Sunflower Project

On a Wednesday in March, the class was given one sunflower seed each to care for and track its progress.


My seed took until the next Saturday to show a tiny bit of green sprout, and until Sunday to actually have two leaves.

 After that, the plant seemed to grow rapidly. Daily I could check on it and see a noticeable difference in the height of the stem. One of the most interesting things about it was that the leaves continuously reached for the sun, no matter which direction I turned the cup.

 Soon two other leaves began to grow on the opposite sides of the original two. At about this point, the plant was very top heavy and I tried propping up the stem with a straw so that it could be straighter instead of bending so drastically to look for the sun.

 Just below the leaves, on the stem, a growth began that I can only describe as "fuzzy". This part of the stem then began to grow higher than the original leaves so that there were two distinct sets. It was at about this time that I began to notice that the original leaves were drying out. I had only been watering occasionally as instructed, but even that was causing the soil to overflow so that I needed to dump the water out to prevent drowning it.  As a compromise, I cut a few holes into the bottom of the cup and placed the cup in a thin layer of water. This seemed to help for a little while, and in the middle of the top leaves another growth began.

Unfortunately, this last picture is the last life of my plant. Despite dealing with the water problem, I suspect that the unfortunate orientation of my house and it's lack of sunny places seriously compromised the plant's growth. It constantly had to fight to get the little bit of sun that came in through the window, and a series of overcast days did not help things towards the end of its life. 

The plant did die, though I'm not convinced that it was solely because it wilted. I was able to make some positive progress even after the leaves started to dry, but one day when I looked at the plant, it had literally been cut in half. I find it hard to believe that the entire thing wilted overnight, especially since the stem and the "fuzzy" part of it was still vividly green and strong. I suspect that an animal (cat, maybe mouse) might have eaten it, especially considering that I never found the entire top part of the plant, only one or two leaves.

Mitochondrial Eve

Today it is almost common knowledge that a child receives half of its DNA from its mother and half from its father. A lesser known type of DNA is Mitochondrial DNA which is unique from the type of DNA which gets passed down from a child's mother and father. This type of DNA is passed down 100% from the child's mother. So while 50% of a child's DNA comes from its mother and 50% from its father, if you look back at the family line, only 25% of that comes from the child's grandparents. Soon those numbers become very small, almost obsolete, so that very quickly, the child's DNA no longer looks like that of its far placed relatives. In contrast, because Mitochondrial DNA is passed down in its full form from mother to child, it can be traced much further back down genetic lines. This has led scientists to come up with the concept of Mitochondrial Eve, an ancestral mother stemming from Mitochondrial DNA.




Mitochondrial Eve is thought to be around 200,000 years old and to have originated from somewhere in Africa, most likely Ethiopia. The interesting part about Mitochondrial Eve is not necessarily that she could have existed, but all of the changes which the DNA has undergone despite potentially originating in the same person.


The theory of why all of humanity is so unique despite the concept of a common ancestor begins with the movement from Africa to the far reaches of the world. 

As this happened, it became necessary for humans to adapt to their new surroundings. This did not happen quickly, but over generations, Africans who needed dark skin in order to combat constant sun exposure began to lose some of their color because they were no longer bombarded by the sun in their new environment. Peoples who were genetically predisposed towards thinness began to hold on to body fat more easily in order to fight back against their new cold climates. Slowly, the many different people of the world came into being just because they needed to change their appearance in order to adapt to their environment. Once melanin production was no longer the most important aspect of keeping someone alive, in say, Europe where there is not as much sun, melanin production slows down significantly and the body can use that energy in a more productive way. 


In this way, although Mitochondrial DNA might be able to be traced back to one ancestor, there are huge variations in the looks of people throughout the world. Just because people look different does not mean that they do not have a connection to this ancestral mother, it only shows the power of gene mutation in order to maintain a more effective body.

Japanese man

Naomi Campbell, a British model with Jamaican parents

Barbara Mori, a Mexican actress

Karen Gillan, a Scottish actress

John Terry from London

Animal Testing

Throughout the U.S. and other countries, it is common knowledge that animals are used for scientific testing and experimentation. In 2002 in the U.S. alone, 1,438,553 animals were used for testing, and these are only the numbers of cats, dogs, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, and primates which scientists are required to report. Mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded creatures, which actually make up about 95% of animals used for experimentation, are not required to be reported, so their numbers are unknown. While some would argue that tests like these are necessary for medical advancement, I would hold on to the position that the cruelty which usually accompanies these tests is excessive and wrong.


