May 23, 2011
The Octopus -- Very Flexible Indeed~
Wrong.
And octopus has no limit in flexibility, and are commonly seen escaping from bottles with ease. They are also very smart, changing color in seconds to match it's backdrop or to use one tentacle to reach something in a small space. Well it turns out that one tentacle can also bend wherever it needs to in order to reach. Tests show that an octopus can manipulate one tentacle using complex movements and motions, while being able to maintain it without injury. Now if a human tried that, I bet we'd all be in a lot of pain.
An octopus also has unlimited control over its body. With no bones, you would think it has control over few parts as the others just follow stuff. It turns out it has control over every part, also shown in the tests.
So we can all learn from these creatures and admire their skill.
Just don't try this at home.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518105513.htm
May 17, 2011
Tarantulas Have Silk In Their Feet...?
February 11, 2011
Mubarack Steps Down
February 10, 2011
Fish Lab :D
In class this week, we continued working with genetics. In this particular lab we used toothpicks to represent the differing alleles in fish. By choosing two toothpicks at random, this determined the genotypes and phenotypes in the “pond”. The fish that were yellow or had the genotype of “yy”, had bad alleles and therefore could not survive. Then by depicting natural disasters the green fish were excluded because they would not be able to use camouflage very well.
This lab is similar to nature in one way or another. For example, I realized green fish were the most common, even though the same amount of alleles were given to each type. The three alleles were “G” for green (dominant), “y” for yellow, and “r” for red. If any fish were to have the genotype “yr” then it would be incomplete dominance therefore making the fish orange. Since the allele for green is dominant, it has the most possibilities for a phenotype. This is what makes it the most common type of fish. This is the same in nature but of course with different phenotypes. In any case, if there is one dominant gene in any gene pool, its phenotype is sure to outnumber the others. When the chain continues to the point where an allele disappears or becomes alone and without any duplicates of itself, this is evolution. The useless alleles die out eventually.
However this differs from what happens in nature because not all fish may be able to reproduce. Some fish may also have mutations and will die young. The fish may even be affected in more than one way by a natural disaster such as pollution. If all fish lived the way they do in this lab then they would change very slowly and the generations’ populations would not change by much each time. Of course, other fish may breed with these causing different colors or types to be created. Not all natural disasters only affect one type negatively either. Most natural disasters, such as the oil spill in 2009, affect more than one species and usually wipe out the wildlife in a large area. Only affecting one type of fish in the lab not nearly as much of a variety gets harmed. If a different allele were to be dominant, the fish with that allele would be the most common. Take “r” for example. Then if the same natural disaster came and still only affected the green fish, the population would not decrease so drastically. The reason for this is because the allele “G” would be recessive and not always show even though it is still among the fish. Whichever allele is dominant has the most common phenotype. Overall this experiment does show major events of what happens in nature but there are many variables that will lead to different conclusions and events.
January 25, 2011
Discovery About Cancer Cells
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110124073903.htm
January 13, 2011
New Proto-cluster Discovered

December 05, 2010
Wetlands Website
Here is our website for the wetlands project. The links for our informations sources are in our packets, so please see those.
October 17, 2010
Parasitism
September 30, 2010
Ecology--flowers!
September 29, 2010
2010 -- 2011
April 19, 2010
How Is Popcorn Made?

March 24, 2010
New Branch In Human Evolution?
January 14, 2010
Earthquake In Haiti
November 18, 2009
Observing Changes In Matter - Sugar!
Lately in science class, we have been studying exothermic and endothermic changes. To put it to the test, we proceeded with a lab using sugar. It showed us what some types of changes look like when it comes to matter. We started off with four sugar cubes, a glass of water, a spoon, mortar and pestle, Bunsen burner (ouch!), test tube, and tongs. Observing the sugar cubes as the easiest. And the sweetest! They looked like any other sugar cubes, but they were in for a beating! We then mashed them up with the mortar and pestle. After this, we observed the sugar, now a powder instead of a cube, again. We then poured the powder into the glass of water. After stirring it for about 20 seconds, the sugar was hardly even visible anymore, but it was still in there. And then came the really fun part!
We carefully put 2 sugar cubes in to the test tube and let our teacher light the Bunsen burner. Carefully holding the test tube over the flame with the tongs, the sugar quickly melted and expanded, filling up more of the test tube as a liquid than as a solid. It bubbled and popped inside and the beige liquid soon turned brown, then black as we pulled the test tube off of the burner. Smoke flew out of it and it didn’t smell so sweet anymore. When we got the "sugar" out of the tube it was hard and crumbled on the table. But i did observe something awfully familiar. The smell of the sugar while it was burning smelled like a marshmallow. So the smell and taste of a marshmallow is actually just the sugar, and not any flavorings.
Again, time to observe. It had small holes, like craters, all over it. Probably from the boiling, I thought. So the changes we made in part a, grinding it, was just a physical change. It didn’t change anything major about it because it's still sugar. When in part B, burning it, it was a chemical change because we cannot un-burn it.
November 13, 2009
Extra Credit!: Quote Response
Sir William Osler (1849-1919) Canadian physician.
To me, this quote is true. If you make a discovery but don't reveal it, nobody will know that they discovered anything at all .Although when another person does, they will get the publicity for it. You need to explain and reveal to people what you have achieved and not keep it under your hat. Think about the pain you will feel if you were to discover someone wlse is getting what you could have gotten.