Biology NYA Justine Bell

About this class

Intorductory Biology covering:

Evolutionary Theory

Cell theory

Microscopy

Diversity and Classification of life

Macromolecules

Inheritance

Populations

Ecosystems

 

Champlain College, Saint-Lambert
by Tachim on September 16, 2017
On September 14th 2017, Melissa Gaskill who is working at the International Space Station Program Office, wrote an article about how transparent fish called Medaka could help researchers find a solution to the bone density loss of astronauts. This phenomenon is due to the fact that in microgravity, the body does not work as much as when he is on earth. This causes the bone mass to decrease due to insufficient work. To prevent too much bone mass loss, the astronauts need to exercises at least two hours per day and have weeks of rehabilitation.

126 | 0 | 1
Champlain College, Saint-Lambert
by Vincent on September 16, 2017
Pigs and people, sadly for them and fortunately for us, are anatomically similar in shape and size, which makes them possibly fit to donate organs to humans – a process called “xenotransplantation”. As hazardous as this may sound, modern science is finding ways to make it safe. The major issue with xenotransplantation is that pigs have viruses (known as “porcine endogenous retroviruses”, or PERVs) “embedded in their own DNA”. When pig and human cells grow alongside, which happens after transplantation, those viruses may get passed across cells and cause diseases such as cancer.

100 | 0 | 1
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Student

|
Reply to: meat for money
1 year 1 month ago

I was really stimulate by the topic of your article because I'm not agree with the meat's industry too. Also, you had a good start but in your last paragraph, your premises are vague because you use your opinion generalize some information without proof. So the main problem in your article to convinced people is that you didn't support your argument by adding sub-arguments or a relevant figure of authority. That's all, because your beginning was pretty good!

1 year 1 month ago

I was really interested about your article because I was remembering how shocking I was the first time I saw that kind of PETA's promotion. But you didn't convinced me. I explain myself; you only wrote about facts and your personal opinion and both are not arguments. So, it's would be really nice if you try to show what could be the bad consequences of those promotion on the society. I'm thinking about kids who saw nude women, you see what I mean? Then, nice work honestly. However, I hope I helped you to understand that an opinion and facts can't be used as argument to convinced people of your conclusion.

1 year 1 month ago

Hello, DavidFilippone!
Your article was very interesting. It was very intriguing to me to read about after-birth abortions, since I had never heard of them before. You made me think about new types of abortion that I had not thought about before.

However, there is a problem when you tell your point of view on the issue of after-birth abortions after the summary of your article. As a matter of fact, you say: "killing [a newborn baby] would simply be immoral in my opinion". This premise is not acceptable to me, because it is vague and is only based on your personal opinions. Why would it be immoral? What makes an after-birth abortion immoral to you, but not a normal abortion? Your argument is only based on your opinion, which doesn't convince the reader to agree with you very easily. It would be better, according to me, to add more facts and logical reasons to why an after-birth abortion should not be legal.
That being said, your text is still very good and very interesting!
Simon

1 year 1 month ago

Hello, DavidFilippone!
Your article was very interesting. It was very intriguing to me to read about after-birth abortions, since I had never heard of them before. You made me think about new types of abortion that I had not thought about before.
However, there is a problem when you tell your point of view on the issue of after-birth abortions after the summary of your article. As a matter of fact, you say: "killing [a newborn baby] would simply be immoral in my opinion". This premise is not acceptable to me, because it is vague and is only based on your personal opinions. Why would it be immoral? What makes an after-birth abortion immoral to you, but not a normal abortion? Your argument is only based on your opinion, which doesn't convince the reader to agree with you very easily. It would be better, according to me, to add more facts and logical reasons to why an after-birth abortion should not be legal.
That being said, your text is still very good and very interesting!
Simon

1 year 1 month ago

Hello, DavidFilippone!
Your article was very interesting. It was very intriguing to me to read about after-birth abortions, since I had never heard of them before. You made me think about new types of abortion that I had not thought about before.
However, there is a problem when you tell your point of view on the issue of after-birth abortions after the summary of your article. As a matter of fact, you say: "killing [a newborn baby] would simply be immoral in my opinion". This premise is not acceptable to me, because it is vague and is only based on your personal opinions. Why would it be immoral? What makes an after-birth abortion immoral to you, but not a normal abortion? Your argument is only based on your opinion, which doesn't convince the reader to agree with you very easily. It would be better, according to me, to add more facts and logical reasons to why an after-birth abortion should not be legal.
That being said, your text is still very good and very interesting!
Simon

1 year 1 month ago

Hello, Hanafian!

