Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,367 Year: 4,624/9,624 Month: 399/1,096 Week: 104/119 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 28 of 653 (449201)
01-17-2008 4:57 AM


Generally speaking
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nwr, posted 01-17-2008 7:47 AM BMG has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 32 of 653 (449290)
01-17-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by nwr
01-17-2008 7:47 AM


Re: Generally speaking
It depends on what science, what are your goals, how tiring is your work, etc.
I suggest you open a Coffee House thread with a bit more info on what you are your aims.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nwr, posted 01-17-2008 7:47 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 01-17-2008 3:21 PM BMG has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 34 of 653 (449327)
01-17-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
01-17-2008 3:21 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 01-17-2008 3:21 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nwr, posted 01-17-2008 6:04 PM BMG has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 36 of 653 (449338)
01-17-2008 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by nwr
01-17-2008 6:04 PM


Re: Generally speaking
Duly noted. Much obliged, NWR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nwr, posted 01-17-2008 6:04 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 48 of 653 (451204)
01-26-2008 6:20 PM


David Lynch, John Hagelin and Transcendental Meditation
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 6:24 PM BMG has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 50 of 653 (451206)
01-26-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by molbiogirl
01-26-2008 6:24 PM


Re: David Lynch, John Hagelin and Transcendental Meditation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 6:24 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 6:33 PM BMG has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 52 of 653 (451215)
01-26-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by molbiogirl
01-26-2008 6:33 PM


Re: David Lynch, John Hagelin and Transcendental Meditation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 6:33 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 71 of 653 (454732)
02-08-2008 1:32 PM


Global cooling
Please do not reply here. This has been reposted as a new thread: Global Cooling?. --Admin
Someone 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=287279412587175
I 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.

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 122 of 653 (508161)
05-11-2009 1:51 AM


Polar Bears?
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Obama administration will leave in place an unpopular Bush rule on the protection of polar bears. The decision comes despite an outcry from Democrats, environmental activists and scientists alike, who promised to push to overturn the rule in court.
Obama Leaves Polar Bears Out in the Cold
The 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.

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 124 of 653 (509913)
05-26-2009 2:42 AM


Birds=Reptiles?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2009 5:28 AM BMG has replied
 Message 126 by Coragyps, posted 05-26-2009 5:50 AM BMG has replied
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 05-26-2009 6:44 AM BMG has not replied
 Message 128 by caffeine, posted 05-26-2009 7:18 AM BMG has not replied
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 05-26-2009 1:39 PM BMG has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 129 of 653 (509978)
05-26-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2009 5:28 AM


Re: Birds=Reptiles?
Thanks for the replies, everyone.
So what's Caudipteryx ... ?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2009 5:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 131 of 653 (509980)
05-26-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Coragyps
05-26-2009 5:50 AM


Re: Birds=Reptiles?
The term "reptiles" includes "lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodiles, and birds,..." but it is a more-or-less obsolete term. Turtles are anapsids, and may not belong with those others, which are all diapsids. And we synapsids are descended from "mammal-like reptiles," which isn't very helpful in deciding if mammals are still reptiles or not.
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.
A situation in flux, from my understanding. Birds are closer kin to crocodiles than to lizards, if that helps at all.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Coragyps, posted 05-26-2009 5:50 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 132 of 653 (509984)
05-26-2009 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Blue Jay
05-26-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Birds=Reptiles?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Blue Jay, posted 05-26-2009 1:39 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024