par•si•mo•ny (noun)
using the simplest or most frugal route of explanation possible.
Origin: Latin (parsimonia = to spare)
~~~~~~~~~~
In biology, more specifically, evolutionary biology, there exists a concept called the Principle of Parsimony, which states that when attempting to map phylogenetic trees, the tree that maps its taxa using the LEAST number of changes is the most evolutionarily correct tree. This is logical, seeing as more closely related taxa share the most characteristics, and thus have changed the least. I quite enjoy saying that things are "parsimonious" or not (e.g. The third tree in this diagram is more parsimonious than the other two trees).
~~~~~~~~~~
I remember reading the Odyssey in Moorhead's Eng8 class for our third term literature study, but I was unaware that it contained ekphrasis, and it's been so long now that I don't recall any specific instances of its use. The only candidate I can think of would be Homer's description of the veil that Odysseus' wife weaves, but even then, I am unsure of whether ekphrasis is used or not. I like how you likened ekphrasis to circus funhouse mirrors, and I think the point you raised about vantage points is really good; viewing the world/life/events/literature from as many vantage points is an important exercise that helps people understand other people better, I think.
Ah, you're lucky you don't have any lab exams. Although, two giant term papers and the Hkin project sound more stress-inducing than lab exams! I'm sure you'll do fine; you always do =)
AHHHHH!!! ONLY ONE WEEK OF CLASSES LEFT! AND THEN EXAMS! It's a rather odd feeling, because I'm so relived to be done the term, and so happy that the end is within reach, along with a much needed break in the winter weather (winter = favourite season of all time). However, it also signals the impending doom that is Final Exams, which are a major cause of stress. Let's hope our marks can survive them, yes?
On the subject of whether or not to postpone the blog, I feel that if you miss a post, don't freak out about it and don't worry about it. I'm going to try to post at least once a week still. Nothing big, like the discussion posts we've been recently been making; more short update posts, like this one.
Anyways, seeing as I'm talking to you on Skype right now, continuing this seems slightly less effective.
Good luck with your term papers, projects, and final exams!
Chat soon,
~Tim~
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Ekphrasis
ek•phra•sis
A graphic, often dramatic description of a visual work of art
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ekphrasis is a term often used in Classical texts when a work of art in the narrative is described in such a way that it comes alive in the mind of the reader.
In both Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid, the shields of the main protagonists are described in such great detail that the descriptions almost become stories within the larger poetic stories. What I like about the differences between these two shields is how they reflect the attitudes of the characters who hold them and the opinions of the authors who wrote about them.
Achilles' shield depicts harsh images of war, death and destruction. I won't post the actual section from the poem describing it because it's really long and I don't want to have to type it all out. So here's a picture instead:
You can't tell, but it's really itchy, I mean depressing.
His shield reflects the present, that is, the war of Troy that Achille's had begrudgedly joined. His war-slave, Chyseis, was taken from him by Agamemnon, for which he left the war and he only rejoined because his best friend, Patroklos, was killed by Hektor. The only reason Achilles' fights in revenge, so his view on war is grim and bleak, which his shield reflects perfectly.
Meanwhilst, Aeneas' shield contains a plethora of images about the glory of Rome.
Still hard to tell, but all the pictures have Romans cheering and being all victorious and stuff.
The Aeneid tells the story of Aeneas and his crew, the only Trojan survivors of the Trojan War. Aeneas is destined to be the founder of the Roman Empire, so when his is given his shield, it bears images of the future of Rome, depicting all of its major battles and accomplishments.
The big difference between the two is the focus of time. While Achilles' is preoccupied with the grim present, Aeneas looks to the bright future. While part of the reason for this is because Achilles knows he's going to die soon and Aeneas knows that he will survive and be victorious, I think the real reason these two warriors have such differing opinions is the circumstance of culture they find themselves in.
The Aeneid was commissioned to Virgil by Caesar to glorify Rome and justify its history as grounded in the mythologies that the Romans adapted from the Greeks. While the purpose of The Aeneid is essentially propaganda, there is still a lot of deep moral issues explored (although most are never actually resolved).
Meanwhile, Homer composed The Iliad to retell a story that all Greeks would have been very familiar with. Just like all oral poets of his time, Homer had to make the story his own to grab people's attention. His emphasis was not simply a chronology of the war, but a snapshot of a singular instance which reflected a much more human perspective of a war fought over very futile purposes. The poem isn't completely depressing or pessimistic, but rather it contains a wide spectrum of human emotion, from laughing to crying, from valiant
aristeias to passionate speeches about war and suffering.
A graphic, often dramatic description of a visual work of art
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ekphrasis is a term often used in Classical texts when a work of art in the narrative is described in such a way that it comes alive in the mind of the reader.
In both Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid, the shields of the main protagonists are described in such great detail that the descriptions almost become stories within the larger poetic stories. What I like about the differences between these two shields is how they reflect the attitudes of the characters who hold them and the opinions of the authors who wrote about them.
Achilles' shield depicts harsh images of war, death and destruction. I won't post the actual section from the poem describing it because it's really long and I don't want to have to type it all out. So here's a picture instead:
You can't tell, but it's really itchy, I mean depressing.
His shield reflects the present, that is, the war of Troy that Achille's had begrudgedly joined. His war-slave, Chyseis, was taken from him by Agamemnon, for which he left the war and he only rejoined because his best friend, Patroklos, was killed by Hektor. The only reason Achilles' fights in revenge, so his view on war is grim and bleak, which his shield reflects perfectly.
Meanwhilst, Aeneas' shield contains a plethora of images about the glory of Rome.
Still hard to tell, but all the pictures have Romans cheering and being all victorious and stuff.
The Aeneid tells the story of Aeneas and his crew, the only Trojan survivors of the Trojan War. Aeneas is destined to be the founder of the Roman Empire, so when his is given his shield, it bears images of the future of Rome, depicting all of its major battles and accomplishments.
The big difference between the two is the focus of time. While Achilles' is preoccupied with the grim present, Aeneas looks to the bright future. While part of the reason for this is because Achilles knows he's going to die soon and Aeneas knows that he will survive and be victorious, I think the real reason these two warriors have such differing opinions is the circumstance of culture they find themselves in.
The Aeneid was commissioned to Virgil by Caesar to glorify Rome and justify its history as grounded in the mythologies that the Romans adapted from the Greeks. While the purpose of The Aeneid is essentially propaganda, there is still a lot of deep moral issues explored (although most are never actually resolved).
Meanwhile, Homer composed The Iliad to retell a story that all Greeks would have been very familiar with. Just like all oral poets of his time, Homer had to make the story his own to grab people's attention. His emphasis was not simply a chronology of the war, but a snapshot of a singular instance which reflected a much more human perspective of a war fought over very futile purposes. The poem isn't completely depressing or pessimistic, but rather it contains a wide spectrum of human emotion, from laughing to crying, from valiant
aristeias to passionate speeches about war and suffering.
In a sense, ekphrasis is yet another funhouse mirror within the larger funhouse mirror that is literature and art. Obviously art can never be a mirror and perfectly reflect life and we the people who inhabit it, but in its distortion, it reveals more about us than a simple identical image ever could. Ekphrasis is another layer of this distortion, one that helps us to see the larger picture, not necessarily more clearly, but from a better vantage point.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Binomial Nomenclature and Taxonomy
bi•no•mi•al no•men•cla•ture (noun)
in biology, refers to the scientific systematic method of naming organisms
Origin: Latin (bi = two; nomial = having to do with names; nomenclature = method of naming)
tax•on•omy
the study of biological groupings. Also referred to as Phylogenetics (the genetics of phyla)
Origin: Greek (taxus = order/arrangement, nomos = law/science)
~~~~~~~~~~
Binomial Nomenclature is the systematic method used today for naming different organisms. It involves the grouping of individual animals, populations, and species into different groups. The study of biological groups is called Taxonomy, from the roots "taxa," which is the word used for any biological group, and "onomy" meaning "the study of." Because Taxonomy and Binomial Nomenclature deal with biological groupings, they are inherently tied to evolution and genetics: taxonomists attempt to divide organisms into taxa where the members of each taxa are more closely related to each other/their DNA match better than any others.
In taxonomy, there is a hierarchy of groupings. Currently, there is much debate over the larger grouping and finer details between species, but generally, seven levels of taxa are currently accepted (from highest/most general to lowest/most specific):
Kingdom [e.g. Kingdom Animalia (animals), Kingdom Viridiplantae (true plants), Kingdom Protista (protists), etc.]
Phylum (pl. Phyla) [e.g. Phylum Anthropoda (anthropods, like lobsters, grasshoppers, spiders, etc.), Phylum Mollusca (mollusks), Phylum Poriphera (sponges), Phylum Cnidaria (polyp/medusa aqualic creatures, like jellyfish and coral), etc]
Class [e.g. Class Bivalvia (bivalves, like oysters and clams), Class Gastropoda (slugs and snails), Class Aracnida (spiders and scorpions), Class Condrichthyes (sharks and other cartilaginous fish), Class Aves (birds), etc.]
Order [e.g. Order Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Order Nudibranchia (sea slugs - SOOO CUTE!), OrderMyxiniformes (hagfish), Order Rosales (roses and rose-like fruit bearing trees, like peaches and cherries), etc]
Family [e.g. Family Delphinidae (marine dolphins), Family Felidae (cats),Family Ramphastidae (Toucans), etc]
Genus [e.g. Genus Capra (goats), Genus Lamiaceae (mint), Genus Equus (horses), etc]
Species (self explanatory, also, never listed alone for reasons discussed below)
Even though these seven levels of taxa are commonly used, other groupings are also often used, such as Subphyla, Subclass, Superorder, etc. Also, higher classifications are sometimes used, but can are a controversial topic (to be discussed below); these include the groupings Domain, which goes above Kingdom (i.e. a Domain is made up of Kingdoms, just like how a Kingdom is made up of Phyla, a Phylum is made up of Classes, a Class is made up of Orders, etc).
Binomial Nomenclature was invented by Carl Linné. He was a Swedish scientist who was immensely interested in grouping things, and when he first created the system of binomial nomenclature, genetics been discovered, so he grouped animals and plants by shared characteristics. For example, he put birds together because they all had feathery wings and beaks. He was unaware that his classifications hinted at evolutionary lineages (his work was done before Darwin's work). Carl Linneaus loved latin, and so he assigned latin names to all of the species he classified; he was so obsessed that he changed his name to its latinized version: Carolus Linneaus.
Binomial Nomenclature uses an organism's Genus and Species classifications in identification; the whole name is italicized, and only the genus is capitalized. For example, if I wanted to talk about the Monarch Butterfly in a scientific context, to be specific so that other scientists know exactly what organism I'm talking about, I would refer to it as Danus plexippus. When using binomial nomenclature in writing, once a specific species has been identified, to save space and time, the entire thing can be shorted by using a capital initial for the genus. So, because I've already specified the exact species of butterfly I'm talking about here in a previous sen, I can now refer to the Monarch Butterfly as D. plexippus.
The study of taxonomy is a fascinating field, and is one where heated debates often occur. The most common areas of debate occur at the highest levels of classification, and the lowest levels of classification.
The high levels of classification are a controversial topic because they seek to divide very large groups of organisms, and evolutionarily, the changes that occurred to separate these groups happen so incredibly long ago that the order in which these changes occurs is almost indiscernible. The main topics of debate at the moment is between the Kingdoms. Some taxonomists wish there to be only two kingdoms (Plantae and Animalia), some four (Monera, Protista, Plantae, and Animalia), and some five (Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, and Viridiplantae). The problem is not the large organisms, but the tiny, colonial and unicellular organisms. These organisms comprise of over 80% of the earth's biodiversity and biomass, and because they are so diverse and evolve so quickly, it is difficult to place these organisms into the classic Kingdom scheme of things; some that act like bacteria have plant-like properties, and some that should be plants exhibit animal-like traits.
The other area of heated debate is distinguishing species. To be able to group organisms into a species, one must first define what a species is, and how to determine whether something belongs in a species or another. The conventional definition is this: Organisms are part of the same species if they exhibit similar characteristics and are able to mate and reproduce. Sure, this sounds fine and dandy, but there are many bizarre examples that are quite difficult to divide.
For example, it has been discovered that in the arctic circle, five populations of birds that look very similar exist. Biologists attempted to classify these birds into species, but ran into a small problem. The populations were arranged in a circle around, and for the sake of this discussion, we'll call them A, B, C, D, and E. Population A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, C can reproduce with D, and D can reproduce with E. Now, because they're arranged around the arctic circle, that means that population A is also beside population E. Now get this. Population E CANNOT reproduce with population A. So the question is: Where does one species start and one end? The individuals in population A are certainly different from those in E, but is sufficiently similar to B that they can reproduce.
Taxonomy is an interesting study, because it pushes the bounds of the human obsession with classifying things into nice, neat groups. Organisms and populations like the example above pose problems to our need to systematically divide everything. I argue that perhaps, some of these problems have no answers. We can try to change our definitions, but the truth is, there will always be things that we are unable to classify, unable to understand; things that do not have a nice, neat answer, and we must just perform the act of capitulation.
