Career Paleontologist

A master's degree is the primary educational requirement for most entry-level positions. A Ph.D. is necessary for most high-level research and college teaching positions, but a master's degree is preferred for most other geoscience jobs.  A bachelor's degree is adequate for a few entry-level positions, but most geoscientists need a master's degree in geology or earth science.   A master's degree is the preferred educational requirement for most entry-level research positions in private industry, Federal agencies, and State geological surveys. A number of States require geoscientists who offer their services directly to the public, particularly geologists, to obtain a license from a State licensing board. Licensing requirements vary but often include education, experience, and a passing score on an examination.  Computer skills are essential for prospective geoscientists; students who have experience with computer modeling, data analysis and integration, digital mapping, remote sensing, and Geographic Information Systems will be the most prepared entering the job market. Knowledge of the Global Positioning System, a locator system that uses satellites-has also become essential. Some employers seek applicants with field experience, so a summer internship is often helpful. Geoscientists must have good interpersonal skills because they usually work as part of a team with other geoscientists and with environmental scientists, engineers, and technicians. The average yearly salary for Paleontologist is $83,300. If you are just beginning to work as a Paleontologist, you could expect a starting pay of $68,600. As is true for most careers, you can expect your pay rate to increase the longer you are employed. You could make an income of around $98,000 after some time.


REFERENCES:


www.paleontologist.com

If extinction is a natural event should we try to save endangered species?

The reasons for saving endangered species might seem obvious to many people, but many question why we should save a species from dying out.  When we save a species, we do in fact do harm in some ways. For example, recently in California, the courts ordered the state to pump less water out of the Sacramento delta because of the endangered delta smelt. Less available water of course harms society in some ways. There is less water to make our lawns green, and less available water for private swimming pools. There may also be less water to keep the golf courses green. Less water available to farmers may also mean higher prices for produce and economic hardship for some individual farmers, who may even go into bankruptcy if the cutback is severe enough. Nevertheless, droughts, crop failures and bankruptcies are all part of life. We simply cannot completely eliminate them. Even if we pump the delta dry, we may not be able to solve these problems.

Extinction, is final. Once an organism becomes extinct, it is gone forever. It may hold some biological secret that may benefit humans but we may never find out if it is gone. Therefore, it would be prudent to cut back on our destruction of the environment and try to reduce our wasteful ways. After all, if we pump too much delta water, salt water will intrude, and in future years, the water will be saltier. Salt water also ruins precious farmland. Therefore, by saving the delta smelt, we may in fact save our future water supply and farms from salt water intrusion. So, why should we just destroy our own environment and in the process endangering not only wildlife, but our own economic future at the same time?

• 
  

Should Creationism be taught in schools?

There is no reason that Creationism should not discussed in the public schools because evolution is being taught and after 125 years, it remains a theory.   Additionally, evidence against the theory of evolution should be allowed to be discussed.  There should be freedom to speak about the lack of fossil evidence like all of the missing links that should show transitional fossils evolving from one species into another.  The only evidence that the theory of evolution has right now are sketches, drawings, and computer images that show purported transitions of one species evolving into another, different species.  The fossil evidence has never supported this theory and students have every right to know all of the facts.  Just as history, philosophy, and other disciplines are able to be critiqued, the theory of evolution should be allowed to be critiqued by presenting evidence contrary to it. One example is the Cambrian explosion, which is a fossil layer where almost every single plant, bacteria, flora, fauna, mammal, and animal fossil remains appear suddenly and without any apparent ancestral predecessors. It is called an “explosion” because of the fact that all life forms appear at one level with few fossils before and after it that show any type of transitional form.  This sudden burst of fossils explode onto the scene that gives the appearance of all life forms similar to the account of creation in Genesis. If you look at the life forms in the Cambrian layers, many of these life forms are still with us today and yet remain unchanged.

Bioengineering

Dear Science Daily,


     I have grappled with this question a lot as well. If we can create genetically modified rice that is much more nutritious, and ship it around the world for the same price as regular rice, why shouldn't we do that? As far as keeping species alive with bioengineering, well, that is really like playing 'God' and I'm sure tons of people would be upset over such a drastic action. There is little doubt in my mind that we will utilize these technologies in new and unusual ways, but where should we draw the line?

It can be used to produce bacteria that make insulin- for people with diabetes as insulin lowers blood sugar levels. Extracted from the pancreas of pigs and cattle.  Also it can be used to make plants and animals and even humans with certain characteristics.  Genes could also be manipulated in trees, for example, to absorb more CO2 and reduce the threat of global warming.  It can also increase the genetic diversity of species populations, especially those that are endangered.

Sincerely,

       Robert Mena

Gregor Mendel Letter

Dear Gregor Mendel,


     I understand that you have developed the theory of inheritance and heredity.  I've discovered that you have experimented with the garden pea plant. First I believe you pollinated short pea plants with tall pea plants.  To my understanding the next generation of pea plants resulting from the experiment were all tall pea plants. You bred two of the pea plants from the new generation and they ended up having 3 tall pea plants and 1 short pea plant.  I noticed that there seemed to be two different traits. One trait seemed to appear in every generation, which was called the dominant trait. One trait seemed to disappear; this was known as the recessive trait. You discovered discoveries sadly,  weren't discovered until 1900.





     Many people have helped pave the pathway of genetics. Charles Darwin discovered different characteristics of finches as he sail through the galapogas islands, Punnet created the punnet square(a chart used to predict traits among offspring) and Watson & Crick discovered the structure of DNA, the hereditary information found inside the nucleus. DNA is found inside your genes which, by the thousands are found on your 23 pairs of chromosomes.