1. The picture shows evidence for land to water evolution. It shows that the land animal evolved into a whale by first, his feet becoming webbed and losing his fur. Then, his limbs begin forming into fins and his tail is now the tail of a whale, and his body is now covered in scales. Lastly, his arms and legs fully transform into fins, and his head becomes longer and more like that of a whale's, as his entire body is now whale-like after adapting to the conditions of the ocean.
2. E, North America.
3. These organisms show convergent evolution because although they all have wings with similar functions, they have analogous structures because the bone structures are completely different. They show convergent evolution because they are all completely different species, but have evolved to have wings that have the same functions.
4. The Common Descent Lab shows DNA evidence and ancestry as evidence for evolution because in it we compared the DNA strands of gorillas, humans, chimpanzees, and the common ancestor, and we were then able to discover that chimps and humans share a common ancestor and that gorillas were the most similar to the common ancestor of the three species. We could then use this evidence to determine which species evolved from the ones that we studied.
5. Homology is the similarity of the bone structures of certain limbs that organisms share with a common ancestor. For example, pterodactyls, humans, and tiktaaliks all share the same "one bone, two bone, blob" in the arm and wrist area. Homology is used to determine transitions in the fossil record, for instance the evolution from water to land. Tiktaaliks share many homologies land animals, showing that although it lived in the water and looked similar to a fish, it also had the same bones to allow it to move onto land and thus supports the evolution of water to land animals.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Blog Day 9
Today, we covered DNA aspect of evolution. We divided up into small groups and worked on different projects. James and I found the similarities between monkeys, gorillas, and humans by creating DNA strands for each like these below:
Here's what the chimpanzee DNA strand looks like:
And the positioning:
Here is the positioning for the gorilla DNA strand:
And the positioning for the human:
Upon analyzing the strands, we found the chimpanzee and the human strand to be very closely related. Upon studying the gorilla strand, we found it very close to the common ancestor strand:
Thus, we came up with this common descent model:
This model shows gorillas, chimps, and humans all having a common ancestor, chimps and humans having a common ancestor, and gorillas being the closest to the common ancestor that they all share.
Blog Day 8
Today, we began our introduction to evolution. We studied tiktaalik and went up to the museum to study the transitional features that tiktaalik has. It was really interesting to piece together the transition from water to land as tiktaalik contains features of both.
Here is tiktaalik half in, half out of the water. The bones in its wrists allow for it to do push-ups, or push the bottom of tiktaalik quickly through shallow water and away from predators.
We finished the class by taking a short quiz.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Macromolecule Mystery
To begin the class, we did white board activities regarding the notes we took for homework.
Then, we moved on to the Macromolecule Lab.
Macromolecule Mystery
The object of the lab was to find out who stole Jerell's iPod by testing 5 substances and 5 foods that contained those substances to see which matched the dry and liquid evidences.
Procedure
1. First, we placed small amounts of vegetable oil, glucose, starch, egg whites, all mixed with a tiny bit of water, and water into small containers of a plastic tray.
2. Next, we placed a drop of each substance onto a paper bag to test for lipids.
3. Then, we placed each substance into a tube with 10 drops of Benedict's to test for glucose.
4. After, we placed iodine in each of the substances to test for starch.
5. Finally, we placed biuret in each of the substances to test for protein.
6. We then repeated this process except instead of the substances, we used 5 different foods: pretzels, butter, jelly, fat-free yogurt, beans, and the dry part of Jerell's evidence, and the liquid part of Jerell's evidence.
Results/Conclusion
The results for the substances are as follows:
The results for the foods are as follows:
Thus, we found the thief to be Kiara because her pretzel was the only substance with starch and nothing else, while the evidences had only starch and nothing else.
Then, we moved on to the Macromolecule Lab.
Macromolecule Mystery
The object of the lab was to find out who stole Jerell's iPod by testing 5 substances and 5 foods that contained those substances to see which matched the dry and liquid evidences.
Procedure
1. First, we placed small amounts of vegetable oil, glucose, starch, egg whites, all mixed with a tiny bit of water, and water into small containers of a plastic tray.
2. Next, we placed a drop of each substance onto a paper bag to test for lipids.
3. Then, we placed each substance into a tube with 10 drops of Benedict's to test for glucose.
4. After, we placed iodine in each of the substances to test for starch.
5. Finally, we placed biuret in each of the substances to test for protein.
6. We then repeated this process except instead of the substances, we used 5 different foods: pretzels, butter, jelly, fat-free yogurt, beans, and the dry part of Jerell's evidence, and the liquid part of Jerell's evidence.
