3XNTGRAD

As one of the UNT biologists who also signed that letter, I have to respond to some of the comments on this thread. First, although I am not a physicist, I have to say that Newton's Law of Gravitation is a mathematical formula that explains and predicts the effect of gravitational forces between objects. However, to my knowledge, the exact mechanisms/forces that cause gravity are still not fully understood (hence the "theory of gravity"). So, there is nothing wrong in calling our understanding of gravity a theory. However, that also lessens nothing about gravity or the understanding of this phenomenon in science because a THEORY in science is defined as a concept that is strongly supported by evidence. There are actually few LAWS in biology. Germ theory (that diseases can be caused by microorganisms), cell theory (all organisms are composed of cells), etc. are all on equal footing with the theory of natural selection (Darwin did not conceive the idea of evolution, he identified a mechanisms by which it could occur, natural selection). All are strongly supported by evidence, and in the cases I just mentioned, I would have to say they are overwhelmingly supported by evidence and are soundly accepted in the scientific community. That does not mean they are "perfect" or "final" in any sense, because they can and will be modified if evidence is found that warrants a change (theories are tweaked all the time in science as new information becomes available). In biology, there is no controversy about evolution (change over time), nor on the concept of common descent (all organisms share a common ancestor). The fossil record clearly shows progressions of species over time and numerous transitional types (fish to amphibian, land mammal to whale, etc), though anti-evolutionists will often say there are "gaps" (no matter how small) in the fossil record, as if that means everything else should be ignored. Fossil evidence continues to grow and support the evolution of speciec. In molecular biology, DNA sequence and protein sequence comparisons show divergence of proteins over time among species. Phylogeny (the study of the evolutionary relationships among organisms) can use the changes at the molecular level to draw phylogenetic trees (you can think of these sort of like family trees of species) showing how organisms relate to one another. In fact, phylogenetic study provides exceptional evidence for another theory, the endosymbiotic theory (that some parts of the eukaryotic cell -- we are eukaryotic by the way -- arose from bacterial ancestors). Phylogenetic studies of mitochondria (the "powerhouse" of eukaryotic cells) show that this part of the cell actually is genetically related to bacteria. One poster said there is a "law of biogenesis" that "demands" that no life can originate without life. That is incorrect. There is a THEORY of biogenesis that states "life arises from life" and basically refutes the idea of spontaneous generation which said that life OFTEN arose from non-living sources (this idea was actually not fully disproven until the 18th century through the work of Pasteur). The theory of biogenesis does not attempt to answer the question of where that first cell came from, but simply says that all current cells have come from a previously existing cell. If you wish to talk about that very first cell, then you are getting into origin of life research, which is another robust research field that obviously has great implications for the study of cellular life and evolution. However, just because we cannot describe exactly how that first cell came into being (though there are numerous hypotheses on different abiotic conditions that could have led to this development that are being rigorously studied by scientists throughout the world), does not cast any more doubt on the process of evolution than our not knowing the exact mechanism of gravity does on gravitation. When you see reports of "scientists" who support ideas like intelligent design, look carefully at their credentials. They are almost never biologists, and the reported numbers are usually ridiculously small (for every 100 "scientists" who support intelligent design, I could find thousands of biologists who think it is pseudoscience, for a tongue-in-cheek example of this, look at "Project Steve". To call the dissent of a few on the fringe a "controversy" about evolution would mean there is also a controversy about the Earth not being flat, or that the sun goes around the Earth, simply because a few odd people say it is so. Evolution is a scientific concept. It makes no claims one way or the other on religious beliefs. Intelligent design (aka creationism) IS a religious concept that has not been supported by the scientific evidence. There are a lot of "claims" made by creationist websites that say they refute evolution, but I challenge you to critically analyze those claims against the scientific evidence. It doesn't take much work to see through the smoke and mirrors. The bottom line: Biological research has overwhelmingly found evidence of evolution. Creationism is a religious concept which cannot legally be taught in public school science classrooms. Intelligent design is an attempt to put science sounding terminology on creationism and to introduce a religious concept into public school teaching (a strategy soundly denounced by the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case in Pennsylvania in 2005). Lee Hughes Ph.D with a major in Microbiology, UNT 1998

Do you think this will actually motivate him to do the job any faster?

