Introducing the Corytophanidae

The Corytophanidae, from the genus Basiliscus, is also known as a Casque Head, or Helmeted, lizard. This is a family of lizards with several different species, mostly residing in Central American and the northern part of South America. It has a small frill around the back of its head and start of its neck that is used as a defense mechanism - the frill can be expanded to make the animal look bigger if it is faced with a predator who wants to eat it, or even a simple competitor of its own species for whatever reason (I couldn't find anything about the reasons they would view each other as competition, but I would imagine it has something to do with reproductive partners and/or territory).

There are a couple of pretty interesting things about the Corytophanidae that make them diffrent from most reptiles that I have experience with. The first thing that makes them different from what I know is that their tail doesn't break off to allow them an escape from a predator. It is suggested on the website that the tail means too much to their balance, so the lizard really can't go without it even for a short time.

The second thing I found interesting is that species from this genus can give birth in two different ways - some types lay eggs (like I thought all reptiles did), and others actually give live birth to offspring that developed inside the mother.

Got Lumber?

The information regarding the negative impact of rainforest deforestation is absolutely staggering. Unfortunately, the only "value" that too many people seem to understand is that of money. The rainforest has no value, the environment has no value, an estimated 50,000 extinct species a year has no value... our future has no value to big businesses because as long as someone is making money, it doesn't seem to matter exactly how they're making it.

I have to believe that the rainforests have fallen victim to the way business is done. We have allowed companies too much freedom in how they go about their business, and much of their decision making relies on pleasing the stockholders (people who only need to have money, not intelligence or a reasonable level of foresight, to qualify as such) instead of doing what is right. "Get all the resources you can, however you can, and line my pockets with dolla dolla bills, ya'll!" Silly. And devastatingly effective in terms of what gets done. The clear cutting of the rainforests isn't a slow procedure, and as much as many people might argue that it is a job undertaken with the knowledge of exactly what the rainforest can handle... all I know is that we wouldn't be having this conversation if "what the rainforest can handle" was even being considered, even half the time.

I never even thought about the genocide that occurs in the rainforests at the hand of the white man. My concentration is history, so I should have been able to connect the dots without having to be told about the tribes that have been wiped out of the rainforests since the beginning of the twentieth century. The European colonists, as far as I know, aren't exactly building schools in the rainforest, so this isn't even some blind nationalistic imperialism... which is sickening in itself, but at least with that a person could point to something, however wrong it may be, as the reason for someone's actions.

If you have read the page linked in class, you have read about what the rainforest has to offer. You have read that the rainforest is responsible for twenty percent of our oxygen - I don't know about you, but that's something I need to survive. As populations continue to increase worldwide, and people continue to live longer and longer, can we really afford to lose that much oxygen? Think about taking a jog where you live right now. Now, think about taking a jog about a mile above sea level... and I don't think the difference in oxygen level there is anywhere near twenty percent. Couple that with the increased number of people breathing the same air, and I can see a scenario where the world's human population is breathing oxygen faster than the global environment can replace it.

The rainforest is also home to twenty percent of the world's fresh water. Let's say we tear down the rainforest, develop that land, and... then what? Stupid people with their status symbol sport utility vehicles and ignorant lifestyles are going to pollute that water, blame the generation before or after theirs without any sort of inner reflection (because it's always someone else's fault), and we'll not only have twenty percent less oxygen, but we'll also have twenty percent less fresh water to go along with the ever increasing population.

Stop deforestation. Stop having so many babies. Stop being stupid. It's a thing, look it up.

"Just a Theory"? Pff. Please.