~~~~~~~~~~
I enjoyed reading your discussion on the thought of the Heavenly Realm, and I must say I don't have much to add to it; I remember having lengthy conversations with Moorhead over Christian and Semantic thought, and this was one of the topics that came up. I agree with you and him that Heaven is not a place above Earth where we "rise" to; rather, it is a New Earth that the Lord will bring, a rebirth, if you will. The picture of food made me hungry. Also, if you didn't know, it was a photo of grilled eggplant slices with fresh tomato and herb garnish. Just thought you should know it made my mouth water.
Also, I was intrigued by your notion that the Kingdom of God can be viewed as a system of ruling, and I had never thought of it that way before, but it totally makes sense!
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for not posting during the week last week; I was finishing up midterms (I had two) as well as assignments, so I've been pretty busy. This week and next week I have Lab Finals, and other shenanigans, so I'll also be pretty busy. I forgot how long it takes to write one of these! Granted, I wrote ALOT, so maybe I'll do a few short posts over the next few weeks that are less education oriented and more blog/life oriented.
I just got my OChem midterm back today that I wrote on thursday; the average was 45%. Not to brag, but I got 93%. Needless to say, I almost died from happiness. Organic Chemistry is quite fun (sometimes, when I'm not dying of stress =P) Also, one of my friends calls it "Org" instead of "O-Chem," and every time she says that, I have to pause for a moment and think "OH, she means 'Organic Chemistry', NOT 'Orgasm'."
Things have been pretty hectic; also, the temp plummeted on Friday and we got snow (as my panicked and hysterical texts have indicated... Again apologies for worrying you). My pashmina scarf is no longer sufficient for warding off the frigidity (I LOVE THAT WORD! FRIGIDITYFRIGIDITYFRIGIDITY!!!!); I broke out my wooly full on winter scarf today. SO LOOKING FORWARDS TO SCANDINAVIAN IGLOO CITY 2010! GOING TO BE SO REDIC!
On a separate note, I've finally finished breeding Feebas! This weekend I was successful in breeding a Feebas with sufficiently high IV's who also has the correct nature, so I EV trained him and prepped him for evolution, and now I can move on to breeding Roselia! I realize that this entire paragraph totally doesn't make sense, but all you need to know is that I'm working on raising/engineering (because honestly, high-level play totally requires you to engineer the best pokemon) my new team for pokemon because I'm finally getting a 4th Gen game this Christmas! I'm working on making it the most BA team that I can =)
Aw Clay, your flattery is very... well... flattering. Thank you for never letting me forget that I'm capable of doing good things. It's so easy to forget sometimes.
Lol Clay your strange TWU-learned descriptive phrases make me lol. So redic. LOL BURNT POPCORN? Oh Caly, your antics make me lol in a good way. Clay you need to learn how to cook properly. Men who cook are just that much more attractive, just saying. I mean, imagine how awesome it would be to make Belgian Waffles! (speaking of which... OMG BELGIAN WAFFLES!)
I should probably be studying my vocab and text for my essay in French on Huis Clos tomorrow, but I just can't be bothered (which reminds me: I will be posting about Huis Clos and Sartrien Existentialism some time in the future). It's French. Frankly, at this point, I've given up. Yes, I've learned some new things and I've managed to bring back some semblance of being able to understand French, but I'm not getting as much out of this course as I hoped to. I don't get to practice my writing and speaking enough, and although it's fun, I don't have the time or motivation to practice it in my spare time. It's good, but not the same without Mme Tsui, so I'm dropping the French course I signed up for next term and I'm taking another arts course. Is this influenced by the fact that my French mark is lowering my average? Yes, a bit. I need my average to be as high as possible in order to even have a chance at getting into Honours Physiology, so that's playing a big role, but I'm also not as happy as I'd like to be in the class, and it's not as good as I'd hoped, so there's also good reason on that end too. I hope to return to French when I have the time, patience, and less need for a high GPA. After that, it's on to Mandarin! That will be quite the adventure... haha XD
Anyways, wishing you all the very best for the last few weeks of school, and the impending finals.
Chat soon!
~Tim~
PS - Sorry for not including a picture for the whole arctiv birds thing; I tried to upload one but blogger is being a ridiculous idiot.
in biology, refers to the scientific systematic method of naming organisms
Origin: Latin (bi = two; nomial = having to do with names; nomenclature = method of naming)
tax•on•omy
the study of biological groupings. Also referred to as Phylogenetics (the genetics of phyla)
Origin: Greek (taxus = order/arrangement, nomos = law/science)
~~~~~~~~~~
Binomial Nomenclature is the systematic method used today for naming different organisms. It involves the grouping of individual animals, populations, and species into different groups. The study of biological groups is called Taxonomy, from the roots "taxa," which is the word used for any biological group, and "onomy" meaning "the study of." Because Taxonomy and Binomial Nomenclature deal with biological groupings, they are inherently tied to evolution and genetics: taxonomists attempt to divide organisms into taxa where the members of each taxa are more closely related to each other/their DNA match better than any others.
In taxonomy, there is a hierarchy of groupings. Currently, there is much debate over the larger grouping and finer details between species, but generally, seven levels of taxa are currently accepted (from highest/most general to lowest/most specific):
Kingdom [e.g. Kingdom Animalia (animals), Kingdom Viridiplantae (true plants), Kingdom Protista (protists), etc.]
Phylum (pl. Phyla) [e.g. Phylum Anthropoda (anthropods, like lobsters, grasshoppers, spiders, etc.), Phylum Mollusca (mollusks), Phylum Poriphera (sponges), Phylum Cnidaria (polyp/medusa aqualic creatures, like jellyfish and coral), etc]
Class [e.g. Class Bivalvia (bivalves, like oysters and clams), Class Gastropoda (slugs and snails), Class Aracnida (spiders and scorpions), Class Condrichthyes (sharks and other cartilaginous fish), Class Aves (birds), etc.]
Order [e.g. Order Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Order Nudibranchia (sea slugs - SOOO CUTE!), OrderMyxiniformes (hagfish), Order Rosales (roses and rose-like fruit bearing trees, like peaches and cherries), etc]
Family [e.g. Family Delphinidae (marine dolphins), Family Felidae (cats),Family Ramphastidae (Toucans), etc]
Genus [e.g. Genus Capra (goats), Genus Lamiaceae (mint), Genus Equus (horses), etc]
Species (self explanatory, also, never listed alone for reasons discussed below)
 |
| NUDIBRANCHS! SO CUTE! |
Even though these seven levels of taxa are commonly used, other groupings are also often used, such as Subphyla, Subclass, Superorder, etc. Also, higher classifications are sometimes used, but can are a controversial topic (to be discussed below); these include the groupings Domain, which goes above Kingdom (i.e. a Domain is made up of Kingdoms, just like how a Kingdom is made up of Phyla, a Phylum is made up of Classes, a Class is made up of Orders, etc).
Binomial Nomenclature was invented by Carl Linné. He was a Swedish scientist who was immensely interested in grouping things, and when he first created the system of binomial nomenclature, genetics been discovered, so he grouped animals and plants by shared characteristics. For example, he put birds together because they all had feathery wings and beaks. He was unaware that his classifications hinted at evolutionary lineages (his work was done before Darwin's work). Carl Linneaus loved latin, and so he assigned latin names to all of the species he classified; he was so obsessed that he changed his name to its latinized version: Carolus Linneaus.
 |
| SO SWEDISH! SO LATIN-Y! |
Binomial Nomenclature uses an organism's Genus and Species classifications in identification; the whole name is italicized, and only the genus is capitalized. For example, if I wanted to talk about the Monarch Butterfly in a scientific context, to be specific so that other scientists know exactly what organism I'm talking about, I would refer to it as Danus plexippus. When using binomial nomenclature in writing, once a specific species has been identified, to save space and time, the entire thing can be shorted by using a capital initial for the genus. So, because I've already specified the exact species of butterfly I'm talking about here in a previous sen, I can now refer to the Monarch Butterfly as D. plexippus.
The study of taxonomy is a fascinating field, and is one where heated debates often occur. The most common areas of debate occur at the highest levels of classification, and the lowest levels of classification.
The high levels of classification are a controversial topic because they seek to divide very large groups of organisms, and evolutionarily, the changes that occurred to separate these groups happen so incredibly long ago that the order in which these changes occurs is almost indiscernible. The main topics of debate at the moment is between the Kingdoms. Some taxonomists wish there to be only two kingdoms (Plantae and Animalia), some four (Monera, Protista, Plantae, and Animalia), and some five (Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, and Viridiplantae). The problem is not the large organisms, but the tiny, colonial and unicellular organisms. These organisms comprise of over 80% of the earth's biodiversity and biomass, and because they are so diverse and evolve so quickly, it is difficult to place these organisms into the classic Kingdom scheme of things; some that act like bacteria have plant-like properties, and some that should be plants exhibit animal-like traits.
The other area of heated debate is distinguishing species. To be able to group organisms into a species, one must first define what a species is, and how to determine whether something belongs in a species or another. The conventional definition is this: Organisms are part of the same species if they exhibit similar characteristics and are able to mate and reproduce. Sure, this sounds fine and dandy, but there are many bizarre examples that are quite difficult to divide.
For example, it has been discovered that in the arctic circle, five populations of birds that look very similar exist. Biologists attempted to classify these birds into species, but ran into a small problem. The populations were arranged in a circle around, and for the sake of this discussion, we'll call them A, B, C, D, and E. Population A can reproduce with B, B can reproduce with C, C can reproduce with D, and D can reproduce with E. Now, because they're arranged around the arctic circle, that means that population A is also beside population E. Now get this. Population E CANNOT reproduce with population A. So the question is: Where does one species start and one end? The individuals in population A are certainly different from those in E, but is sufficiently similar to B that they can reproduce.
Taxonomy is an interesting study, because it pushes the bounds of the human obsession with classifying things into nice, neat groups. Organisms and populations like the example above pose problems to our need to systematically divide everything. I argue that perhaps, some of these problems have no answers. We can try to change our definitions, but the truth is, there will always be things that we are unable to classify, unable to understand; things that do not have a nice, neat answer, and we must just perform the act of capitulation.
~~~~~~~~~~
I enjoyed reading your discussion on the thought of the Heavenly Realm, and I must say I don't have much to add to it; I remember having lengthy conversations with Moorhead over Christian and Semantic thought, and this was one of the topics that came up. I agree with you and him that Heaven is not a place above Earth where we "rise" to; rather, it is a New Earth that the Lord will bring, a rebirth, if you will. The picture of food made me hungry. Also, if you didn't know, it was a photo of grilled eggplant slices with fresh tomato and herb garnish. Just thought you should know it made my mouth water.
Also, I was intrigued by your notion that the Kingdom of God can be viewed as a system of ruling, and I had never thought of it that way before, but it totally makes sense!
~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry for not posting during the week last week; I was finishing up midterms (I had two) as well as assignments, so I've been pretty busy. This week and next week I have Lab Finals, and other shenanigans, so I'll also be pretty busy. I forgot how long it takes to write one of these! Granted, I wrote ALOT, so maybe I'll do a few short posts over the next few weeks that are less education oriented and more blog/life oriented.
I just got my OChem midterm back today that I wrote on thursday; the average was 45%. Not to brag, but I got 93%. Needless to say, I almost died from happiness. Organic Chemistry is quite fun (sometimes, when I'm not dying of stress =P) Also, one of my friends calls it "Org" instead of "O-Chem," and every time she says that, I have to pause for a moment and think "OH, she means 'Organic Chemistry', NOT 'Orgasm'."
Things have been pretty hectic; also, the temp plummeted on Friday and we got snow (as my panicked and hysterical texts have indicated... Again apologies for worrying you). My pashmina scarf is no longer sufficient for warding off the frigidity (I LOVE THAT WORD! FRIGIDITYFRIGIDITYFRIGIDITY!!!!); I broke out my wooly full on winter scarf today. SO LOOKING FORWARDS TO SCANDINAVIAN IGLOO CITY 2010! GOING TO BE SO REDIC!
On a separate note, I've finally finished breeding Feebas! This weekend I was successful in breeding a Feebas with sufficiently high IV's who also has the correct nature, so I EV trained him and prepped him for evolution, and now I can move on to breeding Roselia! I realize that this entire paragraph totally doesn't make sense, but all you need to know is that I'm working on raising/engineering (because honestly, high-level play totally requires you to engineer the best pokemon) my new team for pokemon because I'm finally getting a 4th Gen game this Christmas! I'm working on making it the most BA team that I can =)
Aw Clay, your flattery is very... well... flattering. Thank you for never letting me forget that I'm capable of doing good things. It's so easy to forget sometimes.
Lol Clay your strange TWU-learned descriptive phrases make me lol. So redic. LOL BURNT POPCORN? Oh Caly, your antics make me lol in a good way. Clay you need to learn how to cook properly. Men who cook are just that much more attractive, just saying. I mean, imagine how awesome it would be to make Belgian Waffles! (speaking of which... OMG BELGIAN WAFFLES!)
