Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

Quick question to the experienced; is it possible (or wise) to attempt to go to school for a degree in the sciences while working full-time?Of those I have asked and replied, "it was possible" , most claimed that the time required for class (and labs, especially) while working full-time is strained, and manifests itself as a great stressor to students. Is this true?Any feedback from those with science degrees is much appreciated.

Yes, that's true, there are far too many variables to account for. I may open a thread in the coffee house regarding this.However, NWR, do you have a degree in science? If not, do you hold another type of degree? Are there any tidbits of counsel you would have benefited from if you had to go back to school and do it again? (That's assuming, of course, you are no longer attending school).

Are lab hours and lab fees the prime or one of the leading reasons for difficulty juggling a full-time job and classes?

Duly noted. Much obliged, NWR.

Has anyone seen or have any knowledge of TM? I recently saw on UCTV a speech from David Lynch, a leading neuroscientist (unfortunately, I can't remember this person's name), and John Hagelin, who is, to my limited understanding, one of the best public speakers I have ever heard.It was an hour speech at the University of Washington. I am trying to dig it up now. However, I did find a small clip of DL and JH.Has anyone heard of TM? If so, do you practice this? Is it efficacious?The clip is here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC_hXwdCf-A
Thank you for your time.

Yes, I thought my phrasing would cause problems, but the speech I was referring to had (1) David Lynch- flim director, (2) a leading neuroscientist- name unknown, and, (3) John Hagelin.

Thank you, Molbiogirl, for the links. I was curious about TM but listless when it came to researching it; confirmation bias, I suppose, and lazy critical thinking.A little embarassing, to say the least, but thank you.

Please do not reply here. This has been reposted as a new thread: Global Cooling?. --AdminSomeone posted this article I have below as support that the global warming phenomenon is a "hoax", and that the Earth is likely going to cool.http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175I have yet to refute this argument. I am researching now the sources that are used in the article, and the effects of the solar cycle on the Earth's climate, but I could use the help of the EVC team. Here are some quotes from the article itself:"[Kenneth] Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere".And one more, from the Hoover Institution, "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz. "One more, from the Hoover Institution, "The study says that 'try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures'". Edited by Admin, : Add comment about new thread.

Obama Leaves Polar Bears Out in the ColdThe Polar Bear seems doomed, regardless of our efforts, but must we kick it while it's down? Or nonchalantly step over it while it lies helpless under our feet? Am I overreacting? Edited by Admin, : Reduce length of long link.

I have recently finished an intro to Bio course, and the class text, Biology: Concepts And Connections: Sixth Edition (sorry, don't feel like looking up the correct form for citing sources) claims that, on page 398, that,

quote:

---

Birds are feathered reptiles with adaptations for flight.

---

On the previous page, 397, it reads

quote:

---

The clade of amniotes called reptiles includes lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodiles, and birds,...

---

.However, wikipedia quotes Colin Tudge below;

quote:

---

Mammals are a clade, and therefore the cladists are happy to acknowledge the traditional taxon Mammalia; and birds, too, are a clade, universally ascribed to the formal taxon Aves. Mammalia and Aves are, in fact, subclades within the grand clade of the Amniota. But the traditional class reptilia is not a clade. It is just a section of the clade Amniota: the section that is left after the Mammalia and Aves have been hived off. It cannot be defined by synapomorphies, as is the proper way. It is instead defined by a combination of the features it has and the features it lacks: reptiles are the amniotes that lack fur or feathers. At best, the cladists suggest, we could say that the traditional Reptila are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes'.[6]

---

Bold mine.A few weeks ago, speaking to some friends, I mentioned that birds were actually feathered reptiles. Was I accurate in repeating my text's claim?I would really appreciate any feedback. Thank you.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Hmmm, currently, according to wiki,

quote:

---

The consensus view, based on several cladistic analyses, is that Caudipteryx is a basal (primitive) member of the Oviraptoridae, and the oviraptorids are nonavian theropod dinosaurs.

---

It gets better. A little futher down, from the same source,

quote:

---

Halszka Osmolska et al. (2004) ran a cladistic analysis that came to a different conclusion. They found that the most birdlike features of oviraptorids actually place the whole clade within Aves itself, meaning that Caudipteryx is both an oviraptorid and a bird. In their analysis, birds evolved from more primitive theropods, and one lineage of birds became flightless, re-evolved some primitive features, and gave rise to the oviraptorids

---

Bold mine.So birds evolved from theropods, which were small, two-legged dinosaurs; well, most were small, I suppose, for, again, wiki claims that theropods

quote:

---

were the sole large terrestrial carnivores from the Early Jurassic until the close of the Cretaceous, about 65 Ma. Today, they are represented by the 9,300 living species of birds, which evolved in the Late Jurassic from small specialized coelurosaurian dinosaurs.

---

Thanks, DA.

In essence, it sounds as if I should simply stay away from the term "reptile" all together. Anapsids have skulls that lack openings near the temples. Diapsids have two openings on their skulls, one on each side("di").Again, from wiki, about synapsids

quote:

---

At the same time, the term "reptiles", which traditionally denoted all cold-blooded amniotes, is now re-defined to include only the sauropsids (a class that unites the anapsids and the diapsids to the exclusion of the synapsids, because these first two groups are more closely related to each other than to the third one). Hence the term "mammal-like reptiles" for the synapsids is considered obsolete under this terminology.

---

And synapsids have a single hole behind each eye orbit. Yes, it does. I guess I may have had it right when I started this post; I think I will stay away from the term reptile altogther. Thanks, Coragyps.

Thanks Percy, Caffeine, and Bluejay for the replies.I'm less knowledgable than all three of you, I'm sure, in biology, so let's see if I have this straight. The term "reptile" was borne from the outdated, morphological system of classification, and the new form of classification, based on evolution, determines, as Bluejay has put it, "true ancestry and relatedness".A work in taxonomic progress, I suppose. Birds belong to the Aves clade, mammals to the mammalia clade, and both are subgroups within the larger clade, Amniota. So, are most or all of the animals formerly known as reptiles undergoing a taxonomic classification upgrade, and being allocated to their respective clades? A wait-and see-approach for those interested in the subject?