Results/Conclusion
The results for the substances are as follows:
The results for the foods are as follows:
Thus, we found the thief to be Kiara because her pretzel was the only substance with starch and nothing else, while the evidences had only starch and nothing else.
Diffusion an Osmosis Day 2
To begin the class, we started with a white-board session on graphs reflecting the data from the previous class. Our white board is as follows:
We then moved onto the Diffusion and Osmosis Lab.
Lab
1. First, Sid, James, and I created a cell with the dialysis tubing from a solution that was 15% Glucose and 5% Starch.
2. Then, we tested the cell to ensure that there was glucose and water to ensure that there wasn't, with a glucose strip. Then, we stuck the cell in a cup of water.
3. We added iodine into the cup to ensure that nothing leaked out of the cell, because if the cell leaked, then a reaction would occur with the iodine.
4. We let the cell sit for 15 min, then we tested the solution in a tube with 1ml of heated Benedict's. The Benedict's is used to react with reducing sugar, i.e. the glucose in the solution, thus explaining why we tested the solution with Benedict's.
5. While we were waiting for the cell, we then cut up three slices of phenol and filled three different cups with NaOH.
6. We measured the three slices and calculated the surface area and volume of each.
7. We stuck the cubes of phenol into the NaOH and immediately they turned pink.
8. We then let them sit for a few minutes.
9. We took the cubes out and measured the volume.
10. We took out the cell we created and found it to have turned blue from the reaction.
Conclusion
The glucose and starch molecules were unable to pass through the cell membrane of the bag because they were too large. The molecules of the water and iodine, however, were small enough to diffuse through the semi-permeable membrane and thus caused the reaction.
The volume of the cubes decreased because some of the phenol molecules transferred into the NaOH to reach equilibrium.
The cell sitting in the iodine-diluted water.
The cell after the reaction.
We then moved onto the Diffusion and Osmosis Lab.
Lab
1. First, Sid, James, and I created a cell with the dialysis tubing from a solution that was 15% Glucose and 5% Starch.
2. Then, we tested the cell to ensure that there was glucose and water to ensure that there wasn't, with a glucose strip. Then, we stuck the cell in a cup of water.
3. We added iodine into the cup to ensure that nothing leaked out of the cell, because if the cell leaked, then a reaction would occur with the iodine.
4. We let the cell sit for 15 min, then we tested the solution in a tube with 1ml of heated Benedict's. The Benedict's is used to react with reducing sugar, i.e. the glucose in the solution, thus explaining why we tested the solution with Benedict's.
5. While we were waiting for the cell, we then cut up three slices of phenol and filled three different cups with NaOH.
6. We measured the three slices and calculated the surface area and volume of each.
7. We stuck the cubes of phenol into the NaOH and immediately they turned pink.
8. We then let them sit for a few minutes.
9. We took the cubes out and measured the volume.
10. We took out the cell we created and found it to have turned blue from the reaction.
Conclusion
The glucose and starch molecules were unable to pass through the cell membrane of the bag because they were too large. The molecules of the water and iodine, however, were small enough to diffuse through the semi-permeable membrane and thus caused the reaction.
The volume of the cubes decreased because some of the phenol molecules transferred into the NaOH to reach equilibrium.
The cell sitting in the iodine-diluted water.
The cell after the reaction.
House Case Day
To begin class, we started by discussing the characteristics of the cell membrane. Then, we took a quiz regarding lab data and graphing. Next, we discussed the House Case.
House Case
We first went over the various symptoms that the cross country runner displayed.
Then, we thought of tests we could conduct to test the symptoms.
After, we wrote down several diagnoses of the cross country runner.
Finally, we eliminated some of the diagnoses that had to be false and left class with an answer in mind.
Conclusion
The cross country runner drank an excess of water during the run, after he had lost a lot of sodium in his sweat. This caused an inbalance of the sodium and water levels in the body, resulting in his symptoms. This is called hyponatremia.
House Case
We first went over the various symptoms that the cross country runner displayed.
Then, we thought of tests we could conduct to test the symptoms.
After, we wrote down several diagnoses of the cross country runner.
Finally, we eliminated some of the diagnoses that had to be false and left class with an answer in mind.
Conclusion
The cross country runner drank an excess of water during the run, after he had lost a lot of sodium in his sweat. This caused an inbalance of the sodium and water levels in the body, resulting in his symptoms. This is called hyponatremia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)