Genecks

If you study while eating, going to the bathroom, walking around, listening to music, doing laundry, etc., then you ought to be able to excel in science.

Yeah, any person at just about any age can start learning science. There is some memorization involved.

Nothing is random. Computers has physical boundaries and ties. In other words, their physical components, environment, programming, along with the laws of physics, determine the numbers they generate.

Maybe that's not what you are looking for.

I was told by some people that I should learn a statistical package:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statistical_packages

Anyone know why I should? Which one is the best?

Yeehaw, we've been granted a snow day here in the midwest. Actually, we currently are under "blizzard conditions" - 20-30 mph winds (sorry, can't concentrate enough to change that to klicks/hour right now, but I'd guess around 60km/h) and still heavy snow.

 

And lemme tell you, it's gorgeous!

Illinois resident here.

College was cancelled. A few cars were caught in the snow.

I awoke today thinking, "Man... how deep is that?"

I typically don't see snow that deep.

I was surprised when I learned lots of stuff was cancelled.

I did my social duty and shoveled a little bit.

It all seemed futile after a while.

However, I'm still studying and typing up papers.

How about some kind of alteration?

...Book, Journal, and Magazine discussion..

I've always believed that uniforms are too strict of rule.

I've always been for an ideal type of clothing wear.

In other words, students have a choice of what they can wear.

However, if some students decide to start grouping together and wearing blue and the others wear red, well that's gotta go: Crips and Bloods.

My version of a set attire would be the following:

1. Blue jeans, black jeans, khakis, dress pants, or school uniform.

Exception: Those having pictures taken or giving presentations.

I'm taking out skirts because guys will look up the skirts of girls who walk up stairs.

2. Shirts of a plain color or color value: black, blue, red, etc.

NO logos, words, etc. ONLY color. No white shirts except in summer.

3. Plaid and blue jean overshirts are allows. However, there are no logos, words, etc. Only blue jean or plaid is shown.

No torn up, pieced together types of denims are allowed.

It doesn't seem as strict, and students have a variety of choices.

However, if some students start creating ingroups, then they will be forced to wear school uniforms.

Doing this pretty much keeps things plain. People can't say, "I have Old Navy" or some other junk. It destroys the idea of students being walking billboards. Goths will be forced to look like Johnny Cash. Jocks will probably wear blue jeans and a color shirt. Preppy girls will probably wear khakis and pink shirts.

There's an idea that uniforms reduce gang activity, because there less of an oppurtunity to show your gang colors. Some schools feel that this is a solution, but I'm not sure.

The gang recruitment typically happens outside of the school yet on the grounds. I'm pretty sure if peers start seeing someone wear gang colors, the peers might not be too found of that person.

It actually brings a person out into public if he or she is daring enough to do such a thing. For what I understand, some gang members might simply wear blue jeans, a black shirt, and a plaid overshirt. It looks pretty basic, so you don't really have anything to worry about. It doesn't really show colors anyone.

I've never been recruited by a gang members inside of school. No one has ever attempted to recruit me inside or near school. I've known people who have been inside of gangs, and that stuff typically happens outside of school. Drugs are sold in school, but gangs typically keep their recruitment outside of school. Gangs don't like the idea of competition in such a small place. It's typically independent students that sell stuff.

Is making everyone look the same a good thing?

I guess not. If people start seeing each other as similar, they will like each other more. At least that's what social psychology says. Therefore, students who look like each other can manipulate and control each other more often. Peer pressure will be greater and easier to use. I think a lot of educators don't know what they are doing. It's better to have people hate each other than be manipulated by each other.

I would like the front page back. It gave people knowledge as to what some hot topics this site could provide.

I read through the current social psychology book I have.

I emailed a professor and learned that a psychology book is dated about every four years. If a person wishes to obtain a new psychology book, he or she can talk to a librarian and get a book through interlibrary loan, which is a system that allows a person to borrow books from another library through his or her library.

Errr... I think you mean BSc.

 

BS degrees are something else entirely

I wouldn't happen to be saying "bulls417 degree" would I?

Heh. What is a B.S.?

I don't know. Wiki says differently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science

Another thing I really want to know is what is the difference between getting a bachelor's degree in science vs. getting a bachelor's in a specialized topic. Do people get a BSc in order to branch out into different scientific topics?

If I remember correctly the Bachelor's of Science degree can help a person say, "I understand science a little bit" in a modest sort of way.

But I was wondering if a person land a job as a secondary school teacher with it, primarily high school.

What can a bachelor's of science degree do for a person?