I should probably be studying my vocab and text for my essay in French on Huis Clos tomorrow, but I just can't be bothered (which reminds me: I will be posting about Huis Clos and Sartrien Existentialism some time in the future). It's French. Frankly, at this point, I've given up. Yes, I've learned some new things and I've managed to bring back some semblance of being able to understand French, but I'm not getting as much out of this course as I hoped to. I don't get to practice my writing and speaking enough, and although it's fun, I don't have the time or motivation to practice it in my spare time. It's good, but not the same without Mme Tsui, so I'm dropping the French course I signed up for next term and I'm taking another arts course. Is this influenced by the fact that my French mark is lowering my average? Yes, a bit. I need my average to be as high as possible in order to even have a chance at getting into Honours Physiology, so that's playing a big role, but I'm also not as happy as I'd like to be in the class, and it's not as good as I'd hoped, so there's also good reason on that end too. I hope to return to French when I have the time, patience, and less need for a high GPA. After that, it's on to Mandarin! That will be quite the adventure... haha XD
Anyways, wishing you all the very best for the last few weeks of school, and the impending finals.
Chat soon!
~Tim~
PS - Sorry for not including a picture for the whole arctiv birds thing; I tried to upload one but blogger is being a ridiculous idiot.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Capitulation
ca•pit•u•la•tion (noun)
the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I chose this word because of its eery similarity to "recapitulation", a word which here means restating something for the purposes of summation.
It's also a biology term implying the repetition of an evolutionary process during growth (Yay, I can do biology stuff too!).
So what is the significance? I have no idea. It just thought it was funny.
I could say that all your talk about soaponification will make me either ask you to recapitulate what your talking about, or I will have to capitulate trying to follow you, but I still enjoy following what I can and I will try harder next time!
Anyway, I said I was going to talk about Heaven eventually, so here it is.
Oh yes. If ever there was a subject that will provoke discussion between us, this is it!
(On a side note, I just want to remark that I like how bringing up religion makes the both of us want to talk more to each other, whereas usually it's the exact opposite with pretty much everybody else. Yay!)
I just want to clarify first off that this post is a combination of both what I believe and what I have learned while studying here at TWU. Not that the two are separate, but I want to ensure that I give credit where credit is due and say that a lot of this I didn't think of myself or willingly accept as soon as I learned it. Theses ideas of Heaven and Earth came from a lot of different classes, discussion and time in prayer and thought.
In that way, these thoughts are not my own, but rather an accepted scholarly interpretation of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. But I stand by them and I will defend these beliefs, which only through God's revelation I could ever understand and only through my own wrestling I have come to believe.
Also, I in no way completely grasp the complexities of Heaven (and neither will any human being on Earth ever be fully able to) and the revelation of the Kingdom of God is something I a constantly learning new things about every day.
Sorry about the length of that, but I just wanted to put that up front first. OK here we go:
The other day you sent posted this comic, which I though was brilliant:
I'll get back to it very soon, but first I want to talk about St. Augustine.
I know you read Confessions, and I'm sorry I can't reference it because I haven't read it. But I will talk about his City of God, in which St. Augustine calls Christians "dual-citizens". By this, he means that we as Christians are residents of two separate cities: heaven and earth.
The city on earth, the city of man, is defined by the fallen nature of humanity. The people are greedy, self-centered and often cruel. These people, I mean, we, are always in pursuit of finding the best way of living, which we will never perfectly achieve. It is imperfect and temporal.
The city of heaven, that is, the city of God, is defined by the perfection of God and true justice through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. This is the perfect city run by the perfect King, the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit. It is eternal and defined by divine love.
These cities were completely separated because of the fall of man and the entrance of sin into the city of man. There was a wall between the two cities, but Jesus, in talking on the image of man (in the reverse of the way He made us to bear His image), performed the ultimate act of humility and broke the wall between the two cities.
This is where the Venn Diagram comes in. If you think of the blue quadrant as Earth and the yellow as Heaven, it shows how Jesus brought His Kingdom into our own. The two are now connected, but not the same. When Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, he says it is coming but that is not here yet. That is, that Jesus brought Heaven to us, but not fully. In his death and resurrection, Jesus redeemed us of our sinful ways and gave us the first appetizer of the greatest feast in existence.
In theology, we refer to this as the "Already, Not Yet" mentality. Heaven is here, but not fully. We are forgiven of our sins, but that doesn't mean we are now blameless or sinless. We are still in a fallen world, and as citizens of that world, we still have an obligation to it.
I think this is where most people start misinterpreting how the Kingdom of God works. Like you said, many people become so preoccupied about how Heaven is here that forget that it is not fully here and we still have to wait for Christ to return. We still need to live our lives for Christ and spread the news of His Kingdom throughout the world while keeping our own lives an imitation if His.
Like Augustine noted, as dual citizens, we need to live in light of both realms. Paul notes in Romans 13 that we must still submit to the authority of this world, seeing as we are still living in it. The only time we should not follow the rules put on by this world is when those conflict with the reign of the Kingdom of God, which has the final say over all the world and as Christians, it is where we owe our allegiance. So like you said, we can't lose sight of our obligations to both cities we reside in.
The other point where most people get mixed up is what the Kingdom of God actually is. The biggest misconception we have is thinking the Kingdom of God is a location that we have to go to.
The idea that we have to "go up" to get to heaven, although an interesting way of looking at Heaven, is Biblically false. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we have to leave Earth in order to get to God's Kingdom. Rather, because of the power of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, Heaven has been brought down to us.
Usually couple with the idea of us having to ascend to Heaven comes the notion that this world is not meant for us. The notion that we will leave Earth behind and spend the rest of our days in the clouds, away from grass, trees and ocean is also false, a dualistic idea first introduced by the gnostics (which Moorhead talked about quite a bit I think)
God gave us this world and said it is good. It is only because of sin that God's creation has become fallen. So, in the same way that God will redeem humanity, so too will creation be renewed. The book of Revelation talks about a New Heaven and a New Earth, together in God's Kingdom.
God's Kingdom, which I apologize I haven't defined up until this point, is not a place and it's not a time. God's Kingdom, like God, exists outside of time and space. Rather, God's Kingdom is a system.
It's is God's reign over all of creation that manifests itself by divine revelation through his people.
The church, as God's people, is the means for this Kingdom to be shown to all people in the world. We are bearers of the great message, the gospel, that God reigns over all people, whom he loves. This rule then, is shown through acts of kindness, charity and love.
Bottom line:
This isn't heaven.
This is.
And this.
And even this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope everything is going well at UBC and I can't wait to make Scandinavian Igloos again!
Oh My Graphics, did you see the snow today?! It was so awesome!!! I can't wait for winter break, it'll simultaneously be the bomb and the cat's pajamas!
Thanks again for the birthday message! Thanks so much Tim! I really appreciate how much effort you put into our friendship as well as how much enthusiasm you put into it, just as you put enthusiasm into everything you care deeply about. In that way, I can tell how much you really care. That's why I love every time you flail or shout expressively, because it shows that no matter how silly or preposterous the thing is that we're doing, you care about it and can't help showing it. Thanks so much Tim! You NFTBA as I know you won't!!!
Also, you may see some "crazy" photos on facebook in which I am tagged as both burnt popcorn and a firetruck. The implications of these photos do lead to a startling truth in which I inadvertently set off the fire alarm in my building by trying to make popcorn too close to the smoke detector.
The worst part is that my dorm had just got back from winning a game of football and everyone was taking showers when the alarm went off. So at least three people from my dorm were standing outside in the rain in towels all wondering aloud, "I wonder who set it off this time?" This is the part where Caly slunk away silently.
Another proud moment for the minister of BS.
Anyway, less than a month of school left! See you real real soon!!!
the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I chose this word because of its eery similarity to "recapitulation", a word which here means restating something for the purposes of summation.
It's also a biology term implying the repetition of an evolutionary process during growth (Yay, I can do biology stuff too!).
So what is the significance? I have no idea. It just thought it was funny.
I could say that all your talk about soaponification will make me either ask you to recapitulate what your talking about, or I will have to capitulate trying to follow you, but I still enjoy following what I can and I will try harder next time!
Anyway, I said I was going to talk about Heaven eventually, so here it is.
Oh yes. If ever there was a subject that will provoke discussion between us, this is it!
(On a side note, I just want to remark that I like how bringing up religion makes the both of us want to talk more to each other, whereas usually it's the exact opposite with pretty much everybody else. Yay!)
I just want to clarify first off that this post is a combination of both what I believe and what I have learned while studying here at TWU. Not that the two are separate, but I want to ensure that I give credit where credit is due and say that a lot of this I didn't think of myself or willingly accept as soon as I learned it. Theses ideas of Heaven and Earth came from a lot of different classes, discussion and time in prayer and thought.
In that way, these thoughts are not my own, but rather an accepted scholarly interpretation of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. But I stand by them and I will defend these beliefs, which only through God's revelation I could ever understand and only through my own wrestling I have come to believe.
Also, I in no way completely grasp the complexities of Heaven (and neither will any human being on Earth ever be fully able to) and the revelation of the Kingdom of God is something I a constantly learning new things about every day.
Sorry about the length of that, but I just wanted to put that up front first. OK here we go:
The other day you sent posted this comic, which I though was brilliant:
I'll get back to it very soon, but first I want to talk about St. Augustine.
I know you read Confessions, and I'm sorry I can't reference it because I haven't read it. But I will talk about his City of God, in which St. Augustine calls Christians "dual-citizens". By this, he means that we as Christians are residents of two separate cities: heaven and earth.
The city on earth, the city of man, is defined by the fallen nature of humanity. The people are greedy, self-centered and often cruel. These people, I mean, we, are always in pursuit of finding the best way of living, which we will never perfectly achieve. It is imperfect and temporal.
The city of heaven, that is, the city of God, is defined by the perfection of God and true justice through the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. This is the perfect city run by the perfect King, the Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit. It is eternal and defined by divine love.
These cities were completely separated because of the fall of man and the entrance of sin into the city of man. There was a wall between the two cities, but Jesus, in talking on the image of man (in the reverse of the way He made us to bear His image), performed the ultimate act of humility and broke the wall between the two cities.
This is where the Venn Diagram comes in. If you think of the blue quadrant as Earth and the yellow as Heaven, it shows how Jesus brought His Kingdom into our own. The two are now connected, but not the same. When Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, he says it is coming but that is not here yet. That is, that Jesus brought Heaven to us, but not fully. In his death and resurrection, Jesus redeemed us of our sinful ways and gave us the first appetizer of the greatest feast in existence.
In theology, we refer to this as the "Already, Not Yet" mentality. Heaven is here, but not fully. We are forgiven of our sins, but that doesn't mean we are now blameless or sinless. We are still in a fallen world, and as citizens of that world, we still have an obligation to it.
I think this is where most people start misinterpreting how the Kingdom of God works. Like you said, many people become so preoccupied about how Heaven is here that forget that it is not fully here and we still have to wait for Christ to return. We still need to live our lives for Christ and spread the news of His Kingdom throughout the world while keeping our own lives an imitation if His.
Like Augustine noted, as dual citizens, we need to live in light of both realms. Paul notes in Romans 13 that we must still submit to the authority of this world, seeing as we are still living in it. The only time we should not follow the rules put on by this world is when those conflict with the reign of the Kingdom of God, which has the final say over all the world and as Christians, it is where we owe our allegiance. So like you said, we can't lose sight of our obligations to both cities we reside in.
The other point where most people get mixed up is what the Kingdom of God actually is. The biggest misconception we have is thinking the Kingdom of God is a location that we have to go to.
The idea that we have to "go up" to get to heaven, although an interesting way of looking at Heaven, is Biblically false. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we have to leave Earth in order to get to God's Kingdom. Rather, because of the power of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, Heaven has been brought down to us.
Usually couple with the idea of us having to ascend to Heaven comes the notion that this world is not meant for us. The notion that we will leave Earth behind and spend the rest of our days in the clouds, away from grass, trees and ocean is also false, a dualistic idea first introduced by the gnostics (which Moorhead talked about quite a bit I think)
God gave us this world and said it is good. It is only because of sin that God's creation has become fallen. So, in the same way that God will redeem humanity, so too will creation be renewed. The book of Revelation talks about a New Heaven and a New Earth, together in God's Kingdom.
God's Kingdom, which I apologize I haven't defined up until this point, is not a place and it's not a time. God's Kingdom, like God, exists outside of time and space. Rather, God's Kingdom is a system.
It's is God's reign over all of creation that manifests itself by divine revelation through his people.
The church, as God's people, is the means for this Kingdom to be shown to all people in the world. We are bearers of the great message, the gospel, that God reigns over all people, whom he loves. This rule then, is shown through acts of kindness, charity and love.
Bottom line:
This isn't heaven.
This is.
And this.
And even this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope everything is going well at UBC and I can't wait to make Scandinavian Igloos again!
Oh My Graphics, did you see the snow today?! It was so awesome!!! I can't wait for winter break, it'll simultaneously be the bomb and the cat's pajamas!
Thanks again for the birthday message! Thanks so much Tim! I really appreciate how much effort you put into our friendship as well as how much enthusiasm you put into it, just as you put enthusiasm into everything you care deeply about. In that way, I can tell how much you really care. That's why I love every time you flail or shout expressively, because it shows that no matter how silly or preposterous the thing is that we're doing, you care about it and can't help showing it. Thanks so much Tim! You NFTBA as I know you won't!!!
