Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About NTettamanti

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Biology, debate, philosophy, popular science books, education, and my girlfriend.
  • College Major/Degree
    Biology at U Minnesota Twin Cities '15
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology - Genetics
  • Biography
    Aspiring geneticist
  • Occupation
    Educator at learning center
  1. Although you aren't guaranteed to have the same resources/professors as the graduate school, the rankings for physics graduate schools probably indicate your ability to take those types of classes (plus, it will give you better access to graduate school). However, Swansont is right that you will simply major in physics. However, graduate school rankings are easy to find, so I couldn't help myself. url="http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/astrophysics-rankings"]Astrophysics Rankings[/url] Cal-Tech, Stanford and UC Berkeley are amo
  2. I'd agree that science follows the scientific model. As such, my definition of science would encompass those "hard sciences" (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.) as well as the social sciences (economics, sociology, etc) because of the method and goal of both of those science fields. They both rely on the scientific method and they both want to broaden understanding of a subject. As for everyone who would argue that social sciences aren't actual sciences, there is no non-arbitrary way to determine that one thing is a science over another. I would argue that the bright line is the method and
  3. After digging a little deeper into journal records, I found this tidbit from the anthropology article "What Do We Know About Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon Man?" by Richard Klein: This seems to indicate that they probably have similar eye color and hair color to individuals that live in those areas; while its not conclusive proof it would be a good place to start. The article is pretty long, perhaps you can access it and then see if there is any enlightening information in it. (*cough* message me if you need access to a certain anthropology article...*cough*)
  4. I doubt that astronautics as a career would exhibit much growth (although, I couldn't find growth evidence over the years). The demand for engineers, and scientists may increase (or simply just be 'shifted' from one field to he astronautics field). A lot of astronauts that I've read about have research degrees in some science and then they become astronauts. They need to bring something unique to the field in order to be employed, I would imagine.
  5. Thanks for the awesome and detailed response Genecks, I'll keep all of you updated on where I end up. Any advice on which genetics/statistics books to get?
  6. I'd like to propose a thought experiment; albeit there may be some flaws to it. I think the way to determine this could be looking at it from an objective observer's point of view. If we view an individual who engages in heterosexual behavior, that behavior and subsequent emotions (sexual arousal, feelings of romantic love, etc.) can either be caused by genes or environmental influences. If we say that individuals are biologically drawn to heterosexuality then when we evaluate someone who shares the same behavior and subsequent emotions with another individual of the same sex we should fi
  7. Maybe this will help in finding out blood type? I know its unrelated to hair color (pardon the American-English spelling) and eye color.
  8. Evolution is not teleological. There exists no end goal for how we evolve; I do not exist to try to become the 'fittest'. Instead, if the way my genes intermix with the environment increases my survivability then I will potentially have a child that contains some of those same genes. Therefore, I would imagine that mutations are accidental. Imagine the complexity of the biochemical reaction that produces any organism; it's almost inevitable that there will be some random changes. Due to the fact that DNA is not sentient, however, I would imagine that these mutations are accidental. If eve
  9. This is a rather difficult question; trying to find a real world application for phototropism is difficult especially because the response to the external stimuli is not permanent. I was initially thinking that landscapers could use phototropism to organize plants a certain way; if plants grow more quickly to a certain color than a different color then perhaps there are different ways to place plants that will be more or less aesthetic. I don't know though; that application seems silly. A generic application into real life would be the increased knowledge of how plants react to the sunlig
  10. Thanks for the replies everyone; I think I'll contact the research coordinator at my university and figure out what I need to do next (I can't do my own research, the deadline for undergraduate research has already gone by). If you have anything else to say, then please do as it may be use to someone else who searches for similar advice.
  11. Hello everyone, I'm heading to college this upcoming fall and I desire to do research. However, I don't know how to go about getting a position. If any of you have done freshman research, I have a few questions: 1. Did you find a professor to research with before or after you started classes? Or were you offered an opportunity to research on your own? 2. Did you have prior lab work experience (I've taken AP/IB Biology and AP Chemistry, I'm just assuming that isn't considered experience)? If you did, how did you receive it? 3. Are there any books about lab work that I should r
  12. I assume we would as well... I guess it depends on the methodology of how they determined what genes were present in what area. The genes that all human share due sharing a common ancestor in our lineage are probably thrown out of the test results. I would assume, though I have no idea, that they simply take the genes that appear in high frequencies from different regions and compare them to other groups. If gene A exists in high frequencies in region 1 and 2 but not 3, then we can (probably not very accurately) assume that an individual who lives in region 2 probably originated from region 1
  13. Yup; we're making the same point... I was just illustrating it in a poor way I was saying that the 2% difference exists because we have drifted away from our common ancestor, and saying that the idea that you won't find chimp DNA in humans is relative; because it works both ways. To illustrate (perhaps in a better way), the x would represent DNA that was from the common ancestor, while H and C would be human and chimp DNA respectfully. You wouldn't ever find human DNA in chimps, and vice versa (because that is what makes us different!) [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxH] [xx
  14. The direct descendants may not have the same DNA as the groups who have migrated; however, I don't believe that just because there are changes in the DNA sequences that it necessarily means that those newly evolved frequencies are any better or worse than the original. Also, this would simply show that there would be genetic variation from one group to another (that can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured). We could expect that the new Also, if chimps and humans have 98% DNA then you wouldn't find Chimp DNA in humans. What you would find is the DNA from our common ancestor; the 2
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.