I'm primarily talking about America, but other countries would be of interest to me.

It's all probability, dude. What are you looking for? Statistics?

Would you rather this forum be like biology-online.org, Bettina?

Sometimes there are neat and productive things that occur. Most of the time, however, that site is plagued with homework questions.

Hmm..

I might have answered my own question a little bit. I decided to do some research on EBSCO. I found some information in a journal:

Bryngelsson, Susanne, and Nils-Georg Asp. "Popular diets, body weight and health: What is scientifically documented?." Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition 49.1 (2005): 15-20. Academic Search Premier. 25 November 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com.

I believe part of my hypothesis was correct. Although I forgot to add the whole, Acetyl-CoA part of the Kreb's cycle, I believe this article pretty much touched on the biological parts of the "Atkin's Diet."

During fasting, or diets low in carbohydrates, three main mechanisms contribute to maintain a constant blood glucose level: (i) the release of blood glucose from liver glycogen, (ii) the indirect use of muscle glycogen (transport as alanin and lactate to the liver) and (iii) gluconeogenesis (synthesis of glucose from proteins). Primarily, liver glycogen is used, but this reserve normally lasts for less than 24 h. Proteins for gluconeogenesis may be provided by the food or taken from the muscle tissue.

Loss of glycogen and water is a generally accepted explanation of the rapid initial weight loss due to energy restriction, especially when the intake of carbohydrates is low. The efficacy of low-carb diets may also be explained by the high satiating power of proteins, contributing to a reduced energy intake. Suppressed hunger, resulting from ketosis induced by fasting or starvation, as well as limitation of allowed food items, may also contribute. There is no evidence that low-carb diets lead to weight loss without reducing the caloric intake.

Perhaps I'm not clear on the above and below section, but I still don't understand what is happening to the adipose. What part of the biological system is removing fat? How is it removing fat?

Ketosis: a result of carbohydrate deficiency... When the glucose supply becomes low (e.g. between meals), all cells, except for nerve cells and blood cells, are able to use fatty acids as a source of energy. Fatty acids are initially transformed to acetylcoenzyme A (acetyl-CoA). Acetyl-CoA enters the citric acid cycle by binding to oxaloacetate, which is made from carbohydrates. A pronounced shortage of carbohydrates reduces the capacity to metabolize acetyl-CoA, owing to a lack of oxaloacetate. To reduce the accumulated excess of acetyl-CoA, two molecules are combined to form acetoacetate, later transformed to hydroxybutyrate and acetone. Together these three compounds are referred to as ketone bodies. Elevated levels of ketone bodies lead to ketosis, caused by starvation, a severe lack of dietary carbohydrates or uncontrolled diabetes. Under these conditions, ketone bodies become a major source of energy, gradually also for the brain, and the need for gluconeogenesis is thereby minimized

(muscle proteins are spared).

For the amount of reseach I've done, I've found that ketogenic diets are very similar to the Atkin's diet. Therefore, this bit of information might be of interest to any of you:

The provision of large amounts of fat, while at the same time significantly restricting carbohydrates, causes multiple biochemical alterations, most notably an increase in serum and urine ketone bodies (acetoacetate and p-hydroxybutyrate).

 

Work Cited:

Kossoff, Eric H. "Use of a Modified Atkins Diet for Epilepsy." Current Medical Literature: Epilepsy Monitor 9.3 (2005): 33-37. Academic Search Premier. 25 November 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com.

I've been wondering something:

How does limiting the amount of carbohydrates in the human body change the metabolism, chemistry, and other physical processes of the human body? For what I understand, the body breaks down sugars and eventually turns them into ATP. However, I've been wondering, if the body doesn't have as much sugar, how does it create ATP?

If it doesn't use sugar to create ATP, doesn't it use fat or protein to create ATP? Are other biochemical structures activated in order to render fat or protein to be transformed into ATP? I'm trying to understand why the Atkin's nutritional approach, or "Atkin's Diet," works for some people. Why does it work? What makes it work?

Many studies in the past seems to have done trials, and they simply recorded weight loss over a brief period of time: about a year. But this is just a bunch of speculative research if you ask me. Some people have said the only thing lost was water weight. I find that hard to believe in a lot of ways, but I do know the human body is mostly composed of water.

Yet I can't dismiss the fact that many people claim to have lost weight. I don't seen how the fat tissue can remain around after a year, and the only thing lost was water.

I want to know the hardcore chemical and biological processes that occur during the diet: What about eating few carbs, moderate amounts of protein, and moderate amounts of fiber make a person lose weight? What biological processes occur, change, and/or stop?