Originally, my position on this issue was one that more or less condoned animal-testing as long as it is for the "greater good" of humans, even though I did not particularly like the idea. However, after reading the section in Richard Rhodes' book Deadly Feasts about the testing done on the chimpanzee Georgette, I began to wonder if any kind of good was worth the kind of pain caused. It was very disturbing to imagine an animal locked up for the duration of their life and purposely infected with a known deadly disease. Beyond that, it was hard to watch as the people studying Georgette did nothing to help her once symptoms set it; they simply sat and watched and took notes on her spiraling condition. That alone goes against my personal impulses to help things if I can. With all of that medical technology surrounding the scientists, they would easily have been able to help her if they'd wanted to, but that was not the point of the experiment. Worse than that for me though, was the way in which she was finally killed. It is not the method of her death so much as that she was not allowed to die and be put out of her misery until the scientists decided that they had enough information and that from now on Georgette would only be useful dead. The description of these incidents in the book were enough to take a subject that I was uncomfortable with and push me onto the side of being against animal experimentation.


If using an animal for a legitimate medical purpose is unacceptable, than the idea of using animals in the cosmetic industry, an industry which is born mainly of vanity, is repulsive to me. At least in the case of Georgette, she was being used in order to determine the cause and potentially a cure for a deadly disease.  To use animals simply to determine whether or not a kind of makeup or household cleaner won't irritate human skin is unacceptable considering the pain that the animals go through. Not only do they suffer physically, but spending their lives in cages with little to no stimulation causes them to develop necrotic ticks such as spinning in incessant, pointless circles. They become bored and lonely, cowering when anyone comes near their cage and with little hope out of their predicament except for death.





http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default2.aspx

Johns Hopkins is in the process of searching for a method of experimentation that will improve health for both humans and animals. They are seeking ways to replace animal methods of experimentation with non-animal experiments, or at least to make the methods less painful and stressful for the animals involved. It is a start that needs to be pursued to end the cruelty.


http://caat.jhsph.edu/about/index.html

Standard Operating Procedure

How to Make a Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich

Date Created: March 26, 2012

Created By: Brandon Alvarado, Sarah Richardson, Yvonne Rodriguez, Ellen Schneider, Elbert

Overview: This procedure details how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich step by step.

Supplies: 

Crunchy or Smooth Peanut Butter

Your choice of Jelly (Raspberry, Blackberry, Blueberry, Mixed Berries)

Your choice of Wheat of White Bread

Equipment:

Plate

Knife

Spoon

Procedure:

1. Pull out two slices of bread out of the bag of your choice and place them on your plate.
2. Dip the knife in the peanut butter and spread on one side of one slice of bread. 
3. Dip the spoon in your choice of jelly and spread on one side of the other slice of bread.
4. Place one piece of bread on top of the other, so that the peanut butter and jelly touch.
5. Use the Knife to cut the sandwich in half or in quarters.
6. Wash the utensils used.
7. Enjoy your sandwich.

Quality Control: To make sure your peanut butter and jelly sandwich was made correctly check for two things:

No peanut butter or jelly is on the outside of the bread

It tastes GOOD.

Phlogiston Theory

In 1667, Johann Becher published Physical Education. In it is found the first suggestion of what would later become the phlogiston theory. At Becher's time, alchemists believed that there were four classical elements: fire, water, air, and earth. In his book, Becher disputed this by eliminating fire and air and replacing them with three forms of earth. The third, terra pinguis, represented combustible properties. Becher believed that terra pinguis was a main feature of combustion which was released when substances capable of combustion were burned. Becher's theory was expanded in 1703 by a professor of medicine and chemestry called Georg Stahl who renamed terra pinguis phlogiston. The phlogistion theory as it is known today is mainly influenced by Stahl's representation.


The theory was an attempt of early scientists to explain the processes of burning, such as combustion. It states that phlogiston is a substance without color, smell, taste, or mass which is freed during the process of burning. A burned substance, now free of phlogiston, or "dephlogisticated", was considered to be in its true form. It was believed that oxygen was capable of absorbing only a certain amount of phlogiston, and that once it became fully phlogisticated it would no longer support the process of combustion. The fact that combustion stopped in an enclosed space supported this line of thought. Another relationship between oxygen and phlogiston that was believed was that phlogisticated air could not support life, since the job of air in the process of respiration was to remove phlogiston from the body.
Ironically, this early description was essentially opposite of oxygen's actual role in combustion.


