Lab

Punnett Squares
Guiding Question:
How can you predict the possible results of genetic crosses?
Hypothesis: Throught the punit squares, it is usually
Data Table 1:

Trial	Allele From Bag 1 (Female Parent)	Allele From Bag 2 (Male Parent)	Offsprings Alleles
1	B	b	Bb
2	B	b	Bb
3	B	b	Bb
4	B	b	Bb
5	B	b	Bb
6	B	b	Bb
7	B	b	Bb
8	B	b	Bb
9	B	b	Bb
10	B	b	Bb

Data Table 2:

Trial	Allele From Bag 1 (Female Parent)	Allele From Bag 2 (Male Parent)	Offsprings Alleles
1	B	B	BB
2	B	b	Bb
3	B	B	BB
4	B	b	Bb
5	B	b	Bb
6	B	B	BB
7	B	b	Bb
8	B	b	Bb
9	B	b	Bb
10	B	B	BB

Data Table 3:

Trial	Allele From Bag 1 (Female Parent)	Allele From Bag 2 (Male Parent)	Offsprings Alleles
1	B	b	Bb
2	B	B	BB
3	B	b	Bb
4	B	b	Bb
5	B	B	BB
6	b	B	bB
7	B	B	BB
8	B	b	Bb
9	b	B	bB
10	B	b	Bb

Analyzing Data:
Step 1:
Make a Punnett square for each of the crosses you modeled in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

2 Homozygous Parents	B	B
b	Bb	Bb
b	Bb	Bb

Heterozygous & Homozygous Parents	B	B
B	BB	BB
B	Bb	Bb

Heterozygous Parents	B	b
B	BB	Bb
b	Bb	bb

Step 2:
According to your results in Part 1, how many diffrent kinds of offspring are possible when the homozygous parents(BB and bb) are crossed? Do the results you obtained using the marble model agree with the results shown by a Punnett square?

In each of our tables and tests we scored the exact same precent of getting the same offspring in alleles. In the first table there is 100% of getting a Bb offspring, but also in our punnent squares the final product was 100% me and my partner agree that this proves that in this case the punnet square method is correct.

Step 3:
According to your results in Part 2, what percentage of offspring are likely to be homozygous when a homozygous parent (BB) and a heterozygous parent (Bb) are crossed? What percentage of offspring are likely to be heterozygous? Does the model agree with the results shown by a Punnett square?

In the second graph that me and my partner recorded we ran into a bit of trouble, acourding to our table we got 4 BB out of 10 tries which means we had 40% chance of getting BB offspring the problem was that according to our punnet squares their should be 50% chance of getting BB offspring. The reason this happened is that the punnet squares are statistics but nature is chance, when we made the table we picked out of a bag therefor that is chance, but the punnet square has to be one answer, even though we only got 4/10 BB  it is very close to 50% which still proves that the punnet method is fairly reliable.

Step 4:
According to your results in Part 3, what diffrent kinds of offspring are possible when two heterozygous parents (BbxBb) are crossed? What percentage of each type of offspring are likely to be produced? Does the model agree with the results of a Punnett square?

In this last data table again we pulled out of a bag, which again gives us chance of anything happening, and as we guessed it, something did according to statistics or the punnet squares there should be a 50% chance of getting the Bb, 25% chance for getting an offspring BB, and a 25% chance of getting an offspring of bb, but because of life's chance we got 80% of the Bb offspring and 20% chance of getting the BB offspring, this is again because of life, but it does show that the punnet square was close and is reliable.

Step 5:
For Part 3, if you did 100 trails instead of 10 trails, would your results be closer to the results shown in a punnett square? Explain.

You can never know for sure if the results can be the same because of chance, but you can know for sure that trying it 100 is a lot more reliable and secure than it would be if you only took 10 tests, obviously because of this you would have more Data and statistics.

Step 6:
In a paragraph, explain how the marble model compares with a Punnett square. How are the two methods alike? How are they different?

Both methods are extremely simulare and both of them represents the probability for an offspring, and a inheritance trait from parents. Even though this is true, there are some major differences, for example the punnet squares the probability of a genotype, and represents the percentage of getting a certain trait, against the marble method which shows a real life example and provides chance. 