I'm thinking if we could compare these processes to other forms of diet, we could understand more about the human metabolism and weight loss. However, I haven't seen any studies done on biological processes that pertain to Atkin's and metabolism.

My hypothesis is that if sugar doesn't remain constant or increase in the body, then the body uses fat or protein to make ATP and conduct metabolic processes. Thus, the burning or transforming of fat to create ATP occurs. Therefore, weight loss occurs. The body is compensating for a loss of sugar, and it is using fat in replacement.

The body is maintaining equilibrium, but it seems nobody has found the answer as to why this is happening. The theories I've seen so far is that researchs believe people are losing "water weight."

I'm thinking that's false. Also, they don't offer enough evidence to support their claim. Besides that, the body still has to use something instead of sugar for metabolic processes.

I had a lot of lucid dreams while on anti-psychotics earlier this year. I'd like to think of them as lucid because I chose actions. I chose the action to fight back. Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but in my dreams, I sometimes think these would be the actions if I were daring enough. Not to say that I'm a coward, but in the situation, I would do those things. This is why I question the idea of awareness within lucid dreaming. I figure that I understand that it’s a dream, yet I somehow consider it a parallel dimension, a nanoscopic dimension. It's within this dimension that I must make moves and act accordingly. However, one still has to use psychology to question if the actions were caused by outside influence. In other words, were using determinist ideology to say why I acted a certain way in a certain situation.

It's somewhat funny, though. People who say they have control in their lucid dreams ought to be soft determinists. They don't have free-will. Well, maybe they do; or perhaps it seems like they do. Heh. Yet again, perhaps knowledge of the workings of lucid dreaming could remain in the unconscious. Thus, this can allow a person to transfer his or her awareness to the dream-state. In other words, the person takes control of the dream because the unconscious knows of possible actions it can take.

I think the first dream I had, while on medicine, was about paladins/angels. They were bringing my spirit out from my body and bringing me to a new realm. And just about every dream after was a nightmare. Primarily they were dreams about supernatural beings, more supernatural than I, that I couldn't kill. Don't worry, they couldn't kill me; I kept dodging them. But they sure did a good fight until I woke up. I stopped taking the medicine many, many months ago. Don't you just love my alliterating rhetoric?

Since every dream is a wish fulfillment (Freud), you have to find the part of the dream that fulfilled a repressed or ignored wish.

Is that right? I try to avoid supernatural beings these days. Wish ignored and not suppressed by the unconscious?

I agree about Freud's ideas being shot down. But I like his view on the id, ego, and superego.

Last dream that I had was about a supernatural being that I could not kill. Well, I primarily couldn't kill it because I couldn't see it. I had to use plasma to kill it. It killed everyone and everything around me. The being was a neat little sucker. It stuck to walls and leaped on people, slashing them apart. I had used a plasma globe to make it stop being invisible.

Then again, maybe it has to do with that plasma tech we were talking about here. Maybe it has to do with the light sabers in super smash brothers. Maybe it has to do with that gun that sticks to walls and shoots people that I saw on television, or else a top 10 games of 2006 things.

I think the dream before that I was bit by a vampress with striped stockings. That was a great dream. Where's my journal entry...

The last dream I had was last week. I was playing as a human in a group of vampires, but the thing was, I was a human. We were all going up the elevator, and I had to use persuasion against one of the vampress teens. There was a light inside of the elevator, to let you know. She smelled me out and thought I was a human. "Oh, I'm just playing as a human." I convinced her that I wasn't and we all reached our floor of destination.

 

Eventually we all went into a training room. People were sliding on their feet in lines. They were preparing to fight and battle. I wasn't one to stand in line for too long, so I tried to find a way out of there. I was thinking to myself, "D*m*, that was close." So, I found a way out, and I found myself outside.

 

There was a girl outside, she looked knocked out and lying near some big, green garbage canisters. I came near her, and she looked up. She looked sad, tired, and dismayed. She was wearing striped clothing, stockings, and arm sleeves. They were light-purple and white; and she had long brown hair. I think she was wearing a very short skirt.. Anyway, I picked her up, and I knew right away that she was a vampire. I sensed it.

 

I looked her in the eyes. She immediately knew the contents of my mind and soul. She knew that I wanted her for eternity. She bit into my neck, and she told me what I already knew. I told her I knew that I would have to find a new way to reach my goals.