Also, you may see some "crazy" photos on facebook in which I am tagged as both burnt popcorn and a firetruck. The implications of these photos do lead to a startling truth in which I inadvertently set off the fire alarm in my building by trying to make popcorn too close to the smoke detector.
The worst part is that my dorm had just got back from winning a game of football and everyone was taking showers when the alarm went off. So at least three people from my dorm were standing outside in the rain in towels all wondering aloud, "I wonder who set it off this time?" This is the part where Caly slunk away silently.
Another proud moment for the minister of BS.
Anyway, less than a month of school left! See you real real soon!!!
-Clayton
Friday, November 12, 2010
Soaponification
soap•on•i•fi•ca•tion (noun)
the chemical term for the process by which soaps are created from lipids via hydrolysis under basic/alkaline conditions
~~~~~~~~~~
SO, as promised, here are the answers to the ester exercise!
I rather like doing these exercises; it makes you think about what I'm trying to teach you. Perhaps you'll do better on the next one. Also: don't fret if you can't get it; this stuff is from second year chemistry, and if memory serves, the last chemistry class you took was in gr. 11.
In response to your earlier posts:
1) Haha, yes, quite true, Machiavelli will never be the same between the two of us =P You shouldn't be the one apologizing for what you posted about Machavellians; if I'm not allowed to apologize for the daunting text, you aren't allowed to apologize either! =P Also: I'm glad that what I said was understandable/not disconcerning to you any longer; I was worried (but then again, when am I not worried? LOL)
2) I was not aware that such a thing as a Catholic Catechism existed, although, from what you've told me, I can't say that I agree with its function in the Catholic church. To me, it sounds like a way of getting new followers to memorize someone else's definition of faith, which, to me, is a very, very bad thing. As I've said many times in the past, I believe that each person should define for themselves their own beliefs and their own faith, and in that way each person can be absolutely sure in their beliefs and the reasons for them. I remember you talking about this saint several times before, although I had not completely understood what you meant, but now I do (I believe he came up in our discussion about wanting to die for a noble cause; I think I may have, as always, explained myself incorrectly; what I wanted to say was that because all of us are going to die, if I could choose my mode of death, I would rather die protecting someone I care for or values that I believe. It doesn't mean that I'm going to be seeking a death like that, and it doesn't mean that I'll be happy to die peacefully in my sleep. This is an interesting topic that was raised in the book I recommended to you in September. I hope you have a chance to read it sometime this winter/summer break; I'd love to hear what you think of it.)
Also: No, I was not raised in a Catholic household, but the school my mom attended when she was a girl in Malasia was an English Catholic school; that's why she can't speak Mando or Canto as well as my dad can. I have a feeling that some of the things about faith they taught her didn't quite sit well with her; I can only imagine that it's the reason she's not Catholic anymore (I think you'd call my family Protestant? I've never actually been sure what to call it; we attend an Evangelist church, but I'm not sure if Evangelist is an actual distinct church? All these denominations confuse me)
3) Shakespeare is fantastic! I miss studying his stuff! Lol this reminds me: when I was in 9th grade and we were just starting Shakespeare, I remember telling my dad how hard it was to understand it, and he said "You think Shakespeare is hard to understand? His stuff is only just over 400 years old! When I was in school (my father was educated in Mandarin; English is his second/thrird language: he speaks Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien/Teochu, and English) I had to read texts that were over a thousand years old! The meanings of the characters have changed so much that it's almost like learning a new language!" I've always dreamed of studying texts like that. Anyways, Shakespeare sounds so much fun to study! Which is the piece your anthology is missing? I bought a second-hand collection of all of his tragedies a few years ago; maybe I have the one you need?
~~~~~~~~~~
Haha I wasn't asking you to do the meme, I just thought it was fun. I like doing those sort of personal memes every once in a while; it gets me to think about some things that I don't usually think about every day, and its fun to go back and read my answers after a few years to see how I've changed.
SO.
TODAY IS A SPECIAL DAY.
IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY! HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!!! =DDD
YOU ARE AN AMAZINGLY AWESOME FANTASTIC FRIEND AND A GREAT INSPIRATION AND A MARVELOUS GENTLEMAN AND A STUPENDOUS HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE SUCH A GREAT SENSE OF SARCASM AND HUMOUR AND YOU ARE ALWAYS FULL OF WISDOM AND YOU ARE SUCH A SOURCE OF EXPLOSIVE WONDERFULNESS! THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU!!! I WISH YOU ALL THE VERY BEST IN THE NEXT YEAR OF YOUR LIFE: MAY JOY NEVER LEAVE YOU; MAY YOUR DAYS BE FILLED WITH LAUGHTER AND LOVE; MAY YOUR WEAPONS COME IN PINK DIGI-CAMO WITH THE BOLT ACTION ATTACHED; MAY YOU NFTBA; MAY YOUR JOKES NEVER LOOSE THEIR WIT.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!
Chat soon,
with love,
~Tim~
the chemical term for the process by which soaps are created from lipids via hydrolysis under basic/alkaline conditions
~~~~~~~~~~
SO, as promised, here are the answers to the ester exercise!
 |
| Recall that an ester is a functional group whose main carbon is bonded to three thing: 1) double bonded to an oxygen, 2) single bonded to a different oxygen with another organic group attached to that, and 3) another carbon group. |
In response to your earlier posts:
1) Haha, yes, quite true, Machiavelli will never be the same between the two of us =P You shouldn't be the one apologizing for what you posted about Machavellians; if I'm not allowed to apologize for the daunting text, you aren't allowed to apologize either! =P Also: I'm glad that what I said was understandable/not disconcerning to you any longer; I was worried (but then again, when am I not worried? LOL)
2) I was not aware that such a thing as a Catholic Catechism existed, although, from what you've told me, I can't say that I agree with its function in the Catholic church. To me, it sounds like a way of getting new followers to memorize someone else's definition of faith, which, to me, is a very, very bad thing. As I've said many times in the past, I believe that each person should define for themselves their own beliefs and their own faith, and in that way each person can be absolutely sure in their beliefs and the reasons for them. I remember you talking about this saint several times before, although I had not completely understood what you meant, but now I do (I believe he came up in our discussion about wanting to die for a noble cause; I think I may have, as always, explained myself incorrectly; what I wanted to say was that because all of us are going to die, if I could choose my mode of death, I would rather die protecting someone I care for or values that I believe. It doesn't mean that I'm going to be seeking a death like that, and it doesn't mean that I'll be happy to die peacefully in my sleep. This is an interesting topic that was raised in the book I recommended to you in September. I hope you have a chance to read it sometime this winter/summer break; I'd love to hear what you think of it.)
Also: No, I was not raised in a Catholic household, but the school my mom attended when she was a girl in Malasia was an English Catholic school; that's why she can't speak Mando or Canto as well as my dad can. I have a feeling that some of the things about faith they taught her didn't quite sit well with her; I can only imagine that it's the reason she's not Catholic anymore (I think you'd call my family Protestant? I've never actually been sure what to call it; we attend an Evangelist church, but I'm not sure if Evangelist is an actual distinct church? All these denominations confuse me)
3) Shakespeare is fantastic! I miss studying his stuff! Lol this reminds me: when I was in 9th grade and we were just starting Shakespeare, I remember telling my dad how hard it was to understand it, and he said "You think Shakespeare is hard to understand? His stuff is only just over 400 years old! When I was in school (my father was educated in Mandarin; English is his second/thrird language: he speaks Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien/Teochu, and English) I had to read texts that were over a thousand years old! The meanings of the characters have changed so much that it's almost like learning a new language!" I've always dreamed of studying texts like that. Anyways, Shakespeare sounds so much fun to study! Which is the piece your anthology is missing? I bought a second-hand collection of all of his tragedies a few years ago; maybe I have the one you need?
~~~~~~~~~~
Haha I wasn't asking you to do the meme, I just thought it was fun. I like doing those sort of personal memes every once in a while; it gets me to think about some things that I don't usually think about every day, and its fun to go back and read my answers after a few years to see how I've changed.
SO.
TODAY IS A SPECIAL DAY.
IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY! HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!!! =DDD
 |
| HAPPY BIRTHDAY! Is it a cake? Is it a present? BOTH! INSIDE IS A BABY! Buy yourself a nice new house =) |
YOU ARE AN AMAZINGLY AWESOME FANTASTIC FRIEND AND A GREAT INSPIRATION AND A MARVELOUS GENTLEMAN AND A STUPENDOUS HUMAN BEING! YOU HAVE SUCH A GREAT SENSE OF SARCASM AND HUMOUR AND YOU ARE ALWAYS FULL OF WISDOM AND YOU ARE SUCH A SOURCE OF EXPLOSIVE WONDERFULNESS! THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU!!! I WISH YOU ALL THE VERY BEST IN THE NEXT YEAR OF YOUR LIFE: MAY JOY NEVER LEAVE YOU; MAY YOUR DAYS BE FILLED WITH LAUGHTER AND LOVE; MAY YOUR WEAPONS COME IN PINK DIGI-CAMO WITH THE BOLT ACTION ATTACHED; MAY YOU NFTBA; MAY YOUR JOKES NEVER LOOSE THEIR WIT.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CLAY!!!
Chat soon,
with love,
~Tim~
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Shakespearean
shake•spear•e•an (noun and adjective)
of or relating to William Shakespeare, either of his own writing or in imitation of his style.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So two posts in a row! Woo! This one will be less serious than Catechism I hope.
OK, I know we both know this word and we're both pretty familiar with this guy, but I want to mention it for a few reasons:
1) He's a cool dude who wrote comedies, tragedies and histories with the foremost intent of entertaining the viewers, all the while infusing his works with moral issues, questions and dilemmas. He asked the questions others didn't dare to ask (e.g. Is it better to just suffer the crap that life throws at us or to try and fight a futile battle against life in which the end result will be death?), but he did this while either keeping the audience on the edge of their seats or rolling in the aisles laughing.
I love this because so many writers get caught up with using stories to instruct and inform (which is very important if not completely necessary for all literature to do this), but they lose sight of keeping their tales entertaining.
We need to be able to laugh, cry and feel emotions because of literature, not just look for theme statements and what the author wants a work to "mean".
2) I also love Shakespeare because of the effect he had on words of the English language. He not only was crucial to the formation of the language we speak today, influencing modern English in its conception by providing it with a plethora of words we still use (such as accursed, bedroom, epileptic, and my personal favorite: rant), but he was so important that he had a word made about him.
A very Shakespearean photo n'est pas?
Ok, well so does Justin Bieber, but this word has more than one meaning!
It can refer to a style of poetry, a school of academic thought, a mode of speaking and even an entire genre. (Take that Biebbutt! Your brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage!)
Shakespeare wins again!
=> Side note, I totally wasn't expecting sonneteer to be an actual word! I just discovered a word while trying to make one up. Zounds! I don't even know what to think about that. . .
OK, so obviously I'm kind of excited. But here's the main reason:
I just won an anthology of Shakespeare at an English Pizza Party!
It's got nearly every play, his most famous epic poems and the entirety of his sonnet collection! Score!
(The irony is in the fact that it contains every play I'm studying except the one the professor is most excited about. Aye, there's the rub!)
Yeah, I'm a nerd, I know. Just for me, Shakespeare is the coolest part of being an English Major. He's like the Mr. T or the Totoro of the English Department. He's big, trustworthy, but above all, awesome.
And, of course, my best experience of Shakespeare to date (and probably forever) is still Josh reading Othello in spare.
The Hankerchief!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have a great weekend again Tim. I hope you had a good day off and I hope you enjoyed the fact that I'm trying to set the record for most Shakespearean photos in one post.
See ya!
of or relating to William Shakespeare, either of his own writing or in imitation of his style.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So two posts in a row! Woo! This one will be less serious than Catechism I hope.
OK, I know we both know this word and we're both pretty familiar with this guy, but I want to mention it for a few reasons:
1) He's a cool dude who wrote comedies, tragedies and histories with the foremost intent of entertaining the viewers, all the while infusing his works with moral issues, questions and dilemmas. He asked the questions others didn't dare to ask (e.g. Is it better to just suffer the crap that life throws at us or to try and fight a futile battle against life in which the end result will be death?), but he did this while either keeping the audience on the edge of their seats or rolling in the aisles laughing.
I love this because so many writers get caught up with using stories to instruct and inform (which is very important if not completely necessary for all literature to do this), but they lose sight of keeping their tales entertaining.
We need to be able to laugh, cry and feel emotions because of literature, not just look for theme statements and what the author wants a work to "mean".
2) I also love Shakespeare because of the effect he had on words of the English language. He not only was crucial to the formation of the language we speak today, influencing modern English in its conception by providing it with a plethora of words we still use (such as accursed, bedroom, epileptic, and my personal favorite: rant), but he was so important that he had a word made about him.
A very Shakespearean photo n'est pas?
Ok, well so does Justin Bieber, but this word has more than one meaning!
It can refer to a style of poetry, a school of academic thought, a mode of speaking and even an entire genre. (Take that Biebbutt! Your brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage!)
Shakespeare wins again!
3) The reason I'm more excited about, is that I'm taking a Shakespearean class next semester! An entire course devoted to the powerful playwright, the Bard of BA, the scrumptious sonneteer!
=> Side note, I totally wasn't expecting sonneteer to be an actual word! I just discovered a word while trying to make one up. Zounds! I don't even know what to think about that. . .