Cold and wet doth not a blizzard make. (Miserable yes - but next thing we know someone is going to say there was a hurricane that day )

In South Carolina's case, it isn't the state flag itself, but the prominent display of the Confederate battle flag at the state capitol. Here is a press release from 2001: NCAA Executive Committee Acts on Confederate Flag Issue

The NCAA won't allow pre-scheduled championship events in states that incorporate the Confederate flag in their state flag (South Carolina and Mississippi).

Where did you sit?

Enrollment Management -- does that help? There were only about 30 people at that one, so it should be easy to narrow down, right? Okay - I'll give you some more to go on. Male, 42, Biology Dept. If I remember correctly, we also spoke once at a QEP retreat where I presented information on my blended-format class.

Unfortunately, I've never been able to make one of those. There always seems to be a conflict of some kind with my schedule (most often with kids' soccer games).

We were at the same meeting on Wed. morning.

Hmmm - I know Ted87 very well. And he's introduced me to SUMG and others. I know DREX. I know Harry, and JohnDenver, and I've met Cerebus. I think my neighbor goes by LadyGreen, if I've put the right person together with the screen name. I know who UNTCampbell, Adler, MedPilot, Emmitt, FFR, ParksandRecRick etc. are, even if they don't know me. I wish I knew who MootPoint is (do you know me?!?!?).

Let me take a wild guess ... The next time there is a flyover of Fouts, the planes will be carrying bunker busters?

You know, this thread has restored some of my faith in the board. Honestly, I was a little afraid to get on today because of some of the meltdowns I've seen on the board earlier in the year following losses. It is a nice surprise to see that many of you saw a lot of the same positives I saw in a game that I felt was well played by our guys, but we just came up short in the end. If only the score for the first 59:58 mattered instead of that stinkin' last 2 seconds! Like for much of this season, I choose to look at the progress we are making toward a brighter future. Yesterday showed a few more glimpses of that future, and I am 100% behind this team. See you at Fouts on the 24th!

Mean Joe is becoming quite the regular. He was there again yesterday with his son. I don't think he's been around the school this much since he was a regent in the 80's.

I saw one woman who had a shirt where the left (I think) half was NT and the right half was Navy, and it was stitched together right up the middle. Pretty cool.

Dibrell put up the Eagle Claw as he entered the endzone on the first one (just saw the replay on Ch. 5 to confirm what I thought he had done).

This would have to be the one game where I can't be there 3 hours early, and will instead be pushing it to get there an hour before kickoff. I just hope getting to the green lot isn't too backed up on the service road tomorrow.

Where are the Vulcans when you really need one?

Man, if we knew how to grow wins, this would have been a much better season!

I can only assume that this may be referring to the recent administrative leave of the person formerly in charge of equity and diversity.

I couldn't agree more. As an instructor at UNT, I see my role in educating my students as going beyond just providing them with information about my field. It is also about making sure they learn more, such as responsibility for their actions (how may of you get a "pass" from your boss is a project is not done on time! You sure as heck don't get partial credit either. You might get fired!). College is also about learning to conduct yourself professionally and maturely. I'm very glad to see that Todd Dodge maintains these expectations on and off the field.

He only does that for you, since you are so special

To my knowledge, no wells have been drilled on UNT-owned land. If they were, I think the revenue would not be shared with any other universities (our land, our revenue). I did hear recently that UT-Arlington approved some drilling on some of their land.

I bought one a few years ago (9'x9', I think) at Sports Authority that was dark green (unfortunately, it is dying and I will have to replace it soon -- hope I can find another one in green, most seem to be blue).

My kids have gone to his summer soccer camp for the last couple of years. He is terrific with the kids.

A win pretty much gives you a "bye" on that list any week, no matter who or how pretty.