I enjoyed reading your article, and it was really interesting to me to see the negative sides of "promoting" obesity.
However, although your article is well-detailed and clear, there are two details I would like to address that made me hesitant towards the quality of your argumentation.

First of all, I believe that one of your premises is a "Red Herring", meaning that it is not completely related to the topic, driving the reader away from the actual issue. In fact, when you say: "Perhaps, just like cigarette boxes that advertise the negative effects of smoking cigarettes, Happy Meal and Big Mac cartons could have advertisements of the negative side-effects of eating too much McDonalds.", it is not completely related to the topic of obesity and malnutrition. Comparing fast food with cigarettes does seem very interesting, but a Big Mac is very different from a pack of cigarette, making it hard to find a reasonable connection between the two. Yes, both products have negative impacts on health, but while eating one Big Mac from time to time might have no considerable effect on health, smoking one pack of cigarette might develop an addiction that could lead to serious diseases. In brief, your argumentation is pretty strong, but that particular comparison might drive the attention of the reader away from the actual topic of your article, which makes it weak.

Second of all, in your second paragraph, it seems like you use a "False dilemma". This means that you only present two possibilities, while there could be way more. You mention that advertisements that promote the acceptance of your body image, are negative because they promote physical inactivity and malnutrition. You precise that these advertisements should be replaced by advertisements that would motivate the population to have a physically active life and healthy diet. However, I believe that you are assuming that people are either physically active and healthy or overweight, which is not the case. Some people might be very active, but are simply genetically bigger and gain weight without necessarily being unhealthy. In addition, I believe that you assumed that advertisements with the objective to promote self-acceptance only targetted obese, people, which is not the case, in my opinion. Many people are healthy but have a bit of fat and are very concerned about their appearance. These people do not need to work on their lifestyles since they do not actually have a medical problem concerning their weight. In summary, this premise suggests that everyone is either obese and "lazy"or skinny and healthy, wich is not always the case.

1 year 1 month ago

Hello, harry98.
Your article was very interesting! It is true that nowadays, people tend to proclaim "money does not buy happiness", but they seem to believe that it actually does. It was interesting to read about effects of poverty on wellbeing and life expectancy.
Yet there is a little detail preventing me from believing everything you have mentioned in your article. As a matter of fact, some of your premises lack support from a relevant figure of authority. For instance, when you mention: "Because learning new things develops our brains and by developing our brains, we have significant lower risks of having a mental disease like Alzheimer’s. ", it seems very interesting, but you do not provide any proof that this statement is true. I myself am very interested by diseases and health, so it would be very convenient for me to be able to check the reliability of this statement.
Still, your article is very good and interesting. Good job!

1 year 1 month ago

Wow, I really like your subject, it's strong, it's a part of our actuality and I think it's really nice that you decided to take position on this question about if zoos should exist. Personally I think that for the moment it doesn't exist for goods reasons, like you said.
But I think that your text could be more convinced, of course we see how you believe in what you're saying, however it's not enough. The problem is that your arguments are circularity. Example: ''Animals should not be kept in captivity because they are not free.'' So, your reason to not kept animal in captivity it's because they're not free, but it's obvious that if you're in a cage, you're not free. It's just another way to say your argument. Then, by using that kind of fallacy, you can't convinced people that zoos prevent animals to be happy (I think that's what you tried to explain in your text).
You have to go further in your premise to convinced people about what you believe here; Why animal should not be kept in captivity? Why they're not happy in cage? Why it's better for them to live in wild? Same if the answer looks obvious to you, the objective still to convinced people that there's no other way to think that zoo should exist.

1 year 1 month ago

Hello, Kyra. I was very interested by your summary and the topic you wrote about, since I myself love music and play many instruments. It was very intriguing to me to read about music therapy and its positive effects on brain pathways. Your article was well summarized and well standardized.
However, there are a little detail which makes me hesitant to fully believe your point. It seems, when I read your text, that Robert McAllister's theory is only based on the observation of one individual. Let me explain myself.
To me, Robert McAllister's experimental sample's size is way too small. He bases his conclusion that music therapy can restore brain pathways only on the story of Christine Blue. Perhaps Christine Blue was an exception and many outside factors other than music therapy helped her restore brain pathways. For me to fully believe McAllister's theory, it would have to be proven on a much larger number of human beings. Do you agree with me?
That said, your summary is still very well-written and very interesting. I enjoyed reading it and have learned many things.
Sincerely,
Simon

There no collaborative classes

About the author

I was born and educated in Oxfordshire in England, and did a B.Sc. in Genetics at the University of Edinburgh. I was lucky enough to be able to do my Honours thesis with the group that cloned Dolly the sheep.