OK, so obviously I'm kind of excited. But here's the main reason:
I just won an anthology of Shakespeare at an English Pizza Party!
It's got nearly every play, his most famous epic poems and the entirety of his sonnet collection! Score!
(The irony is in the fact that it contains every play I'm studying except the one the professor is most excited about. Aye, there's the rub!)
Yeah, I'm a nerd, I know. Just for me, Shakespeare is the coolest part of being an English Major. He's like the Mr. T or the Totoro of the English Department. He's big, trustworthy, but above all, awesome.
And, of course, my best experience of Shakespeare to date (and probably forever) is still Josh reading Othello in spare.
The Hankerchief!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Have a great weekend again Tim. I hope you had a good day off and I hope you enjoyed the fact that I'm trying to set the record for most Shakespearean photos in one post.
See ya!
"On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures"
-Clayton
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Catechism
cat•e•chism (noun)
a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians.
• a series of fixed questions, answers, or precepts used for instruction in other situations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the Catechism?
The catechism is a basic outline of the theology and practices of the church. It both outlines the faith and instructs the reader how to live out that faith in general ways to be applied in specific situations.
How is it structured?
All the main articles and doctrines are taught by means of questions of answers. A simple question of faith or practice is put forth followed by a somewhat lengthy (depending on the question) response, which is intended to be memorized by those being taught the Catechism at a future date, usually as part of ceremony or test.
What is the purposes of this testing?
The testing is used primarily in the Catholic church as part of the initiation into the larger church body. This is known as Confirmation, a rite of passage every child who grows up in the Catholic church must go through in order to be officially Catholic. This ceremony is symbolic of the Holy Spirit descending upon the youths, usually at pre-teen age and confirmed in the presence of the church and other believers.
So why am I talking about the Catechism?
Well, for a few reasons. I think it's a very interesting way of indoctrination. It's in a way very similar to Jewish Bar / Bat Mitzvahs as it is not only a means of joining a community, but it also doubles as a rite of passage; a way of growing up, something I think our Western culture needs more of.
I also think that it relates to what you talked about in your penultimate post. I'll admit, the text was daunting and I bet that as soon as you read that you'll be preparing to apologize. Don't even let that cross your mind. I didn't mind it because it let me know something very valuable about you I should have recognized a lot earlier.
What was it that I should have noticed?
Basically that even though neither of us (to my knowledge at least) were born in a Catholic church and didn't have to memorize a catechism text (again, I may be wrong about this), we both agree on a lot of crucial issues.
When I was writing my response about Machiavelli (a name that will now live in infamy amongst the two of us. . . just like the way he lives in infamy in today's culture (Curse you Niccolo!)), I wasn't even thinking about the implications of being obsessed with the eternal kingdom. I'm well aware of what happens when people become too focused on it rather than the present world in which we live in, I just didn't bother to ponder that implication while writing, and for this I apologize.
You're absolutely right. I once heard that Satan doesn't use our weaknesses but our strengths. He all to often uses the fact that we have been redeemed by Jesus on the cross to make us think that we are completely free of the troubles of this world and that we no longer have to worry about it. This just brings us right back to where the devil wants us: caring about no one other than ourselves and not living out our lives to the full as Christ intended.
Oh! I just thought of the perfect example while writing! Sorry, now I'm going off on a tangent, but it's only to affirm what you were saying!
This is St. Ignatius of Loyola (seen here becoming friends with some lions)
Hello Lions!
He was martyred and was thus canonized for dying for his faith. However, he is not someone we should look up to.
In his last letter written while being transported in chains to Rome to be executed, he urged the people of his church not to rescue him. He said he had become tired of life and just wanted to go to heaven, finally doing away with all the trials and tribulations he had to endure.
Now while the gospels do call us to accept the suffering for our faith, this doesn't mean even for a second that we should jump at the chance to die. Ignatius even tried to use pathos, saying that rescue attempts would be cruelty towards him as he was really looking forward to dying.
Now I'm not here to criticize a saint or his choices, but I will say as an example, this is not what should be done. Ignatius left his church without a leader or even parting words of guidance for the future. He was so focused on going to heaven, he lost sight of the bigger picture of what heaven really is.
So what is Heaven, really?
That, Mr. Tim, is a question for another time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, based on my rudimentary understanding of esterfication, I would say only b) and c) contain esters. However, I'm not sure if an Oxygen bonded to another Oxygen which is then bonded to a Carbon counts or not, which would then change my answer.
I like the Theory of Endosymbyosis (sorry if I spelled that wrong). It reminded me about what I learned about skeletal/striated muscle tissue the other day! Did you know that if you put two of these cells in a dish together, they will beat in unison, without even touching each other! That's crazy!
Also, while your meme was interesting, I don't think I'll repost it for myself because I don't think either you or I need to be defined by a list on the internet. I'm sure that's not your intent, but I just want to be careful not to get caught up in what the answers are. Tim, you're not normal and I mean that in the good way, not the bad way.
Normality is not a good thing (as Smunchkin demonstrated), at least in terms of just being like everybody else. You are so unique sometimes I don't think that basic physics will keep the universe together based on how crazyawesome you are.
I'm sorry to hear you're feeling lethargic and I hope you get the chance to do something exciting soon. We have less than a month until winter break and then we will be bombarded with igloos, sledding and other such necessary nonsense. Oh yes, it is entirely necessary. So much necessaryness.
And yes that is a word. I just made it real.
Have a great Remembrance Day weekend, Tim!
-Clayton
a summary of the principles of Christian religion in the form of questions and answers, used for the instruction of Christians.
• a series of fixed questions, answers, or precepts used for instruction in other situations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is the Catechism?
The catechism is a basic outline of the theology and practices of the church. It both outlines the faith and instructs the reader how to live out that faith in general ways to be applied in specific situations.
How is it structured?
All the main articles and doctrines are taught by means of questions of answers. A simple question of faith or practice is put forth followed by a somewhat lengthy (depending on the question) response, which is intended to be memorized by those being taught the Catechism at a future date, usually as part of ceremony or test.
What is the purposes of this testing?
The testing is used primarily in the Catholic church as part of the initiation into the larger church body. This is known as Confirmation, a rite of passage every child who grows up in the Catholic church must go through in order to be officially Catholic. This ceremony is symbolic of the Holy Spirit descending upon the youths, usually at pre-teen age and confirmed in the presence of the church and other believers.
So why am I talking about the Catechism?
Well, for a few reasons. I think it's a very interesting way of indoctrination. It's in a way very similar to Jewish Bar / Bat Mitzvahs as it is not only a means of joining a community, but it also doubles as a rite of passage; a way of growing up, something I think our Western culture needs more of.
I also think that it relates to what you talked about in your penultimate post. I'll admit, the text was daunting and I bet that as soon as you read that you'll be preparing to apologize. Don't even let that cross your mind. I didn't mind it because it let me know something very valuable about you I should have recognized a lot earlier.
What was it that I should have noticed?
Basically that even though neither of us (to my knowledge at least) were born in a Catholic church and didn't have to memorize a catechism text (again, I may be wrong about this), we both agree on a lot of crucial issues.
When I was writing my response about Machiavelli (a name that will now live in infamy amongst the two of us. . . just like the way he lives in infamy in today's culture (Curse you Niccolo!)), I wasn't even thinking about the implications of being obsessed with the eternal kingdom. I'm well aware of what happens when people become too focused on it rather than the present world in which we live in, I just didn't bother to ponder that implication while writing, and for this I apologize.
You're absolutely right. I once heard that Satan doesn't use our weaknesses but our strengths. He all to often uses the fact that we have been redeemed by Jesus on the cross to make us think that we are completely free of the troubles of this world and that we no longer have to worry about it. This just brings us right back to where the devil wants us: caring about no one other than ourselves and not living out our lives to the full as Christ intended.
Oh! I just thought of the perfect example while writing! Sorry, now I'm going off on a tangent, but it's only to affirm what you were saying!
This is St. Ignatius of Loyola (seen here becoming friends with some lions)
Hello Lions!
He was martyred and was thus canonized for dying for his faith. However, he is not someone we should look up to.
In his last letter written while being transported in chains to Rome to be executed, he urged the people of his church not to rescue him. He said he had become tired of life and just wanted to go to heaven, finally doing away with all the trials and tribulations he had to endure.
Now while the gospels do call us to accept the suffering for our faith, this doesn't mean even for a second that we should jump at the chance to die. Ignatius even tried to use pathos, saying that rescue attempts would be cruelty towards him as he was really looking forward to dying.
Now I'm not here to criticize a saint or his choices, but I will say as an example, this is not what should be done. Ignatius left his church without a leader or even parting words of guidance for the future. He was so focused on going to heaven, he lost sight of the bigger picture of what heaven really is.
So what is Heaven, really?
That, Mr. Tim, is a question for another time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, based on my rudimentary understanding of esterfication, I would say only b) and c) contain esters. However, I'm not sure if an Oxygen bonded to another Oxygen which is then bonded to a Carbon counts or not, which would then change my answer.
I like the Theory of Endosymbyosis (sorry if I spelled that wrong). It reminded me about what I learned about skeletal/striated muscle tissue the other day! Did you know that if you put two of these cells in a dish together, they will beat in unison, without even touching each other! That's crazy!
Also, while your meme was interesting, I don't think I'll repost it for myself because I don't think either you or I need to be defined by a list on the internet. I'm sure that's not your intent, but I just want to be careful not to get caught up in what the answers are. Tim, you're not normal and I mean that in the good way, not the bad way.
Normality is not a good thing (as Smunchkin demonstrated), at least in terms of just being like everybody else. You are so unique sometimes I don't think that basic physics will keep the universe together based on how crazyawesome you are.
I'm sorry to hear you're feeling lethargic and I hope you get the chance to do something exciting soon. We have less than a month until winter break and then we will be bombarded with igloos, sledding and other such necessary nonsense. Oh yes, it is entirely necessary. So much necessaryness.
And yes that is a word. I just made it real.
Have a great Remembrance Day weekend, Tim!
-Clayton
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Theory of Endosymbiosis
en•do•sym•bio•sis (noun)
a particular form of symbiosis wherein one of the symbionts resides within the thallus of the other symbiont. In other words, a very close relationship between two living organisms that benefit from each other that live side by side where one of the organisms actually lives inside the body of the other organism.
Origin: Latin (endo = inside, symbiosis = beneficial relationship)
~~~~~~~~~~
Lol so we switch from all the chemistry from last week's esterification and move to biology, for a change.
The Theory of Endosymbiosis is a very interesting one, and data has provided that strongly supports this theory. It is a theory that tries to explain the evolution of Mitochondria in all plants and animals, and Chloroplasts in plants and algae.
Mitochondria are organelles within cells that perform respiration, meaning that this is the organelle that is responsible for using oxygen to burn fats and sugars to create the energy that cells need to move, make proteins, and perform cellular functions. Chloroplasts are organelles in plants that perform photosynthesis, the process that allows plants to take light energy, carbon dioxide, and water to make sugar and oxygen.
Scientists noticed that mitochondria and chloroplasts share characteristics that are very peculiar: they both have more than one membrane (unlike the nucleus or other membrane-bound organelles, which only have one membrane), and they both divide independently from the cell (meaning that they divide and multiply without direction from the nucleus; they do it whenever they want to). This led scientists to realize that mitochondria and chloroplasts are very similar to bacteria: mitochondria are like obligate aerobic bacteria (no, that doesn't mean they do aerobic exercises; it means that they can only live in the presence of oxygen and they use oxygen to release energy from sugars) and chloroplasts are like photosynthetic bacteria.
The Theory of Endosymbiosis postulates that ancient eukarotic cells once formed a symbiotic relationship with aerobic bacteria, which eventually came to live inside the host cell, and after millions of years of evolution, the aerobic bacteria lost its ability to live by itself, and became incorporated into the host cell and evolved into an organelle. The theory is similar for chloroplasts.
The amazing thing the evidence that research has found supporting this theory. Not only do chloroplasts and mitochondria divide independently to the cell, they have their own DNA! Mitochondrial DNA is circular, exactly like bacterial DNA, and not at all like eukaryotic DNA, which is linear. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are also capable of making their own ribosomes (organelles that make proteins), and these ribosomes resemble bacterial ribosomes more than eukaryotic ribosomes! Furthermore, these ribosomes inside the mitochondria and chloroplasts allow these two organelles to make their own proteins!
Finally, the theory of endosymbiosis also neatly explains why these organelles have more than one cell membrane, explained in this diagram:
Because of these and many more data, the Theory of Endosymbiosis is widely accepted as the explanation for the evolution of mitochondria and chloroplasts.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Clay, so this week I've been feeling rather lethargic; I've lost a bit of my motivation to study, but then again, I think I may just be going through a phase. I'm not depressed or anything, I think I'm just feeling tired of studying all the time without any real relaxation; because I don't see anyone as often as I'd like, I don't have many reasons to laugh, and laughing, I think, is one of the things that really drives away the loneliness.
Anyways, I really haven't done a meme in a while, so I though I should do this one I found recently =P
I am afraid of 14 out of 70 things.
Lol random meme thing. I was bored. Anyways, I hope everything is going well for you; we're in the final stretch! Only a month left of classes! It's slightly frightening yet slightly relieving...
