You might remember this post: how?
It's was written last semester as I was in awe about my broken paradigms and new thought-trains.
Curiously enough, I left those thoughts resting for a while, and now they return with new teeth, to mess my head again. I don't need to tell you, my dear Penguin about all the details again, and I don't want to bore whoever is reading this with my career rants today. Perhaps next week I will. In summary you just have to add how? + Math: not for dummies . (we're always touching by underground wires, you said xD)

My point is: I have learned a lot about Systematics this year.
I encourage you to search in google images 'phylogenetic tree'. (I am not familiarized with how the order of the search results appear in google, but nevertheless...) the first result I get is this (lets call it 1), then a rather childish drawing I will decide to ignore. Then this (we'll call it 2), then 3 very similar others, and then this (3).
Sighs.
I would need some more information about how each one is constructed, but apparently, none of this is actually a phylogenetic tree. Sigh. I'm serious.
1 caught my mind today, and it's the one I do have information on, so we'll leave it to the end.
2 is (by drawing) a phenogram. (It's missing some important things but the drawing style is totally phenetic) A phenogram is built based on similarities or differences of organisms. From the phenetic school, developed in the 60's-70's mainly by Sneath and Sokal. It does not intend to reproduce evolutive history, it is an artificial criteria.
3. (same as 2, I would need more information but by drawing) it is a cladogram. From (guess..) the cladistics school, developed around the same time that phenetics, mainly by Hennig and De Rosa. It tries to be natural (although they have big internal debates on that) and it is based on homologous charaters.
1. It's a really really famous diagram proposed by Woese. He refers to it as a phylogenetic tree, but if you read Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: The primary kingdoms. (Woese and Fox, 1977) you'll be disappointed to find as Table 1. A matrix of association coefficients, used to build... a phenogram. (which I repeat, he referred as a phylogenetic tree, and actually drew somehow as a cladogram, great.)

So, the closest thing we got to a phylogenetic tree is perhaps the childish drawing.

Phylogenetic trees are from the evolutionist school, developed in the 40's mainly by Mayr, Simpson and Huxley. They are interpreted and build in a whole different way from cladograms or phenograms. This would be more like a phylogenetic tree (though AGAIN we would have to see how was it built and all those details that go beyond the drawing)

By taking this class (Systematics I) I really expected to end up understaning how classifications are made (which I think is a complete mess), and to know the infallible method to reconstruct the evolutionary history, turns out: There isn't. Not even our beloved molecular methods (I had hopes on you molecular methods!) So we are left with evolutionism, phenetics and cladistics.

Now I'm looking forward to Biogeography, who would've thought?

This is what I've been up to:

This I believe, is Chlorophyta, Caulerpa sp.
I like to call it 'the dragon' but it is a Phaeophyta, Sargassum sp.
This my friends, is an organism with a helicoidal-like chloroplast :O oh my oh my

actually Apatosaurus...
According to my Dinosaur Larousse by Dr. Michael Benton, 1988
(bought in 'Gigante' [a store that no longer exists] for $19.90 [mxn pesos] )

Apatosaurus means deceptive reptile, it was described in 1877 by Dr. Marsh in North America.
It belonged to the Jurassic period.
I'd rather call it Brontosaurus, it means thunder reptile which is awesome!


[Kids Dig Dinos]

I want company, even if it's inorganic.

Generally I love light. As in, it is very peculiar and interesting. But... BUT, sometimes our use of light makes me a giant squid of anger.

Los complicados artes de la guerra solar.

The complex art of the solar war.

This is somehow as we imagine it... but how?

Evolution through natural selection seemed so obvious, so understandable, clear and awesome. I even made (make) a strong judgment and criticism towards those who don't believe in evolution (don't ever let my philosophy prof. ever see I used the word believe, but you get my drill). I was told in class that evolution is a fact, as clear as that the earth spins around the sun, and I don’t argue that. I do believe in Dobzhansky’s statement “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” But the ‘How?’ is the one currently intriguing me deeply.

I find it both uncomfortable and beautiful that I’m having these types of questions whose answers are not to be found in textbooks, and that when I google them, I find parts of the answer in the latest issue of Science or Nature. I like talking to my friends about the confusion, the new ideas, the classes, etc. and doing our political speeches defending the existence of a class that we want to take (and are supposed to take) in 7th semester.

And I think about Darwin, Lamarck, Molecular Biology research, Epigenetics, Science and Nature, and science and nature. And I smile. :)

Somehow, the last post got me thinking about probability and entropy.

S is our beloved entropy, k is Boltzmann's constant, and W in Wiki's words:

W is the Wahrscheinlichkeit, the frequency of occurrence of a macrostate or, more precisely, the number of possible microstates corresponding to the macroscopic state of a system — number of (unobservable) "ways" in the (observable) thermodynamic state of a system can be realized by assigning different positions and momenta to the various molecules.

Well, it got me thinking, it is improbable being you, since there are more ways of not being than being.
and I like thinking of decks of cards and dice...
I'm a 9♠ against a whole deck.

Some more about studying science...
Although they were funny before, they've never made more sense... lol
in this case, the big red slice becomes "because the teacher makes you". Also, last saturday I became a part of the green slice. xD It was really cold...




I think I belong to the "I AM... A SCIENTIST!" while the Mr. Mr. I told you about is "TOO COOL" he does hates the buttons, and actually looks a bit like him... lol!

PhD Comics

Beacuse tomorrow is my birthday, because i'm doing a homework about this, and because I like to say random things... here are some beautiful pictures of a lifetime.
Mr. Linus Pauling ladies and gentlemen:

Science? Art?

Problems with linearization

Problems with my life...

and problems with my camera



by I'm the penguin

Don’t tell me you haven’t seen a commercial in which bacteria are evil-pointed-teeth brown monsters, the size of the toilet with drug addict-like eyes….? And they’re conspiring against the house maid. The maid is so scared, but she gets the new bacteria-killer product… with O2 POWER!!!! (OMG… O2 is such a miracle!) As soon as this fantastic thing touches the evil bacteria, they kinda explode-disappear… (their eyes and legs too) leaving flowers and scent. And as they die, they make a gremlin “nooo!”
Or the soap that says “tears” grease…
It all changes when you know O2 is just oxygen (just? HAHA) and bacteria are prokaryotic cells with nothing but genetic material and ribosomes… and don’t forget the scary cilias or flagella. I mean, they definitely can’t have eyes, or legs, or conspiracy plans… poor poor bacteria, almost everyone is unicellular… How can you blame them?
What when you understand what soap actually does… emulsifies… pretty micelles..

You would think I think it loses the “magic” of tv..
But for me… there’s no greater magic, and pleasure… than knowing this…

[Mrs. K i t e ]
dear stalker, now you know I'm a nerd.... (ha, like if that was new...)