However, I dislike the idea of being a vampire. I mean, I'd have to figure out the genetic code and do tons of reseach for that race. So annoying... Transhumanism might be futile at that point. What'd that be? Transvampirism? Heh. Interestingly, I knew about the social code of that group of vampires in that dream. I was taking residence with them for a while. I guess the idea is that if a vampress bites me, then we are married by "blood." Mind you that I don't really research vampries that much. I don't even read the books by the humans. I'm not one of those pseudo-goth/dark/vampire people. By the way, I didn't say vampires are supernatural.

Then again, I remember another dream. About thirty possessed people were trying to kill me in this three-story house. I didn't get what was going on. The only thing I knew was that they wanted my body, and they wanted the part I had for my vehicle. They figured either it was the part or me. I figured I'm keeping both. I rocked the boat and started killing people left and right. I threw them out of the third-story window, and that pretty much immobilized them. I didn't feel remorse. Oddly, though, I thought, "Should I really throw them out?" I thought, "Eh, who cares?"

I didn't finish that dream. The dream pretty much reached its most dramatic point to where I was at the edge of the window, fighting and throwing off people. Well, I was simply observing that from an out-of-body point of view.

However, I woke up thinking, "That was a kick-*** dream! I am totally psyched!"

I was discussing cadavers with some scientists a while back on a different forum. I asked them how it could be possible for me to find animals and disect them, perhaps mice I suggested. Many of them thought of me as creepy and immoral.

Yet I was primarily interested in disecting humans. I think I would have to hold a Ph.D, however, to actually obtain a human cadaver.

Eh.

I have many mice in my kitchen stove. Perhaps I could capture one, disect it, open its skull, and examine its brain. I wonder if a typical 9-volt can be used to galvanize motor function. Maybe such a thing would create more voltage; therefore, I would have to link the batteries in a series. Hmm...

I can think of many other things I can do with $600 USD. Hmm, let me name a few:

1. Buy clothes and some new shoes. $150 USD

- Money left: $450

2. Buy a reprographic copy stand. $150 USD.

- Money left: $300

3. Talk to a pretty lady and buy her dinner. $300 USD.

- Money left: $0.

Might I remind you that we had a great dinner.

Do what you enjoy because you enjoy doing it. Never do it solely because of money. You probably won't be happy if you do the majority of your work for money.

I was told a long time ago by some chemists that if I'm in this game for money, I ought to have been a business major. I've been against the idea of materialism since childhood, so I don't work for money. I work because enjoy what I'm doing. I work because it gives me experience and makes me more skilled. That's the great thing about working for a trade, such as locksmithing, carpentry, etc..

You need to make a decision as you go higher: Are you doing this for money or because you enjoy it?

Those will be the deciding factors. However, you'll want to make sure that you can actually keep living with the job you have chosen. Choosing a career that doesn't pay would not be a wise idea. You'll simply have to understand that you won't be making large sums of cash, and that you probably won't work and live in Hawaii or Japan.

Here are the serious factors:

1. Can I get a job with this?

2. Do I like this?

3. Can I get health benefits?

If it's one and two, that's great. If it's one, two, and three, grab it for what it's worth. Many people go into the military because of all three, but I'm not advocating the military. Yet some people simply work for small amounts of cash, and they love the ability to have health benefits. Health benefits seem to be a necessity these days.

I personally thought about doing the Bachelor's of Science myself.

Ah, nevermind.

I'm typically biased toward most people. Yet I want you, the thread creator, to know something.

No one can tell you who you are. You must learn who you are. And since I don't feel like telling you who you are, I'm going to give you weblinks:

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_comparison_theory

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism

Do you want advice?

-> Keep going up the ladder.

Treadmills make too much noise. I wouldn't mind having a treadmill for a few of my classes. I could keep in shape each day that way.

However, I am in support of online learning and in-school testing.

Martin, don't you have a bachelor's degree or something? I thought most moderators had one. If so, you ought the be able to figure out credibility by now. Regardless, perhaps you'll think about researching the researcher?

http://www.wistar.upenn.edu/research_facilities/heberkatz/research.htm

She looks like the kind of professor I would like to train under for a Ph.D.

For further inquiry, you could email her.

Just because a person has been talking about regeneration for a long time does not mean it is not legit: age fallacy. However, most scientists, from what I understand, don't like to say anything until they have enough evidence to support their claims. There was a large amount of that going on in 2005 with neuroscience; people kept their information until January of 2006.