Chat soon,
~Tim~
PS - I'm not posting the correct answers to last post's exercise until you post next with your own answers, just so you can't cheat =P
a particular form of symbiosis wherein one of the symbionts resides within the thallus of the other symbiont. In other words, a very close relationship between two living organisms that benefit from each other that live side by side where one of the organisms actually lives inside the body of the other organism.
Origin: Latin (endo = inside, symbiosis = beneficial relationship)
~~~~~~~~~~
Lol so we switch from all the chemistry from last week's esterification and move to biology, for a change.
The Theory of Endosymbiosis is a very interesting one, and data has provided that strongly supports this theory. It is a theory that tries to explain the evolution of Mitochondria in all plants and animals, and Chloroplasts in plants and algae.
Mitochondria are organelles within cells that perform respiration, meaning that this is the organelle that is responsible for using oxygen to burn fats and sugars to create the energy that cells need to move, make proteins, and perform cellular functions. Chloroplasts are organelles in plants that perform photosynthesis, the process that allows plants to take light energy, carbon dioxide, and water to make sugar and oxygen.
Scientists noticed that mitochondria and chloroplasts share characteristics that are very peculiar: they both have more than one membrane (unlike the nucleus or other membrane-bound organelles, which only have one membrane), and they both divide independently from the cell (meaning that they divide and multiply without direction from the nucleus; they do it whenever they want to). This led scientists to realize that mitochondria and chloroplasts are very similar to bacteria: mitochondria are like obligate aerobic bacteria (no, that doesn't mean they do aerobic exercises; it means that they can only live in the presence of oxygen and they use oxygen to release energy from sugars) and chloroplasts are like photosynthetic bacteria.
The Theory of Endosymbiosis postulates that ancient eukarotic cells once formed a symbiotic relationship with aerobic bacteria, which eventually came to live inside the host cell, and after millions of years of evolution, the aerobic bacteria lost its ability to live by itself, and became incorporated into the host cell and evolved into an organelle. The theory is similar for chloroplasts.
The amazing thing the evidence that research has found supporting this theory. Not only do chloroplasts and mitochondria divide independently to the cell, they have their own DNA! Mitochondrial DNA is circular, exactly like bacterial DNA, and not at all like eukaryotic DNA, which is linear. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are also capable of making their own ribosomes (organelles that make proteins), and these ribosomes resemble bacterial ribosomes more than eukaryotic ribosomes! Furthermore, these ribosomes inside the mitochondria and chloroplasts allow these two organelles to make their own proteins!
Finally, the theory of endosymbiosis also neatly explains why these organelles have more than one cell membrane, explained in this diagram:
 |
| This diagram illustrates how the bacteria enters the host cell: via Phagocytosis, which creates a new membrane |
~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Clay, so this week I've been feeling rather lethargic; I've lost a bit of my motivation to study, but then again, I think I may just be going through a phase. I'm not depressed or anything, I think I'm just feeling tired of studying all the time without any real relaxation; because I don't see anyone as often as I'd like, I don't have many reasons to laugh, and laughing, I think, is one of the things that really drives away the loneliness.
Anyways, I really haven't done a meme in a while, so I though I should do this one I found recently =P
The Fear Meme
If you get more than 30, get some counseling. If you get more than 20, you’re paranoid. If you get 11-20, you are normal. If you get 10 or less, you’re fearless. People who don’t have any are full of crap
I fear ...
[] the dark
[x] staying single forever
[] being a parent
[x] being myself in front of others
[] open spaces
[] closed spaces
[] heights
[] dogs
[] birds
[] fish
[x] spiders
[] flowers or other plants
Total so far:3
[] being touched
[] fire
[x] deep water
[] snakes
[] silk
[] the ocean
[x] failure
[] success
[] thunder/lightning
[] frogs/toads
[] my boyfriends/girlfriends dad
[] my boyfriends/girlfriends mom
[] rats
[] jumping from high places
[] snow
Total so far: 5
[] rain
[] wind
[] crossing hanging bridges
[] death
[] heaven
[x] being robbed/mugged
[x] falling
[] clowns
[] dolls
[] large crowds of people
[] men
[] women
[x] having great responsibilities
[] doctors
[] tornadoes
Total so far: 8
[] hurricanes
[x] incurable diseases
[x] sharks
[] Friday the 13th
[] ghosts
[] poverty
[] Halloween
[] school
[] trains
[] odd numbers
[] even numbers
[x] being alone
[] becoming blind
[x] becoming deaf
[] growing up, old
Total so far: 12
[] creepy noises in the night
[x] not accomplishing my dreams/goals
[] needles
[x] blood
Total:14
If you get more than 30, get some counseling. If you get more than 20, you’re paranoid. If you get 11-20, you are normal. If you get 10 or less, you’re fearless. People who don’t have any are full of crap
I fear ...
[] the dark
[x] staying single forever
[] being a parent
[x] being myself in front of others
[] open spaces
[] closed spaces
[] heights
[] dogs
[] birds
[] fish
[x] spiders
[] flowers or other plants
Total so far:3
[] being touched
[] fire
[x] deep water
[] snakes
[] silk
[] the ocean
[x] failure
[] success
[] thunder/lightning
[] frogs/toads
[] my boyfriends/girlfriends dad
[] my boyfriends/girlfriends mom
[] rats
[] jumping from high places
[] snow
Total so far: 5
[] rain
[] wind
[] crossing hanging bridges
[] death
[] heaven
[x] being robbed/mugged
[x] falling
[] clowns
[] dolls
[] large crowds of people
[] men
[] women
[x] having great responsibilities
[] doctors
[] tornadoes
Total so far: 8
[] hurricanes
[x] incurable diseases
[x] sharks
[] Friday the 13th
[] ghosts
[] poverty
[] Halloween
[] school
[] trains
[] odd numbers
[] even numbers
[x] being alone
[] becoming blind
[x] becoming deaf
[] growing up, old
Total so far: 12
[] creepy noises in the night
[x] not accomplishing my dreams/goals
[] needles
[x] blood
Total:14
Lol random meme thing. I was bored. Anyways, I hope everything is going well for you; we're in the final stretch! Only a month left of classes! It's slightly frightening yet slightly relieving...
Chat soon,
~Tim~
PS - I'm not posting the correct answers to last post's exercise until you post next with your own answers, just so you can't cheat =P
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Esterification
es•ter•i•fi•ca•tion (noun)
the process /reaction through which an ester is formed, usually from a carboxylic acid and an alcohol.
Origin: derived from "ester" from the german Essig-Äther, meaning "Acetic acid ethyl ester"
I performed an esterification just this morning in my chem lab! Esters are common in nature and are very pungent; many fruits and flowers produce esters that smell and taste good. Vanillin (main chemical that gives vanilla its flavour), banada essence, apple essence, and pineapple essence are some examples of the many ester compounds found in nature (we made banana essence today).
An ester is basically any molecule that has a carbon atom that is 1) bonded to another carbon atom 2) double bonded to an oxygen and 3) bonded to an oxygen that is bonded to another carbon. Here is the general formula:
This is an easy concept, so I'll give you some practice here: try to identify which ones of the following compounds have esters in them. There are more than one.
~~~~~~~~~~
So bonus post here from me in response to your post today.
First of all, Inhumanism:
You mention that you disagree with (at least part of) inhumanism because it the poem that you cited, the poet asserts that the symbols of nature and its indifference is a more powerful symbol than the Cross. While I do agree that this is not something that we should agree with, I think the diction and syntax you used in the post made me apprehensive towards your approach of inhumanism, although I may be misinterpreting your thoughts.
I know you mentioned that inhumanism does offer good insight into the human condition, you failed to elaborate on this point, and I am thus unsure of which aspects you are referring to and I am not confident that we have drawn the same conclusions. From your brief summery of Inhumanism, I would tend to agree with these points:
-humans, as a species, are too obsessed with themselves.
I personally think this is a huge issue and its true: too many people in the world think that we are so much better than all the other species. An important concept we learned last year in evolutionary biology is that ALL ORGANISMS ARE EVOLUTIONARILY EQUAL. At first, I resisted this thought, but that was because I had failed to differentiate complexity with superiority, as many people still do. The argument made by biologists goes something like this: All organisms originate from a common ancestor (this is not an assumption, but an application of Mathematical principle of Sets and Groups that states that all groups originate from branching sets), and thus every single living organism on the earth has evolved over the same period of time. In other words, every organism alive has had the same amount of time to evolve. Therefore, all organisms are equal. Even though some organisms are more complex and have changed more over time than others, doesn't mean that they're superior; it just means that they've needed to change more to survive. Sharks, turtles, and some insects haven't changed much at all over the past few millenia, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're superior or inferior to species such as some birds or mammals that have changed a lot over the same period of time. By this virtue, it is not plausible to argue that humans are superior to other species.
-nature is more beautiful than humanity.
I would tend to agree with this statement. As humans, we are flawed. Whether you believe it is because we were created in God's image and are thus imperfect, or whether you believe there is no higher power or deity, I think that, religious and atheist alike, we can agree that humanity is imperfect. Nature, on the other hand, I believe to be an extension of God. The fact that there are so many inexplicable and incomprehensible phenomena in the world lead me to believe in the Divine presence in the natural. For a non-religious argument: you may argue that the laws of nature are just that: laws of nature. The natural world has an efficient and effective way of conducting itself, with rules that never contradict, but to that I ask: Why do these rules exist in the first place? Why is it that the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy or Newton's Three Laws of Motion even work? What determines that electric charges are equal but opposite in a binary/quaternary system? Why not with three separable charges? What makes it so that the Gravity is a force that exponentially decreases as distance increases? As humans, we may never understand, but that is the point: we don't understand because we simply cannot. There is much truth to the statement that "we are only human"
It is becoming a growing concept to me that Science is for the Worldly, the Physical, the Concrete and Religion is for the Metaphysical, the Ethereal, the Moral, the Abstractual (if that's even a word...) which are (as I discussed before) separate identities in that one should not venture into the realm of the other. (Another thing that I realized that I forgot to mention in that review blog post is that when the student argued that the professor didn't have a brain, my counter should have been: but if we cut open his head, we can determine for sure if the brain is present or not. With religion, we can search the physical and measurable world, but we will never find physical, measurable proof that God exists because what he does is not measurable: he deals with lives, revelations, changes of heart, moral improvement, things that are things that science can never describe)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the hierarchy of things, Humanity is at the bottom of the list, followed by Nature, and then, above all, God. So yes, a symbol of nature is greater than any symbol of humanity, but not greater than symbols of God. I wasn't sure if that was your conclusion as well.
Next, to respond to your concern:
I may not have worded myself correctly, and you may not have interpreted my view correctly, as I wrote my comments on Machavellians very quickly and briefly. What I wanted to say was this:
People should be rooted in the world in that they should be concerned with worldly happenings: national conflicts, poverty, injustice, inequality, suffering, social morality, etc.; things and issues that concern the world here, today, and now. We should study the past and work together for a better future, but we should be concerned with making this world better while we are here; the world beyond this life, Heaven, is already known to be perfect.
Yes, I agree, it is important to hope and look forwards to the eternal, but ultimately, I believe that the fear of going to hell and/or the desire to live "happily ever after" should not be what is drawing us to God. Like I mentioned in the last post, I quite admire the saint who ran through the streets with the bucket of water and the flaming torch, because ultimately, I love God because I know that he loves us and he is in control, that he has a plan for us in the life, that no matter how bad things get or how bad things may seem, He is always protecting us, and in the end, He will always be there to guide us, love us, and help us through life. I was trying to express that people should not be drawn to God nor love God solely because they are afraid to go to hell or want to go to heaven; these people would only love God because it is convenient, because it benefits them; they won't (at least at the beginning) love God for who He is or because of his love or his ability to make them better people, and indeed many of these people are not interested in becoming better people, which totally defeats the purpose of a religion, IMO
No, I believe we should love God because he love us and makes us better people. I do believe that Eternal life is given through our faith, but right now, I am inclined to be happy with God's love; I don't need Heaven or Hell to exist to motivate me to love Him. This is a part of my faith that I've been working very hard on and I've been struggling with it (and this is one of the reasons why I feel that your faith is more mature than mine is), because at this moment, and I know this will sound rather blasphemous, but I don't care whether there is an afterlife or not; I believe that God has gives us Heaven, but if in fact no afterlife exists, it wouldn't (and, I argue, shouldn't) change how I live or change how I love God.
When I say we should be rooted in the world (but not of it), it is to the metaphysical, cultural, and moral world to which we live in, not the physical, concrete world that I refer to. And this is the point with which I agree with Machiavellians: we should not look solely to the afterlife for the hope of today because then we would be living totally for the Tomorrow, for That Which Is To Come; I think that this is unhealthy, because then our daily lives would become mundane, dead, and without inspiration; life would become routine, because what is the point in trying when this life can never hope to achieve the perfection of the next? I fear that this kind of thinking would distract people from action and make people passive about their lives because they look entirely to the life beyond this one. I believe that we need to look to it, yes, but we should also be concerned with the Today, with solving the problems of Today so that when the future of Today arrives, the children who live there may live in a better world.
