CSSC: Chicken Smoothie Science Club

[Seraphwolf]

Hi and welcome, Reuben and Harpalyce! (I can't keep up with these threads today! I've been writing this post for an hour but keep tabbing out to fix things!)

I've added everyone to the OP - I'll change the names when I see people have changed theirs as I go, but there's links to people's profiles in the meantime. Mirandaciel, I'm digging the stamp :) I don't have the Valentine's set though so unfortunately cannae offer my services.

Tom (teehee took me a while to realise who you were): That's a pretty cool article - " The most striking instance was a version of a gene possessed by 9 percent of Han but 87 percent of Tibetans", that's a really interesting indicator that evolution is still happening and it's happening in humans. Not that I doubted it but it's lovely to see it confirmed, especially as there's often debates that medicine is preventing evolution by natural selection from taking place.

June: I hope your birthday went well :) For anyone that wants it, I have a certain Darwin book as a pdf (without pics and obtained illegally though << >> <<) that I can put up for you to accidently click on and download. By accident. :: ahem ::.

Harpalyce: Oooh did Watson say that black people have terrible IQs? He's such a moron. Even if he didn't mean it in a racist way (people who live in third world countries aren't on average going to do as well on IQ tests because they haven't grown up with the westernised school testing system that trains people to be good at IQ tests) he was an idiot. If you're up for outreach and teaching the noobies science then please undo this terrible faux pas. Also I did not know Barbara McClinton did that :).

This is an interesting point actually, now you've brought up female scientists: what do people think of the perceived male bias in some sciences? Are women restricted or is it a choice do you think?

(Other people can pose questions by the way at the same time or whenever, by the way :3)

[Atwood]

I was just thinking a few days ago that someone should make a thread just like this. XD I'll join up, definitely!

Hi, I'm Atwood, and I hold a B.Sc in Biological Sciences with a focus on genetics, microbiology and animal psychology, as well as having a smattering of archaeology (Egyptology, specifically, because I always wanted to be Indiana Jones) and social psychology knowledge. My greatest interests in science are population gene flow and adaptation, in both humans and animals, and also symbiogenesis and co-evolution. My weak points are anything to do with physics, physical chemistry or mathematics in general.

My favourite scientific discovery... probably evolution, but on the smaller scale I'd say it was the discovery that mitochondria were probably free-living prokaryotes at one time that got absorbed by our ancestors. On an even smaller scale, the discovery of jumping genes is definitely one of my favourites (and yay, someone else mentioned Barbara McClintock! ), as is the discovery of viroids, parasitic free-living RNAs that hijack the transcription enzymes of plants to reproduce. One hypothesis is that viroids are 'living fossils' whose origins date back to the RNA-dominated world before proteins really came on the scene, an extant intermediate between living and non-living molecules. These tiny little things (the biggest ones are only about 400 nucleotides long) cause an awful lot of damage to crops and are very difficult to eradicate, which just goes to show that simple can be extremely effective. XD It's possible that the human Hepatitis D virus is actually a viroid that merged with a protein-coding sequence, too, so we're not necessarily safe from them. O.o

For my favourite scientist, although Darwin is definitely up there, I'd say it's Barbara McClintock. She had such a huge influence on the study of genetics, like basically discovering gene regulation and how recombination worked, and she was way before her time (which was one reason why she stopped publishing for a while - the other geneticists of the time just weren't ready for her awesomeness yet).

[Harpalyce]

Indeed he did - http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10 ... index.html , http://www.thechemblog.com/?p=681

I wish I could find a link to the documentary I saw about James Watson as well. He believes in eugenics really strongly, even when it comes to the possibility of things like depression. I believe the opposite (genetics =/= fated and doomed, after all). The documentary we watched had an absolutely heartbreaking interview with his son, who has schizophrenia. The poor guy is fully aware of how his father travels the globe freely admitting that if he'd had the chance, he would have made sure his son would never have been born. What a heart-warming sentiment, huh? "Love you son, but you're better off dead and I wish you'd never been born because you're a genetic failure!" It may be this english student mushiness coming in, but the snippet of documentary was just tragic. You can tell from a glance that Watson's son as given up on himself in some fundamental way because of how happy his father is to go around spouting such nonsense. 'This Be The Verse' by Larkin to a T. (Great poem, by the way. You'll have to Google it on your own, I don't want to draw the ire of any mods.)

As for the feminist idea of the sciences, I believe it really is a huge problem. There are some interesting cases of MTF or FTM transgender scientists who have been able to directly compare 'both sides of the fence' - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 174545.htm

[Cobrastyle]

In my Cultural Anthropology Textbook (here I go again, bringing up anthro...except cultural anthropology isn't really evolutionary biology, that's more physical/biological anthropology....anyways) there was a very interesting article on the benefits of being a female in some scenarios of field work (this one being observing the rituals of major athletes and policeman). I'm not sure it's online but I can give you a link to the book it's in.

http://www.amazon.com/Faces-Anthropolog ... 0131540548

And it we're talking about excellent textbooks, this one has been my physical anthropology bible for the last year. These are all left over from my Dad's college anthropology course, so they are on the expensive side.