Eventually, the phlogiston theory began to loose ground. One of the biggest observations that began this process was that when certain metals, such as magnesium, were burned, they actually gained weight. This was against phlogiston theory since burning was supposed to release phlogiston and make a substance lighter. Some tried to hold on to the theory anyway by suggesting that phlogistion actually had negative weight, others proposed that it was lighter than air, but these conjectures were proved false. During the eighteenth century, phlogiston began to be seen as a principle rather than an actual substance; when it was referred to at all, it was usually linked with hydrogen. Some scientists, most notably Joseph Priestely, held onto the concept of phlogiston theory throughout his career.


Despite evidence of its flaws, the theory was still dominant until Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier indisputably disproved it. His work showed that combustion requires the use of a gas that has weight; since phlogiston was understood to have no mass, it would be impossible for such a substance to have any effect on combustion. Lavoisier's work left phlogiston theory behind, and allowed for the caloric theory of combustion to take it's place.

Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning

Deductive and inductive reasoning can in very loose, unspecific terms, be deemed opposite ways of coming to a conclusion; while deductive reasoning takes a general statement and makes specific observations, inductive reasoning uses specific instances to come to a generalization. However, there are many more pointed differences between these two systems which set them apart from each other.

Deductive reasoning can be based on knowledge that a person already has. For example, in order to solve a cryptogram, deductive reasoning is necessary. Since I know the English language as I try to solve a puzzle regarding the language, I know where all of the limitations and possibilities of the puzzle will be. Because I know how the alphabet works, I know that there are only so many places where double letters will be possible; if I need two identical letters to solve the puzzle, I know that there are only so many options and I could work around these limitations to deduce the other letters in a similar manner.


Deductive reasoning can also be expressed in if...then...but...therefore statements. 

For example, we might hypothesize that "The color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure."

 And so we could test this hypothesis using deductive reasoning:
 If the color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure; then all purple minerals should have the same crystal structure. But purple amethyst has a hexagonal structure and purple fluorite has an isometric structure (determined by observations). Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported or strengthened.
http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm 

 Deductive reasoning is the preferred type of reasoning when it comes to scientific study.


Inductive reasoning produces much less specific results. 

This is the kind of reasoning used if you have gradually built up an understanding of how something works. Rather than starting with laws and principles and making deductions, most people collect relevant experience and try to construct principles from it. http://www.nakedscience.org/mrg/Deductive%20and%20Inductive%20Reasoning.htm 

 If you were using inductive reasoning to make a connection between obesity and sugar intake, you might be able to make a chart which suggests that the more sugar a person consumes, the greater chance that they will be obese. You will be able to make a trend line demonstrating this relationship, but that is about it. It would be very unlikely that any particular instance plotted in the graph would actually fall on the trend line, so all you would have is a generalized explanation. Another problem with this type of reasoning is that by using this method, you cannot determine whether or not sugar would be the only cause of obesity. There could be several factors present in certain individual cases, but these would not be studied and would not be reflected in the trend line. Therefore, at best, you would only have a loose understanding of your topic.

The table below (Figure 7) summarises the most prevalent properties and differences between deductive and inductive reasoning which are important to keep in mind.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience/Reasoning_and_Decision_Making 

 

Wiwaxia

One of the many incredibly unique creatures discovered 

• Wiwaxia fossil
• This particular preparation also contains a fossil of Marrella at the upper left. 

during the excavation of the Burgess Shale is  Wiwaxia, 

a creature which even today has not been classified into 

any existing animal group.   Wiwaxia is distinguished by a double row of elongated spines which rise upwards from it's back. The rest of its body was covered in overlapping, scale-like segments called sclerites which were arranged in different orientations depending on their position on Wiwaxia's body.. Evidence suggests that Wiwaxia grew by molting these plates. The sclerites along with the rows of spines probably offered protection for Wiwaxia, a small creature ranging from 3 to 55 mm in length, from predators. Another defining feature of Wiwaxia was it's anterior jaw, which had two rows of teeth; it's position suggests the bottom feeding nature of the creature.

The classification of Wiwaxia has always been a challenge for scientists. 

There were no sclerites on the bottom of the creature and its soft body moved across the sea floor using bands of muscle in a way that is reminiscent of a slug. This brings to mind images of the mollusk family, but Wiwaxia's sclerite armor is not a characteristic of mollusks. Charles Walcott, the original discoverer of the Burgess Shale and it's fossils, placed Wiwaxia with the annelids, calling it a polychaete annelid or bristle worm. Conway Morris, who helped to disprove many of Walcott's original classifications, argued that Wiwaxia's sclerites weren't like those of other polychaete.

As a result of all the unique features of Wiwaxia and the debate between scientists, Wiwaxia has yet to find a home in any known animal group. Instead it joins the ranks of ranks of other Burgess Shale "oddballs" like Hallucigenia and Anomalocaris.