/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3954391
>>3954357
Oh, as far as choosing one or the other for a career goes, I'd go with applied as there tends to be less room in any subject area for theorists than there is for people who do the 'leg work', whatever that is for the field. I'm way outside of my area, though, so take that with a grain of salt.

Hey /sci9k/, can girls really be too busy for you? Or are they just not interested and trying to be polite?

Is it true that it's easier for a human body to float and salt-water than fresh water? And the same for objects in general?

/sci/ hates biology.
Haters gonna hate.
I have no idea what you'd be doing, though, but research sounds cool. I'm an ecologyfag; I'm looking at the state version of the EPA and a few other places for temp work after I graduate while I apply for grad school.

IQ is a pretty lame measure of intelligence (it's just a pattern recognition exam).
You'll be fine as a med student if you're willing to let it eat your life. I've heard the classes aren't as bad as the FUCK MY ASS insane sleep deprivation due to insane scheduling and load.

Conclusion: Work hard. Love work. Eat, sleep, and breath work. Do well.

>phd in Biology
...Do they grant those? Even my undergrad B.S. isn't just "biology", it's 'ecology, evolution, and behavior' which most colleges (I think) call integrative biology. Can you even get a phd without specializing?

>>2420042
Oh, well that's fine then. In many ways, you could apply the same idea to ecosystems. It's just important to remember that it's all the result of a sort of complex stalemate. I'd actually wonder if if it's a sort of successional process. A quick google search shows that it happens in chickens:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC262306/

(NOTE: I just scanned the abstract and discussion. I know, I'm a terrible person)

Perhaps this succession can help "fine tune" the balance as different areas of the gut are colonized and lost by different varieties of bacteria.
(NOTE: totally talking out my ass; totally not my field. Really just wanted to give an affirmative response to this not being a gaia thread).

>>2292271

Granted, given the ability to change our environment to suite ourselves, there isn't much selective influence to change. However, I believe some less noticeable things, such as more brown fat cells in our fat ass society to burn the extra calories, will be selected for (you aren't having kids if you're dying of heart disease).

So, I don't see morphological changes in the future, but I'm betting we'll continue to adapt biochemically. Naturally, natural selection is only part of human evolution. I believe modern medicine combined with genetic drift will result in a very diverse gene pool (i.e. medicines saves those that would have not passed on their genes). I suspect we'll see a widening standard deviation of things like height and weight.

Ecology
Liberal/Socialist (in an idea world, the latter; in the real world, the former)
White
US

>>2148897
Actually, given that I've been analyzing coyote diet by identifying the hairs and other material (including part of a shoe) in scats, I'd have to say that biology is THE shit.

>>2066130
...Nothing really.
I just happened to stumble onto that book while I was doing some research. Given the breadth of it's subject matter, it's incredibly well cited.

Google has it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-xQalfqP7BcC&pg=PA467&lpg=PA467#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>2055970
Well, given the situation we're in today, being more intelligent meant that our ancestors had more surviving children, right? It's not so much "why?" as it's "that's just the way it is". In our case, being more intelligent meant that you left more kids, probably because you were a better hunter or you invented agriculture. So, long term, it just happened that intelligence was a fitness advantage for our species. Other species took different routes, even other fairly closely related species took different routes. Paranthropus boisei was a much more robust species. Granted, they died out; it turned out that this wasn't the most well adapted strategy.

Then again, look at voles or lemmings. Not smart, but massively good at making babies. An old evolutionary design that continues down the path that's working for it.

Also, you should probably listen to Charles more than me...

>>2039402
Yeah, so I see. A non-toxic process using a recyclable catalyst that produces high yields. Pretty cool, even if I can't understand <span class="math">all[/spoiler] the details of it.

>Ctrl+F: Texas
>LOL NOTHING

Texas.

Fuck Rick Perry and the State Board of Education.
Also, Austin borderline doesn't count as Texas; we're awesome.

Not from the parent.
Species lines are vague.
Sometimes, even under the biological definition of a species (can interbreed and produce viable fertile offspring) there's controversy. For example, Red wolves <span class="math">Canis~lupus~rufus[/spoiler] were essentially driven to extinction in their historic home range due to hybridization with Coyotes <span class="math">Canis latrans[/spoiler].

So, yeah, it's complicated sometimes between species; none the less as you progress through time.

>>1806520
>apply lizard on shoulder
>instant biology cred

Might I suggest a pygmy monitor lizard?
(look it up, I don't have a picture, nor do I feel like getting one)

1/6

..Just because it was painfully easy.

>>974254
SEE
>>973395
and everything related to it in that thread I accidentally derailed (opps).

(sage because OP's question appears to have been answered)