You said yourself that we need to keep our eyes on the love and perfection of God, which I totally agree with, but is it not possible for the love and perfection of God to be (at least partially) separable from the afterlife? I'm saying we can still focus on the love and perfection of God and grow and learn from his love and perfection without needing to look at the afterlife.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: If Heaven does not exist, and if God doesn't offer us the Eternal, would you still love him? My answer would be Yes, because I love God for who He is, and not what He offers us. I understand that Heaven is an important part of our faith, and its still very important to me, but all I'm saying is that it is not THE MOST important part of my faith: loving God is the most important part, and I think that with the whole "everlasting life/eternal damnation" thing, some people forget to love God for who he is.
I guess to clarify, I should say that the whole argument of the previous 6 paragraphs is based upon the view of Heaven/Hell as the "carrot/whip" that "motivates the donkey to move" sort of idea, which is just one aspect/way to approach the concept of Heaven/Hell. I mean, the way I've evaluated and built my faith, as I've explained before, I try to ascertain what I believe and what I don't believe by evaluating them based on a truth. That truth is this: God is perfect and loves us to the point where he is willing to die for us, and this, as Christians, we aspire to follow Him and his teaching, which means we must 1) Love others, and 2) Respect others. All rules are derived from these. If I added "3) God will send us to Heaven" to the list of founding truths, how does this truth help me explain why something like adultery is bad? Adultery is bad because God will send us to Hell? That doesn't make much sense to me. It makes much more sense to me to say that adultery is bad because it (a) disrespects the commitment you have made to your spouse/the sanctity of marriage, and (b) violates the rules of loving someone as your significant other, because, if you are married, then you have committed your life to each other, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. I guess I'm trying to say that the fact that God gives us eternal life through our faith is not a founding rule of my faith, but it is a result of my founding rules, i.e. God gives us eternal life through our faith because he loves us that much, and thus all those who are faithful receive this gift, and thus Heaven and the Eternal is still a very important part of my faith, it's just not something that helps me explain every single other aspect of my faith. Please let me know if you disagree, because I may be flawed in my thinking/conclusions. I would like to hear what you think about this subject; your thoughts are very valuable.
Anyways, that was a hideously long block of text. I hope what I'm saying is understandable.
Hope to hear from you soon,
~Tim~
the process /reaction through which an ester is formed, usually from a carboxylic acid and an alcohol.
Origin: derived from "ester" from the german Essig-Äther, meaning "Acetic acid ethyl ester"
I performed an esterification just this morning in my chem lab! Esters are common in nature and are very pungent; many fruits and flowers produce esters that smell and taste good. Vanillin (main chemical that gives vanilla its flavour), banada essence, apple essence, and pineapple essence are some examples of the many ester compounds found in nature (we made banana essence today).
An ester is basically any molecule that has a carbon atom that is 1) bonded to another carbon atom 2) double bonded to an oxygen and 3) bonded to an oxygen that is bonded to another carbon. Here is the general formula:
 |
| The carbons on the ends can be attached to pretty much anything else. |
This is an easy concept, so I'll give you some practice here: try to identify which ones of the following compounds have esters in them. There are more than one.
 |
| I'll include the answers to these questions in my next post =) Good luck! |
~~~~~~~~~~
So bonus post here from me in response to your post today.
First of all, Inhumanism:
You mention that you disagree with (at least part of) inhumanism because it the poem that you cited, the poet asserts that the symbols of nature and its indifference is a more powerful symbol than the Cross. While I do agree that this is not something that we should agree with, I think the diction and syntax you used in the post made me apprehensive towards your approach of inhumanism, although I may be misinterpreting your thoughts.
I know you mentioned that inhumanism does offer good insight into the human condition, you failed to elaborate on this point, and I am thus unsure of which aspects you are referring to and I am not confident that we have drawn the same conclusions. From your brief summery of Inhumanism, I would tend to agree with these points:
-humans, as a species, are too obsessed with themselves.
I personally think this is a huge issue and its true: too many people in the world think that we are so much better than all the other species. An important concept we learned last year in evolutionary biology is that ALL ORGANISMS ARE EVOLUTIONARILY EQUAL. At first, I resisted this thought, but that was because I had failed to differentiate complexity with superiority, as many people still do. The argument made by biologists goes something like this: All organisms originate from a common ancestor (this is not an assumption, but an application of Mathematical principle of Sets and Groups that states that all groups originate from branching sets), and thus every single living organism on the earth has evolved over the same period of time. In other words, every organism alive has had the same amount of time to evolve. Therefore, all organisms are equal. Even though some organisms are more complex and have changed more over time than others, doesn't mean that they're superior; it just means that they've needed to change more to survive. Sharks, turtles, and some insects haven't changed much at all over the past few millenia, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're superior or inferior to species such as some birds or mammals that have changed a lot over the same period of time. By this virtue, it is not plausible to argue that humans are superior to other species.
-nature is more beautiful than humanity.
I would tend to agree with this statement. As humans, we are flawed. Whether you believe it is because we were created in God's image and are thus imperfect, or whether you believe there is no higher power or deity, I think that, religious and atheist alike, we can agree that humanity is imperfect. Nature, on the other hand, I believe to be an extension of God. The fact that there are so many inexplicable and incomprehensible phenomena in the world lead me to believe in the Divine presence in the natural. For a non-religious argument: you may argue that the laws of nature are just that: laws of nature. The natural world has an efficient and effective way of conducting itself, with rules that never contradict, but to that I ask: Why do these rules exist in the first place? Why is it that the Law of Conservation of Mass and the Law of Conservation of Energy or Newton's Three Laws of Motion even work? What determines that electric charges are equal but opposite in a binary/quaternary system? Why not with three separable charges? What makes it so that the Gravity is a force that exponentially decreases as distance increases? As humans, we may never understand, but that is the point: we don't understand because we simply cannot. There is much truth to the statement that "we are only human"
It is becoming a growing concept to me that Science is for the Worldly, the Physical, the Concrete and Religion is for the Metaphysical, the Ethereal, the Moral, the Abstractual (if that's even a word...) which are (as I discussed before) separate identities in that one should not venture into the realm of the other. (Another thing that I realized that I forgot to mention in that review blog post is that when the student argued that the professor didn't have a brain, my counter should have been: but if we cut open his head, we can determine for sure if the brain is present or not. With religion, we can search the physical and measurable world, but we will never find physical, measurable proof that God exists because what he does is not measurable: he deals with lives, revelations, changes of heart, moral improvement, things that are things that science can never describe)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the hierarchy of things, Humanity is at the bottom of the list, followed by Nature, and then, above all, God. So yes, a symbol of nature is greater than any symbol of humanity, but not greater than symbols of God. I wasn't sure if that was your conclusion as well.
Next, to respond to your concern:
I may not have worded myself correctly, and you may not have interpreted my view correctly, as I wrote my comments on Machavellians very quickly and briefly. What I wanted to say was this:
People should be rooted in the world in that they should be concerned with worldly happenings: national conflicts, poverty, injustice, inequality, suffering, social morality, etc.; things and issues that concern the world here, today, and now. We should study the past and work together for a better future, but we should be concerned with making this world better while we are here; the world beyond this life, Heaven, is already known to be perfect.
Yes, I agree, it is important to hope and look forwards to the eternal, but ultimately, I believe that the fear of going to hell and/or the desire to live "happily ever after" should not be what is drawing us to God. Like I mentioned in the last post, I quite admire the saint who ran through the streets with the bucket of water and the flaming torch, because ultimately, I love God because I know that he loves us and he is in control, that he has a plan for us in the life, that no matter how bad things get or how bad things may seem, He is always protecting us, and in the end, He will always be there to guide us, love us, and help us through life. I was trying to express that people should not be drawn to God nor love God solely because they are afraid to go to hell or want to go to heaven; these people would only love God because it is convenient, because it benefits them; they won't (at least at the beginning) love God for who He is or because of his love or his ability to make them better people, and indeed many of these people are not interested in becoming better people, which totally defeats the purpose of a religion, IMO
No, I believe we should love God because he love us and makes us better people. I do believe that Eternal life is given through our faith, but right now, I am inclined to be happy with God's love; I don't need Heaven or Hell to exist to motivate me to love Him. This is a part of my faith that I've been working very hard on and I've been struggling with it (and this is one of the reasons why I feel that your faith is more mature than mine is), because at this moment, and I know this will sound rather blasphemous, but I don't care whether there is an afterlife or not; I believe that God has gives us Heaven, but if in fact no afterlife exists, it wouldn't (and, I argue, shouldn't) change how I live or change how I love God.
When I say we should be rooted in the world (but not of it), it is to the metaphysical, cultural, and moral world to which we live in, not the physical, concrete world that I refer to. And this is the point with which I agree with Machiavellians: we should not look solely to the afterlife for the hope of today because then we would be living totally for the Tomorrow, for That Which Is To Come; I think that this is unhealthy, because then our daily lives would become mundane, dead, and without inspiration; life would become routine, because what is the point in trying when this life can never hope to achieve the perfection of the next? I fear that this kind of thinking would distract people from action and make people passive about their lives because they look entirely to the life beyond this one. I believe that we need to look to it, yes, but we should also be concerned with the Today, with solving the problems of Today so that when the future of Today arrives, the children who live there may live in a better world.
You said yourself that we need to keep our eyes on the love and perfection of God, which I totally agree with, but is it not possible for the love and perfection of God to be (at least partially) separable from the afterlife? I'm saying we can still focus on the love and perfection of God and grow and learn from his love and perfection without needing to look at the afterlife.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: If Heaven does not exist, and if God doesn't offer us the Eternal, would you still love him? My answer would be Yes, because I love God for who He is, and not what He offers us. I understand that Heaven is an important part of our faith, and its still very important to me, but all I'm saying is that it is not THE MOST important part of my faith: loving God is the most important part, and I think that with the whole "everlasting life/eternal damnation" thing, some people forget to love God for who he is.
I guess to clarify, I should say that the whole argument of the previous 6 paragraphs is based upon the view of Heaven/Hell as the "carrot/whip" that "motivates the donkey to move" sort of idea, which is just one aspect/way to approach the concept of Heaven/Hell. I mean, the way I've evaluated and built my faith, as I've explained before, I try to ascertain what I believe and what I don't believe by evaluating them based on a truth. That truth is this: God is perfect and loves us to the point where he is willing to die for us, and this, as Christians, we aspire to follow Him and his teaching, which means we must 1) Love others, and 2) Respect others. All rules are derived from these. If I added "3) God will send us to Heaven" to the list of founding truths, how does this truth help me explain why something like adultery is bad? Adultery is bad because God will send us to Hell? That doesn't make much sense to me. It makes much more sense to me to say that adultery is bad because it (a) disrespects the commitment you have made to your spouse/the sanctity of marriage, and (b) violates the rules of loving someone as your significant other, because, if you are married, then you have committed your life to each other, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. I guess I'm trying to say that the fact that God gives us eternal life through our faith is not a founding rule of my faith, but it is a result of my founding rules, i.e. God gives us eternal life through our faith because he loves us that much, and thus all those who are faithful receive this gift, and thus Heaven and the Eternal is still a very important part of my faith, it's just not something that helps me explain every single other aspect of my faith. Please let me know if you disagree, because I may be flawed in my thinking/conclusions. I would like to hear what you think about this subject; your thoughts are very valuable.
Anyways, that was a hideously long block of text. I hope what I'm saying is understandable.
Hope to hear from you soon,
~Tim~
Inhumanism
in•hu•man•ism (noun)
Belief that humanity is not the most important factor in the universe, but will constantly believe it is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Inhumanism is a doctrine that states that despite all the achievements and accomplishments of mankind, we are not the centre of the universe. Rather, the wonders of creation and nature possess truths and beauties that we as humans will never truly comprehend the magnitude of.
This belief was first started by American Poet Robinson Jeffers, the guy above with the pipe and bad haircut. He believed that humans are naturally obsessed with thinking that we are the epitome of evolution. But like you said, evolution is not a singular instance, nor is it some manifest plan for all life to constantly improve upon itself. Rather, it is a natural process that sometimes relies on factors like genetic drift and pure happenstance.
Jeffers also believed that no matter hard we try, humans will always resort back to believing we are the universe's pajamas. But, he maintained his belief that nature possessed more beauty that humanity with all its self-centred, selfish ambitions and obsessions could ever hope to have. In "Rock and Hawk", one of his less famous poems (which, coincidentally, I have to do a project on), he sees a falcon on top of a rock and states that
Belief that humanity is not the most important factor in the universe, but will constantly believe it is
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Inhumanism is a doctrine that states that despite all the achievements and accomplishments of mankind, we are not the centre of the universe. Rather, the wonders of creation and nature possess truths and beauties that we as humans will never truly comprehend the magnitude of.
This belief was first started by American Poet Robinson Jeffers, the guy above with the pipe and bad haircut. He believed that humans are naturally obsessed with thinking that we are the epitome of evolution. But like you said, evolution is not a singular instance, nor is it some manifest plan for all life to constantly improve upon itself. Rather, it is a natural process that sometimes relies on factors like genetic drift and pure happenstance.
