

Seriously though, synapsids and sauropsids share a common ancestor but are two distinct monophyletic sister lineages. Synapsids gave rise to mammals and sauropsids to reptiles (including birds which are just highly derived reptiles).

Your question just seems to be one of nomenclature rather than taxonomy/systematics though. Reptiles are reptiles from cultural carryover, even though classically the definition is paraphyletic (by excluding birds it doesn't include all descendant species of a common ancestor); in modern systematics it includes birds and makes a single clade. Mammals are a distinct monophyletic grouping and so remain a valid clade.

Changing amniote to reptile and synapsids to "mammal like reptiles" and sauropsids to "lizard like reptiles" doesn't add any clarity to things, and because lizards/birds/snakes/turtles are all fairly distinct groupings on their own it actually muddies the definition some.

Not exactly a pair of second lips it's more of the inner side of their cheeks. You know when we suck in our cheeks because it makes a funny looks on our face? Yeah it's the same concept as that but slightly different.

They have a huge gap between their front teeth and the rest of the teeth the gap is where the inner part of their cheek would go to close off access to the rest of their mouth

Thank you! I had no idea how to answer him so this helps!

Yes thank you! I told him that gangrene is black, but I didn’t think cancer was. So when he asked what color it would be I was stumped.

[removed]

Looking at a beaver skull, this makes perfect sense! I can’t believe I never even considered that.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Interesting question! Here's some thoughts I have on it as a research assistant in a developmental psychology research lab with a degree in psychology, however by no means an expert so I expect the topic is much broader than I'm able to cover here.

Technically speaking, there is no official diagnosis named dyslexia. It is subcategorised as a distinct type of Specific Learning Disorder in DSM-V (the most current diagnostic manual), characterised by deficits in different aspects of reading and writing. Other subcategories are characterised by, for example, difficulty with arithmetic skills, number sense and mathematical reasoning (or what one might call dyscalculia). I'll call this subcategory of specific learning disorders focused on reading difficulties dyslexia for simplicity in this case.

According to the criteria for dyslexia, an individual should have difficulties with various aspects of reading and writing, and these difficulties should have a significant impact on academic achievement, usually identified through standardized testing. So, in a society without written language (and hence no standardized testing) it's not strictly speaking possible for an individual to have dyslexia, because the conditions for diagnosing the disorder as it is defined today did not exist.

However, if you delve more into the origins of dyslexia, the answer isn't quite so clear. Research into the etiology (origin/cause) of dyslexia has found consistent differences in the neuropsychological activity between children with dyslexia and children without during a word recognition task, suggesting that dyslexia or at least the underlying cause of it didn't appear after the development of written language, but have a physical component. Research also suggests that there may be a causal relationship between phonological processing (i.e. the use of sounds in a language) and dyslexia - deficits in phonological processing may precede reading difficulty. Phonological processing includes awareness of the sound structure of a language, like being able to hear a word and break it down into its constituent parts.

One possible interpretation is that this difficulty in processing the sounds used in language leads to difficulties with reading and writing, due to an impaired ability to break a spoken word down into separate phonemes and translate those phonemes into corresponding written letters and vice versa. Symptoms of dyslexia are extensive and can vary significantly between individuals, and it is occasionally possible to spot some symptoms in pre-school children, which can include delayed speech development, speech problems (like with pronouncing long words or swapping letters), problems expressing themselves verbally, and difficulty remembering words or using incorrect words in a sentence. These things are quite vague and can have many different causes, or have no cause at all beyond some kids simply being slower learners, and as such are not diagnostic criteria on their own.

While an individual in a society without written language wouldn't have had dyslexia as we define it today, it is entirely conceivable that individuals with deficits in phonological processing may have existed and may have shown 'symptoms' like having difficulties with speech, or that someone who would today be diagnosed with dyslexia but doesn't display the same difficulties with phonological processing wouldn't have experienced any noticeable differences.

As a footnote, dyslexia is often comorbid with other developmental disorders - people with dyslexia are statistically more likely to also have dyspraxia, a disorder that affects development of fine motor coordination skills. I imagine something like that would be much more noticeable in a 'caveman' society!

[removed]

Most organs consist of more than one cell type. Fatty tissue is white to yellow. Muscle cells are red meat, looks the same in all mammals. As the heart is a muscle too, it's mostly red, with a bit of fat around it, and some shimmering white to almost silver connective tissue. Fasciae in general are really pretty. The single fiber is white, but in smooth organized sheets they can shimmer like pearl in pale rainbow colors.

White blood cells are translucent, only the red blood cells are actually red, platelets are yellow. White blood cells climb around in almost all tissues, so even a red muscle has some of those, and yellow-ish nerve fibers and the red-grey-white of blood vessels, it's a mix.

When you put any cell under a microscope most of them are translucent and barely visible. There are a bunch of organelles inside, filled with whatever this cell's product/purpose is. That's where the color comes from. Like chloroplasts in plant cells, just those are green, the rest is translucent. Few cells are so colorful that it's noticeable when you look at just one. The sheer mass of them makes organs as colorful as they are.

To really tell things apart the cells are dyed. There are different dyes/stains that attach to different parts of a cell. They even come in fluorescent. Some are as simple as binding to anything acidic or basic, others cling to just one specific molecule. Without dye it's hard to impossible to tell what is what.

For the most part, Reptilia just isn't really used as a formal taxon anymore. It may sometimes be used as a convenient grouping of more basal or less metabolically active amniotes, but in this way it usually applied to extant or recent groups (i.e., the classic collection of lepidosauria, turtles, and crocodilians) in which case there's no need to specify the inclusion or exclusion of early synapsids. The definition of reptilia as basically synonymous with sauropsida was an attempt to sort of preserve the term as a proper monophyletic clade, but in my experience researchers mostly refer to sauropsida instead to avoid any ambiguity.

Pretty much every part of the body has a colour some where along a spectrum between a yellowish off white to a dark, almost blackish red. Textbook images of cells from different organs will have been stained with different dyes to make the cell organelles more clear. The most common stain will probably be the H&E stain which makes everything look pink and purple.

You've gotten lots of good comments describing what tumors look like, but if you're wondering what color the actual cells are, the answer is that they are usually off-white (just like most cells in the body, which cancer cells derive from). The colors others are describing in solid tumors or organs are usually due to the presence of different types of cells (like red blood cells) or certain fluids (like the yellow of bile). If you were to remove the tumor, squish it up and take out just the cancerous cells, to the naked eye they would most likely appear off-white.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Actually, the point was the opposite, that the more compact plates feel heavier. I personally noticed that the closer the weight is to me the harder it is for me to lift it.

What did the guy in the video get wrong?

Generally, the same colour as normal cells. They’ll look pretty similar to whatever tissue/organ the cancer cells originate from.

It’s really quite tricky to tell the difference even under a microscope. You have to be pretty well trained to do it.