Human Genome

1. I would, I would very likely choose to be tested for such illnesses, there are many reasons as to why this is my choice. One of the reasons is that I would know if I am ill, if it turns out positive, I could begine trying to reduce the risk, with different diets and exercise. The knowledge of being sick could also help my female friends, for example if I had an STD my partner would know. Also if I knew that there was a larger percent chance that my children could get it, then prevent them from suffering in life. Although I would like to be tested I understand why others may not feel the same way, some people want to live life day by day and not knowing the future.


2. I think giving your DNA for further research is an great idea as long as it is anonymous. This would mean that you would earn no profit for finding the gene, as I stated before I believe that it is ok to know if you are sick or not, or that there is a chance because this can help you try to delay that disease or maybe even cure 
it.


3. According to the medical dictionary the term genetic discrimination means: "The potential use of genetic information to discriminate against people in the workplace, in health insurance, or in any other arena." This can problem can be solved by not telling your name so everyone remains anonymous.  According to the medical dictionary the term genetic privacy means: "The protection of genetic information about an individual,family, or population group, from unauthorized disclosure." I believe that people have their own right to choose if they wish to give the DNA or not  it is part of them is it not, it would be as if you are giving your body for science after you die, you have the rights to say you want to or not.

Climate

It is very posible that another ice age could acure in the next 100 years all due to the unnormal changes of climate in the past years. As the Arctic warms greenhouse gases will be released from  permafrost faster and at significantly higher temparature levels than previous times,

Permafrost thaw will release about the same amount of carbon as deforestation, state different scientists, but the effect on climate will be 2.5 times bigger because emissions include methane, which has a greater effect on warming than carbon dioxide.

The scientists created a survey, that is  led by "University of Florida researcher Edward Schuur and University of Alaska Fairbanks graduate student Benjamin Abbott", the climate experts were asked "what percentage of the surface permafrost is likely to thaw, how much carbon will be released and how much of that carbon will be methane." The experts stated that the  estimate that the amount of carbon released by 2100 will be 1.7 to 5.2 times larger than reported in recent studies, which used a similar warming scenario.


In my oppinion, this is possible because of all the ways humans use to pullute earth, we are tearing down the ozon and reaserch has shown and proved this to be correct, the winters have been getting warmer, and if we keep this "greenhouse effect" going on it is very possible that we will encounter an Ice age.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130161535.htm
Science Daily

The Early Atmosphere

Dinisours, early Human all examples of great history but imagine the History of the Early Worlds Atmosphere. Scientists in the "New York Center for Astrobiology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute" have tested the oldest minerals on Earth to "rebuilt" the atmospheric conditions on Earth very soon after its birth. The findings, which were found in  December. 1  are the first evidence of what the ancient atmosphere of the planet was like soon after its formation and directly challenge years of research on the type of atmosphere out of which life arose on the planet.

The scientists show that the atmosphere of Earth, 500 million years after its creation was not a methane, filled planet as previously stated, it was much closer to the conditions of our current atmosphere.

For many years, scientists believed that the atmosphere of early Earth was highly reduce (the oxygen was limited.) Such poor oxygen conditions would have resulted in an atmosphere filled with noxious methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia. To date, there remain widely held theories and studies of how life on Earth may have been built out of this deadly atmosphere cocktail.

Now, scientists at Rensselaer are turning these atmospheric beliefs with findings that prove the conditions on early Earth were simply not conducive to the formation of this type of atmosphere, but rather to an atmosphere dominated by the more oxygen-rich compounds found within our current atmosphere including water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide.


This was a unique discovery for me, I honestly thought that the the Atmosphere could change but it shows that it has the same structer as before. I was also very interested in how it was formed and that it was also being harmed in the early stanges of Earths Life.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130141855.htm
Science Daily

The Dying stars

If you ever wondered how you would know when a star is dying you must read this! The Scientists and astronemers have desided to close to their goal of observing a star just before it goes supernova.