Yes, username change, but to keep my femininity you can call me Servo. xD

Totally different subject, but what do you guys think of time travel? I recently watched a documentary on it, and it was, to say the least, mind boggling.

[Atwood]

Indeed he did - http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10 ... index.html , http://www.thechemblog.com/?p=681

I remember that - I was in one of my genetics courses at the time, and the prof brought that up as 'the latest stupid thing that Watson has said'. XD Watson got forced out of Cold Spring Harbour Lab for that one. Apparently he's always been thoroughly obnoxious and the classic white male chauvinist, and he's pretty much a joke by this point. It's probably easiest to let him speak for himself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._W ... troversies

For the female vs. male bias, I can't say I've really seen much difference in my own experience - about half of my science profs were female, there was no noticeable difference in the numbers of men and women working in the labs as full-time researchers, and the research assistants were heavily swayed towards women (at an estimate, I'd put the ratio at about 3/4 women). In the higher levels, there were fewer women taking the classes, but the lower levels started out with more women than men, so the effect was more balancing than not. It would be interesting to see if there are differences by country - is the US different from Britain or Canada in that regard? My impression is that the States is more male-dominated, but I don't have any info to back that up.

[smileyranger]

Hi! Here's my application for the CCSC!

Hi! My username is...well...smileyranger...But you saw that already....didn't you...
Anyway, I am interested in all areas of science just like seraphwolf. I may not be extremely knowledgeable in all fields, but when I see an interesting post, I take that opportunity to research that post, thus expanding what I know regarding science
I am a Christian who is set firm in his beliefs, but i'm not the type that will go "lalala I can't hear you" if you believe in something else. I will listen to what you have to say and use it as more useful information so that I can then contrast different theories and beliefs.
I think I have said enough now.
See ya on the science club!

[Toxi+Bbun]

Welcome new members!
~~~
@Seraphwolf-Thank you!
~~~
OK, I have a question:
When I play my D String (or another "ringing" tone) on my violin, my friend's violin also "rings" even if she hasn't touched it. Why is this?

[Autochthon Scion]

Hi guys

First of all, don't let my post count fool you, I have been a lurker here by proxy for a while now

I thought I'd come and help spread the love of Physics

I too am at university, and hoping to be studying a PhD in Particle Physics come October, although ::touch wood:: as I don't want to tempt any of the Norns who might be watching me

My knowledge of science is limited mainly to Physics, and my interests tend not to stray far from that path, however, I do find these evolutionary debates interesting, but I have a very small interest in Biology as a whole I'm afraid...I didn't even take it for GCSE...

Anyways, I would give a +1 to Feynman purely due to the fact the his intelligence never stopped him from being very down to Earth and his ability to convey ideas is just phenomenal.
I also admire the fact that Peter Higgs is likely to get a Nobel Prize (if things work as we think they do) because of a few extra lines he put into his paper on spontaneous symmetry breaking after the first paper he wrote was rejected, which can be seen here and here for anyone who might be interested

Anyway, I will endeavour keep (relatively) up to date with this thread, and look forward to lots of physics discussions

Auto

[Toxi+Bbun]

Welcome!

[Seraphwolf]

Hi Auto, can I have a cup of tea? (Not really, it's too late)

OK, I have a question:
When I play my D String (or another "ringing" tone) on my violin, my friend's violin also "rings" even if she hasn't touched it. Why is this?

Oh I know this one! :: Feels useful ::. It's called "resonance". When something like a tight string, or a weight on a spring, or a pendulum is moved, it's going to oscillate/vibrate backwards and forwards around it's rest position. If left alone, it'll do this at it's 'natural frequency'. So pendulums on a clock are made so their natural frequency is one second, and when you tighten the strings on your violin you're changing the 'natural' frequency of the string until it's the note you want. So continuing with the example of your violin when you play the note, the string oscillates backwards and forwards in the air which makes sound waves by pushing the air around it. These sounds waves not only travel to your ears but to everything else in the room, pushing against that, too.

When the sound waves reach your friends D string, they push on that too. Your friend's string's natural frequency is also D, and so the little pushes (the force of the waves) push to get the string moving, and push in time with the string's vibration/oscillation making the vibration bigger. A bigger vibration is called a bigger amplitude of the wave, and means a bigger sound.

(excuse my terrible drawing of a violin <<;)


This is like when you go on a swing and you rock your weight backwards and forwards to get higher and higher. You'll notice that you don't rock forwards at a faster rate but at in the same rhythm, at the swing's natural frequency. It's exactly like that. In fact there's examples throughout physics of this 'simple harmonic motion' and it's a fundamental principle of pretty much everything, from pendulums to atoms. It's also similar to how radios work - by tuning in to a radio station you change the 'natural frequency' of the electronic circuit in the radio. This means that only the radio waves that have the same frequency as you've selected are amplified from the radio. The rest are received, but don't match the natural frequency and so aren't amplified.

If your friend frets E for example you'll be retuning her D string and it should vibrate when you play E but not with D. :)

Edit: also you hear the 'harmonics' because they have a frequency twice that of the natural frequency and other multiples thereof. This means that the pushes/forces come twice as fast but they're still in rhythm with the natural frequency. So they still resonate, but not as loudly. Going up by an octave is twice the frequency, for example.