****If you are easily offended, please read no further. Thank you.**** "Evolution is just a theory." What are speakers of this statement trying to say when they use the words "just a." It's simple, really, and I'm getting a little tired of spelling it out for people. When someone uses "just a" in relation to scientific theory, I honestly believe they are really trying to say, "I don't understand it and I don't want to understand it. We've got this book, see, that lays it all out there with knowledge from two thousand years ago and it makes things really simply. A giant space man put us here, in this form, and that's that. Everything that is, always was, and I don't want to hear anything else." The dismissiveness of the words "just a" is just that - a way to dismiss scientific research by including a simple two word phrase, and it's both interesting and sad that those two words can be more persuasive in a debate than all of the information obtained over the centuries about evolution. In everyday life, where people use words all the time in ways they are not intended to be used, the word "theory" means an idea, a hunch, a gut feeling. It's a thought that hasn't been researched, isn't being researched, and most likely won't be researched. In these frequent cases, a theory is most likely not even as strong as some lame-ass hypothesis. In science, however, a theory is several steps down the line from simple hypothesis. There has been research done, observations made, and the use of rational thought is heavily involved in the matter. I believe that people often take offense to evolutionary concepts because it's not a pretty thing to think about, at least in the way I have heard people respond to it. It's been as simple as,"Ew! There is no way I used to be a monkey!" Well, no one said you were a monkey. You were born a human baby, didn't learn too much between then and now, and here I am having to explain simple things to you. When I lived in Virginia, it was a much deeper hatred of the theory of evolution that I saw in the church my father made me attend. Family was very important to these people. So was respect of your elders, to the point of not questioning their reasoning, beliefs, or biases. So was God, and quite often, a literal interpretation of the Bible. I was 13, and all I could do was shake my head and bite my tongue at the irrational things I would hear. As it sometimes turns out, people are offended by the theory of evolution because it basically calls out their beliefs, and the beliefs held by several generations of their family. Some people simply are not prepared to admit that maybe, just maybe (and in this case, abso-freakin'-lutely!), their family could have been believing in the wrong thing for all these years... decades... centuries. Who are scientists to question the guys with the guns? The theory of evolution does not attempt to undermine anyone's beliefs. It simply lays out the data that has been collected, lined up, and understood to show a timeline of how life has changed since the first single-celled organisms developed on Earth. It works from a standpoint of genetic development, rather than some magical ""Poof! We're here!" concept, which hasn't realistically been researched, probably isn't being researched, and most likely won't be researched because faith can't be quantified. There is no recordable data about faith - you believe, or you don't, and I don't. There is data about the theory of evolution, though... and that's more than enough for me.

Mostly comfortable, but...

I don't quite understand the dihybrid cross. I'm a little confused about how to set up the Punnett squares, because I'm not sure how to read the genotypes and put them into action. The example given in our problems in question 6 discusses the guinea pigs with (BBRR) and (bbrr) genotypes. Is that four genotypes per parent pig, or am I making things more complicated than they need to be? Other than that, I'm okay up to this point.

Attack of the Clones?

I fully understand the love an owner (or parent, as some of us tend to view ourselves), and the sense of loss felt upon losing a pet. I would love to have Reese, Ebbie, Morgan or Ernie back, because they were great pets, and friends. At the same time, I feel that they had their place in time and in my life, and I would never seek to replicate them through the process of cloning. I love the two cats I have right now, and one of them, Frankie, is a flamepoint Siamese just like Ernie was. While I see similarities in character and behavior, I am under no illusion that Frankie is a replacement for Ernie.

To me, pet cloning is a emotionally cheap, fiscally irresponsible way for a pet owner to weaken their sense of loss. The clone will come into the world with the same genetic code as the deceased, but with be an entirely different individual aside from that. While DNA can help to mold parts of a personality, I believe that personal experience truly makes us who we are. The cat in the article, Spot, cannot be brought back through cloning. The Wolf's will get themselves another blue abyssinian through this process, but Spot is gone. Forever.

Issues of overpopulation and bioethics appear to be valid concerns, but the main thing I'm not buying in this article is the idea of the pets' "life force." Animals are like people, in more ways than most people appear willing or able to admit. A clone of this particular cat may or may not have the same disposition as the original. Just like people, pets are often shaped by the environment in which they are raised. Spot's "life force" lives on with his owners. Those owners, the Wolf's, owned Spot for 18 years... they are likely much different people today than they were nearly two decades ago (three, really, since the article was published in 2000), and any pet they get now, clone or not, would be emotionally sculpted in a way that reflects who they are now, rather than who they were when Spot was growing up.