This might be the stuff you want:

Wound Healing in Mice: In the process of carrying out an autoimmunity experiment, the Heber-Katz research team noted that in the MRL strain of mice, punched ear holes used for long term identification rapidly closed without any sign of scarring. Besides lack of scarring when the ear hole closed, a blastema formed and new hair follicles and cartilage grew back, processes not generally seen in adult mammals though thought to be part of a regenerative process seen in amphibians. The laboratory has been actively pursuing the identification of genes involved in this trait along with the mechanisms that allow this healing to take place. They found that the matrix metalloproteinases are upregulated early after wounding and just prior to blastema formation and that the molecule Pref-1 is upregulated late after wounding and just as the blastema is beginning to redifferentiate into mature cells. These studies have led the research team to examine multiple tissues that show the unusual regenerative capacity seen in this mouse (5-10).

And there is also published information:

5. Desquenne Clark, L., Clark, R., and Heber-Katz, E. 1998. A new model for mammalian wound repair and regeneration. Clin. Imm. and Immunopath. 88: 35-45.

 

6. McBrearty, B.A., Desquenne-Clark, L., Zhang, X-M., Blankenhorn, E.P., and Heber-Katz, E. 1998. Genetic analysis of a mammalian wound healing trait. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95: 11792 - 11797.

 

7. Heber-Katz, E. 1999. The regenerating mouse ear. Seminars in Cell & Develop. Biol. 10:415-420.

 

8. Samulewicz, SJ, Clark,L, Seitz,A., and E. Heber-Katz. 2002. Expression of Pref-1, A Delta-Like Protein, in Healing Mouse Ears. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 10: 215-221.

 

9. Gourevich,D, Clark,L, Chen P, Seitz A, Samulewicz S, and E. Heber-Katz. 2003. Matrix Metalloproteinase Activity Correlates with Blastema Formation in the Regenerating MRL Ear Hole Model. Developmental Dynamics. 226; 377-387.

 

10. Blankenhorn EP, Troutman S, Desquenne Clark L., Zhang X-M, and E. Heber-Katz. 2003. Sexually dimorphic genes regulate healing and regeneration in the MRL/MpJ mouse. Mammalian Genome, In press.

There seem to be some other published information:

13. Seitz, A., Aglow, E., and E. Heber-Katz. 2002. Recovery from spinal cord injury: A new transection model in the C57BL/6 mouse. J. Neuroscience Research 67: 337:345.

 

14. Seitz, A, Kragol, M, Aglow, E, Showe, L. and E. Heber-Katz. 2003. Apo-E expression after spinal cord injury in the mouse. J. Neuroscience Research. 71: 417-387.

You might be able to research these things through an electronic database.

I would link to a few articles, but I'm thinking that's illegal. Well, I'm not sure exactly. For what I understand, as long as a person is doing research, he or she is allowed to copy resources; but the person must dispose or return the resources after research.

I'm using EBSCO to look at some of these full-text .pdf articles.

If any of you are interested, you might be able to visit a public library, college library, and/or university and ask a librarian to help you find these articles.

One more thing:

I do not know of the results at Heber-Katz lab being replicated elsewhere.

If I read this correctly, it looks like the articled referred to people who were trying to do the same experiment.

Something neat I recently learned is that sometimes a person's eyes will turn light blue if they have cataracts. This may have only been for black people. I've seen black people in my life with blue eyes; it seems quite astounding. I might have a picture in my genetics or biology books. I'm pretty sure the black people were not wearing contacts. I have the ability to tell when someone is wearing contacts.

I asked my biology professor a long time ago if he knew anything about black people with blue eyes. I figured that the people were either colorblind or something. I think I remember tripping across something that said people with cataracts often develop blue eyes.

Microsofts going to hate this.

Not a doubt in my mind.

I'm guessing the best way to do it, is to use google docs to type everything out, but copy it into Word for layout purposes before printing.

Exactly.

I really haven't been using Microsoft Word since I learned how to save drafts in GMail. Now that I can use Google Docs, I'm going to do formatting in Microsoft Works Word Processor, a program typically bundled for free with Windows operating systems. I typically use MS programs for footnotes, headers, bibliographies, margins, and saving files to a disk.

The same things could be done with openoffice.org, but I simply use the freely bundled programs that come with Windows. However, some people might object to Google Docs not being great because of no grammar checker. Well, I didn't see one. But I do know that a person cannot rely on a program to check his or her grammar. I've often fought with Microsoft Office's opinion of my grammar. I've thought at times, "You're wrong. I'm right." Therefore, a person can't rely on grammar checkers; but they do sometimes seem to pick up little errors.

I'm thinking about investing in Google. They might create a whole new world of "Internet programs."