The study, that was submitted in a paper to the "Astrophysical Journal", has  the latest result from an Ohio State University galaxy survey going on with the Large Binocular Telescope, found in Arizona.

In the first survey , the researchers have scaned about 25 nearby galaxies for stars that brighten and go dark in unusual ways, in order to see a few that are about to meet their end. In the three years since the study began, thw "particular unnamed binary system in the Whirlpool Galaxy" was the first among the stars that the astronemers cataloged to produce a supernova.

The astronomers were trying to find out if there are patterns of brightening or dimming that show the end of a stars life. Instead, they saw one star in this "binary system" go dark before the other one exploded in a supernova during the summer of 2011.

Though the scientist are still looking through the data, it's very likely that they didn't get any direct observations of the star that exploded only its much brighter partner.

A principal investigator Christopher Kochanek (professor of astronomy at Ohio State and the Ohio Eminent Scholar in Observational Cosmology), does not beleive that the first result was a disappointment. "Rather, it's a proof of concept."


I found this Amazingly interesting to find out how it looks like when I star dies, but it also interesting that you cant tell when it died because even when a star dies its lights still shines for a wild and because we dont know how far away from us it is we dont know when it died.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130142228.htm
Science Daily

Uh Oh Gammaray

 Would you freak out if I told you that a gammaray explosion migh accur? Dont bother because ot allready did. An amazing  cosmic explosion first detected by NASA's great observatory it happened on Christmas day it was caused by either a novel type of supernova located billions of lightyears away or an unusual collision very close to our galaxy. Papers describing both interpretations appear in the Dec. 1 issue of the journal Nature

Gammaray explosions  are the universe's most lighted and dangereus explosions, it emitting more energy in a few seconds than our sun will during its entire life. What astronomers are calling this the "Christmas burst" they also state that it is "so unusual that it can be modeled in such radically different ways."

"What the Christmas burst seems to be telling us is that the family of gamma-ray bursts is more diverse than we fully appreciate," said Christina Thoene (the supernova study's lead author) scienctists are rapidly detecting hundreds of them, in some cases the scientists  can catch some of them.

What happens is that the crushed core that forms when a star much bigger than  the sun's mass explodes. When the star's fuel is exhausted, it destroys under its own weight, pushing on its core so much that about a half million times Earths mass is squeezed into a ball no larger than a city. And then explodes.


Wow. I find these gammaray bursts increadibly interesting they can last about 7 to 8 minutes but can whipe out an enitire galaxy. There is even a 1/13billion chance that it can happen to us this very second. They are amung the most powerfull rays, for this to happen and be seen by scientists is  wonderfull and excrusiating.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130171058.htm Science Daily, Nov.30.2011

New Planet

PLANET SIMULARE TO EARTH 

Some of the people out there today, beleive that us humans are the only ones to have a planet that has such caracteristics that can keep us as humans alive, and our agriculture, those people are wrong Nasa Has discovered a planet that has simulare characteristics to Earth. The "NASA Kepler Mission" was designed to find and anylize planets in the Milky Way galexy that are Earth sized or in a "habitable Zone" these planets must have a system in which liquid water can exsist, and to find out  how many of the billions of stars in our galaxy have these planets. And now the Nasa project has another planet on the list "Kepler".

A research team led by Steve Howell  (a NASA Ames Researcher), has proved that one of the brightest stars in the "Kepler star field" has a planet with a radius only 1.6 that of Earth's radius and a mass no greater that 10 Earth masses, it  circles a parent star with a 2.8-day period. In such a short time, and a very bright star, the team has over 65 astronomers! Acording to NASA these austronouts are David Silva, Ken Mighell and Mark Everett of the National Optical. The Astronomy Observatory needed multiple telescopes to support and confirm their "Kepler observations." These were the 4-meter Mayall telescope and the WIYN telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory.

With a period of only 2.8 days, this planet, is only about 6 million kilometers away from its parent star. Kepler 21b is far hotter than any place humans could venture. The team states that the temperature at the surface of the planet is about 626 C. This temperature is  not even close to  the habitable zone in which liquid water might be found, the planet's size is simulare to Earths.