I also enjoy the search for and discovery of a pet that will be a good fit in my home. In some cases, working with and training a new pet to be a better fit might be more rewarding than simply cloning someone you already know. I don't know how deep the cloning technology runs these days, but I can understand cloning from a business standpoint in terms of livestock, or a sickening militaristic standpoint if some government wanted to breed super soldiers or something... but when it comes to pets, I simply don't find cloning to be a legitimate use of our scientific knowledge.

No Such Thing as a Snow Dragon!

Aerobic Cellular Respiration is the way that most multi-cellular organisms create the ATP needed for molecules to function throughout their bodies. Aerobic Cellular Respiration sounds like it would be a physically active and strenuous form of Cellular Respiration, but in reality, it is active in eating and breathing. We don't have to do jumping jacks or hop on a stair climbing machine to participate in Aerobic Cellular Respiration - it's almost like our cells hit the gym, even if we don't! Woo!

Humans could not function using just Anaerobic Cellular Respiration. This process doesn't create enough ATP to keep pace with what our bodies need, and we would eventually (very, very quickly, I imagine) stop being able to function. Anaerobic Cellular Respiration is there for us in case we need to push our bodies just a little harder, but it is certainly not something we could rely on as a form of survival (unless we're running from a freakin' tiger).

I could be wrong, but I think the difference in the activity levels of warm- and cold-blooded animals is caused by warm-blooded animals having a higher level of homeostasis than that of cold-blooded animals. Cold-blooded animals need more heat in order to be active - thus the reason you aren't in danger of stepping on a snake in the Arctic (although... I imagine a snake that's able to live up there would be pretty wicked). It's almost like they're solar-powered. While warm-blooded animals can adapt and live in almost any climate, cold-blooded creatures need a climate where they can be warm. No such thing as a snow dragon... they live in the Komodo islands.

Read 1st Law of Thermodynamics... and keep reading.

People love to use quotes when they're speaking, like it makes them look more educated or like their information has come from a reputable source. Politicians often misquote sources, and at times even attach the wrong name (the most recent and most often I have heard is a quote attributed to Mark Twain, but that is neither here nor there). My point is that people who quote the first law of thermodynamics in an attempt to detract from the notion of an energy crisis are doing one of two things: A) they are either not reading far enough into the given information on thermodynamics (the second law, for instance) to better understand what they are talking about, or, even worse, B) reading everything they can find and dismissing any and all information that does not support their initial argument.

"If energy cannot be destroyed, how can there be an energy crisis? We just need to find more creative ways of recycling energy."

The statement-question-statement rings true on a couple of levels. First, energy cannot be destroyed. Second, we do need to find more creative ways of recycling energy.

Energy is lost to the processes of delivering said energy. You might start out with 100% energy, but you lose percentage points for an type of inefficiency (whether it is an inefficiency that can be remedied or not), starting with the transfer of energy received to being usable energy. In lecture, the example is given of a cow consuming grass, but only about 10% of what they consume is actually converted into usable energy. The biology behind this transfer from food to energy is what is inefficient, and there is nothing that can be done about that.

A lot of the energy crisis bickering today seems to be about fuel consumption of vehicles, and a portion of the population not wanting to believe they are doing anything wrong. Some vehicle owners even sport bumper stickers that say "Drill Here!" because of the shortsightedness that at least the United States wouldn't be buying foreign oil (oil being a main character in the current energy crisis). Never mind that it would be cost prohibitive to retrieve and refine this oil to usable quality. How much oil (energy) would be lost in that process?

In short, I believe the statement begins and ends in validity, but sneaks in a false question to place doubt in the minds of those who would rather be told what to think, than to simply do the thinking for themselves.

Valid: "Energy cannot be destroyed. We just need to develop some clever ways of recycling energy." There is a statement that everyone can agree with, and there is no manipulation present. From there, everyone can begin looking for a cure to our problem.

False: "How can there be an energy crisis?" And... finger pointing, complaining, lying, and looking for the easy way out (which does not exist). But, hey, under this scenario people get to keep complaining that gas prices are too high, and that they can't feed their kids because their king cab 2-ton truck only gets eight miles to the gallon. It's okay, though, because someone else is the bad guy.