Jeffers also believed that no matter hard we try, humans will always resort back to believing we are the universe's pajamas. But, he maintained his belief that nature possessed more beauty that humanity with all its self-centred, selfish ambitions and obsessions could ever hope to have. In "Rock and Hawk", one of his less famous poems (which, coincidentally, I have to do a project on), he sees a falcon on top of a rock and states that
I think, here is your emblem
To hang in the future sky;
Not the cross, not the hive,
But this; bright power, dark peace;
Fierce consciousness joined with final
Disinterestedness;
Basically, he's saying that a bird on a boulder, displaying the power of nature and its indifference towards human affairs, is a more powerful symbol than the cross on which Jesus died.
So while Jeffers is a great poet and has some interesting ideas, I can't completely agree with him. This is what I want to address here.
While he offers some important perspectives on humanity, from a Christian perspective, we can only agree with him to certain degrees. Sometimes as Christians we make the mistake of aligning ourselves to wholeheartedly with secular doctrines. I'm not saying that we should barricade ourselves in a church and refuse to listen or engage with anything that isn't scripture or Biblically inspired. We still need to be in the world as well as being not of it.
However, when we start sacrificing the teachings of Jesus for any other beliefs which we think is more interesting or better than the Christian faith, we may as well have sacrificed our faith entirely. Everything we do and witness must be seen and done with a lens of Christ and a Biblical worldview in mind. I need to say that I am in no way near achieving this in my own life, but I want to try to get this right.
I just want to bring up something quickly here that didn't sit with me right with your last post and I hope I don't come off too strong.
When I was talking about Machiavellianism, I was trying to convey that not only was living just for yourself and your own quest for power a bad thing, but so is the Machiavellian perspective on things.
This is where today's politics and the Western worldview comes in. We have all been indoctrinated to believe we need to focus on this world, on the "reality" of the earthly realm. This is why our society is so screwed up.
Not that every society isn't screwed up in one way or another, but I mean this is why as a a culture, we are doing so poorly, communally and socially.
We need to be rooted in this world, that is entirely true, I'm not denying that. God has given us this world and His creation for us to enjoy and live in, benefitting from all the wonders of the physical universe and all its magnificence and wonders. However, we can't simply be rooted here and never grow. We need to look up to things beyond this world, to the not-so-temporary world beyond. We need to remember how limited this life is and how there is a Kingdom, an eternal Kingdom, that exists outside of this universe.
Just like Socrates always looked to the beauty and the good of the eternal, we need to keep our eyes on the perfection and love of the eternal God. If we keep our eyes down and just look to what we have in this life, we will lose any chance of entering into a fuller life.
Machiavellianism is not a good thing in any respect. It is intelligent and it makes sense to us in this life, but it denies the very things that make life truly worth living: love, community, and hope for peace and restoration. Not by our own means, but by God's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyway, I just needed to say that. If you disagree with any of it, let me know as soon as possible and we can keep talking about it.
I like the Pokémon pictures you posted (I think too many of them look like furniture this time around, but oh well).
I got a lot of papers and presentations coming up, so wish me buenas suerte and bonne chance!
A guy told me yesterday that Midterm season is his favorite time of year because he gets a chance to show off what he knows and then feels good about it when he does well. I don't know if I totally agree with him, but usually midterms to me means the final is worth less (and sometimes contains less), so I like to look at it like that.
Have a great week, talk atcha soon!
-Clayton
Monday, November 1, 2010
Genetic Drift
ge•ne•tic dri•ft (noun)
a process of evolution by which the frequency of alleles in a population fluctuates due to random occurrences.
Discipline of Origin: Evolutionary Biology.
In evolutionary biology, there exist many terms that describe events and processes that affect the evolution of a population, which inculde: bottleneck effect, partitioning of resources, competition, predation, natural selection (directional, stabilizing, distruptive, etc), etc.
As defined above, Genetic Drift is a process that affects the allele frequency of a gene randomly. The example that Mr. Cloutier, my Biology 11 teacher, used in class is my favourite. It goes something like this:
Imagine there is a population of goats. 50% of goats have bigger ears and 50% of goats have smaller ears. Let's say that one day, all of the goats with big ears are eating grass near the top of Mt St Helens, and all the goats with small ears are eating grass at the bottom of the mountain. It so happens that Mt St Helens decides to erupt, and so all of the goats at the top of the mountain die when it explodes, but most of the goats at the bottom of the mountain survive. This means that the surviving population of goats all have small ears, so instead of a 50/50 ratio of small ear genes to large ear genes, the ratio of genes for small ears to genes for large ears has skyrocketed. This is not due to any advantages of having large or small ears, its just randomly how the gene frequency was affected.
Of course, this is an extreme example, and there are other, more defined, realistic, and practical examples, but this is my favourite because we have the instance of goats exploding.
~~~~~~~~~~
I wanted to talk about evolution today because there are many misconceptions about evolution. First of all, evolution is a process that occurs over MANY GENERATIONS. Secondly, it is a process that operates of POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS. This sort of misconception has led to the term "evolution" and "evolved" to be used incorrectly. The greatest case is that of POKEMON, where one individual pokemon of a certain species is able to evolve into another species of pokemon. (See what I did there? I used science to transition into one of my lifelong childhood obsessions: POKEMON. Sneaky, n'est pas?)
OMG SO IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW, POKEMON BLACK AND WHITE, THE FIFTH GENERATION OF POKEMON, WAS RECENTLY RELEASED IN JAPAN AND IS SET TO RELEASE IN NOTH AMERICA THIS SPRING!
I will now provide you with some commentary regarding the new pokemon game with reference to the old ones as well.
These are the new starters for Pokemon Black and White. The top row is the grass starter evolutionary line, the middle is the fire, and the bottom is the water. I quite like the grass starter in this game; certainly I like the final evolution way more than the final grass starter's evolution in 3rd and 4th gen. games; the snake is rather elegant, and I like the design. The fire pig, to me, is rather hideous, and not only that, the final evolution is the third fire started to have a dual fire/fighting type in a row! (i.e. the fire starters in gen 3, 4, and now 5 all evolve into a final form that has the type fire/fighting) The water type has a cool final form, I think, and overall, I give it a passing status.
When I first saw the pokemon of 4th gen, I had one of two thoughts: THIS POKEMON IS CUTE/SO COOL! or, THIS POKEMON IS HIDEOUS!
As I was going through 5th gen pokemon, I found myself saying one of three things:
1) THIS POKEMON IS SO CUTE/COOL I WANT IT!
2) THIS POKEMON IS HIDEOUS! WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
3) THIS POKEMON IS SO INCREDIBLY AWKWARD!
For example, pokemon that are incredubly cute/beautiful include these evolution lines:
Pokemon that are cool include these:
THIS POKEMON LINE HAS GOT TO BE MY FAVOURITE ADDITION. They are Ghost/Fire type pokemon, AND THEY'RE SO CUTE!
SO, seeing as you posted late last week, I felt that it would be okay for me to post late as well; I had a lot of hmwk to do at the end of last week, esp since I took a break yesterday to go to the Halloween party.
I apologize for the poor quality of the pokemon photos; using the game sprites were the fastest way to do them. Also, seeing all those Machiavellians was interesting. I must say, I do agree with them in the sense that we should be rooted in what is here in this life right now, instead of depending on an ethereal world beyond this one; I think I told you about this one woman who is hailed as a saint in her respective religion (I think it might have been Buddhism? I can't remember...) who was a very respected spiritual leader, and one day, she ran through the streets with a bucket of water and a torch, screaming that she was going to put out the fires of hell and burn down the gates of heaven so that people would love God for who he is, and not because they feared hell or wanted to go to heaven. In that aspect, I agree with the Machiavellians, but on their conclusion that the world must be capable of evil I do not agree. (that's my little splurge of Machiavellians).
I'm glad your youth has been picking up! That's awesome! Lol loving the Steve reference XD I hope your halloween was as fun as ours was; it was certainly eventful, but in retrospect, you didn't miss that much. Just videogames and disney movies (OMG I LOVE CASTLE CRASHERS SO MUCH =D)
Anyways, midterms are starting to pick up again, and winter weather is settling in. At least, the perpetually gray skies, the never-ending rain, and the miserably short hours of daylight. But, in a way, I love winter; I complain about it now because I don't have time to enjoy it, but winter is certainly my favourite season of the year =)
Anyways, I just realized that I procrastinated a bit more than I could have afforded to, so I'm going to finish off my prep for the Chem Lab I have tomorrow morning (I'm synthesizing the ester isopropyl acetate from isopropyl alcohol and acetic acid, which should be interesting... I really hope I don't mess it up =S. I realize that you probs don't understand a single word of that, but it be k =P)
Chat soon,
~Tim~
a process of evolution by which the frequency of alleles in a population fluctuates due to random occurrences.
Discipline of Origin: Evolutionary Biology.
In evolutionary biology, there exist many terms that describe events and processes that affect the evolution of a population, which inculde: bottleneck effect, partitioning of resources, competition, predation, natural selection (directional, stabilizing, distruptive, etc), etc.
As defined above, Genetic Drift is a process that affects the allele frequency of a gene randomly. The example that Mr. Cloutier, my Biology 11 teacher, used in class is my favourite. It goes something like this:
Imagine there is a population of goats. 50% of goats have bigger ears and 50% of goats have smaller ears. Let's say that one day, all of the goats with big ears are eating grass near the top of Mt St Helens, and all the goats with small ears are eating grass at the bottom of the mountain. It so happens that Mt St Helens decides to erupt, and so all of the goats at the top of the mountain die when it explodes, but most of the goats at the bottom of the mountain survive. This means that the surviving population of goats all have small ears, so instead of a 50/50 ratio of small ear genes to large ear genes, the ratio of genes for small ears to genes for large ears has skyrocketed. This is not due to any advantages of having large or small ears, its just randomly how the gene frequency was affected.
Of course, this is an extreme example, and there are other, more defined, realistic, and practical examples, but this is my favourite because we have the instance of goats exploding.
~~~~~~~~~~
I wanted to talk about evolution today because there are many misconceptions about evolution. First of all, evolution is a process that occurs over MANY GENERATIONS. Secondly, it is a process that operates of POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS. This sort of misconception has led to the term "evolution" and "evolved" to be used incorrectly. The greatest case is that of POKEMON, where one individual pokemon of a certain species is able to evolve into another species of pokemon. (See what I did there? I used science to transition into one of my lifelong childhood obsessions: POKEMON. Sneaky, n'est pas?)
OMG SO IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW, POKEMON BLACK AND WHITE, THE FIFTH GENERATION OF POKEMON, WAS RECENTLY RELEASED IN JAPAN AND IS SET TO RELEASE IN NOTH AMERICA THIS SPRING!
I will now provide you with some commentary regarding the new pokemon game with reference to the old ones as well.
When I first saw the pokemon of 4th gen, I had one of two thoughts: THIS POKEMON IS CUTE/SO COOL! or, THIS POKEMON IS HIDEOUS!
As I was going through 5th gen pokemon, I found myself saying one of three things:
1) THIS POKEMON IS SO CUTE/COOL I WANT IT!
2) THIS POKEMON IS HIDEOUS! WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
3) THIS POKEMON IS SO INCREDIBLY AWKWARD!
For example, pokemon that are incredubly cute/beautiful include these evolution lines:
Okay, so now these pokemon are really ugly. Some of them don't even look like pokemon!
These next pokemon are just really really awkward. I mean, look at them! SO AWKWARD!
All in all, I have very mixed feelings about this generation.
~~~~~~~~~~
SO, seeing as you posted late last week, I felt that it would be okay for me to post late as well; I had a lot of hmwk to do at the end of last week, esp since I took a break yesterday to go to the Halloween party.
I apologize for the poor quality of the pokemon photos; using the game sprites were the fastest way to do them. Also, seeing all those Machiavellians was interesting. I must say, I do agree with them in the sense that we should be rooted in what is here in this life right now, instead of depending on an ethereal world beyond this one; I think I told you about this one woman who is hailed as a saint in her respective religion (I think it might have been Buddhism? I can't remember...) who was a very respected spiritual leader, and one day, she ran through the streets with a bucket of water and a torch, screaming that she was going to put out the fires of hell and burn down the gates of heaven so that people would love God for who he is, and not because they feared hell or wanted to go to heaven. In that aspect, I agree with the Machiavellians, but on their conclusion that the world must be capable of evil I do not agree. (that's my little splurge of Machiavellians).
I'm glad your youth has been picking up! That's awesome! Lol loving the Steve reference XD I hope your halloween was as fun as ours was; it was certainly eventful, but in retrospect, you didn't miss that much. Just videogames and disney movies (OMG I LOVE CASTLE CRASHERS SO MUCH =D)
Anyways, midterms are starting to pick up again, and winter weather is settling in. At least, the perpetually gray skies, the never-ending rain, and the miserably short hours of daylight. But, in a way, I love winter; I complain about it now because I don't have time to enjoy it, but winter is certainly my favourite season of the year =)
Anyways, I just realized that I procrastinated a bit more than I could have afforded to, so I'm going to finish off my prep for the Chem Lab I have tomorrow morning (I'm synthesizing the ester isopropyl acetate from isopropyl alcohol and acetic acid, which should be interesting... I really hope I don't mess it up =S. I realize that you probs don't understand a single word of that, but it be k =P)
Chat soon,
~Tim~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)