The time spent in groups reading our papers was something I had never done before. It was an interesting experience, as I generally have a sort of strange peer review fear. Last quarter my teacher had us make a pen name, mixed them up, passed them out, and after they had been reviewed, we collected them off a desk before we left. I think I preferred the groups more though.
Reading our papers out load really helped to see where something didn't flow, find word errors or awkward sentences, and generally gave me a better feeling on the paper. It may have been a draft, but I usually write my drafts as if writing the final paper, it may take hours and be a pain but it also means less time editing afterward. Plus, I can't just go halfway, not on writing, which makes it near impossible to cut down on the time spent nitpicking over something. Though, with my complaining and my mom's nagging to just get it done and not be so critical, I think I may have succeeded slightly. That would be twice this class has helped in that area, the Intro and Conclusion being the first. Of course, all of the other in-class writing has helped with their time limits as well.
It was also really nice to see the reactions of other people, not that there was much reaction from reading a paper, but it got me excited to see what they have to say come Monday. I was also very interested hearing someone read their paper, to hear a voice behind the words is amazing. It puts so much more life into it, you can tell by their inflections and pauses what the words mean to them. Overall, I liked the class a lot.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Outline
History
Mutations in the genes of animals have been occurring since animals were first formed, each lending progress toward improving or depleting a species. Each of these articles cover slightly or greatly differing viewpoints on the world of mutations. Articles written on scientific studies, factual examples of animal mutations, the environments impact on these, and the kinds of mutations available.
Thesis
While man is part of the world and people assume any mutation caused by humans is therefore, natural, humans have their own unique and various forms of pollution. Ones that usually cause a negative mutation in animals, while the natural environment brings about changes to make stronger animals or phase out the weaker of a species’ population.
Major Points
I. Human pollution forces genetic changes.
1. Quote E1, Quote E2, Quote E3.
2. Source E: Mice and sea gull mutations in urban areas compared to rural areas were higher.
3. Source E: Mice and sea gulls near steel mills and highways had a higher number of mutations compared to other areas.
II. Human influence on genetic mutation is generally negative.
1. Source E: Mice bred from a control group and a polluted group showed higher mutations passed to the offspring in the pollution influenced group, showing hereditary, negative mutations.
2. Source D: Large populations of flightless birds lived in New Zealand mountains, but are now nearly extinct after humans came to shore with mammals such as cats.
III. The natural environment does not cause mutations, but does determine their usefulness.
1. Quote B2, Quote D2, Quote D3.
2. Source D: Penguins in Antarctica have experienced several mutations making them flightless with webbed feet and heavy with insulating blubber. This allows for a greater chance of survival in this environment, but in another, their inability to fly, extra weight, and slow movement on land would be a great hindrance.
IV. Most mutations in animals are beneficial in the long run.
1. Quote B1, Quote C1, Quote C2.
2. Source B and C: Good mutations stay, spread through offspring and eventually become a natural characteristic or a new type of species, such as Darwin’s finches.
3. Source B: Bad mutations are eliminated quickly because the animal will not survive well with it, allowing only room for a slightly negative mutation to persist.
4. Source C: The progress in species today would not exist if all mutations were negative, everything would still be as it was thousands of years ago.
Objective Points
I. All mutations are bad or useless.
1. Supported by Source A, Quote A1 and Quote A2.
2. Rebuttal: The world’s wildlife would not be where it is today if every mutation had no or only negative impact.
II. Humans are part of the world, therefore their impact is natural.
1. Rebuttal: People are innovative, not living in a natural environment; the resulting pollution is unnatural and unhealthy.
III. The environment does cause genetic mutations.
1. Rebuttal: The natural environment cannot physically alter genes; mutations are the result of a change in the type or number of chemicals or bases in DNA.
Mutations in the genes of animals have been occurring since animals were first formed, each lending progress toward improving or depleting a species. Each of these articles cover slightly or greatly differing viewpoints on the world of mutations. Articles written on scientific studies, factual examples of animal mutations, the environments impact on these, and the kinds of mutations available.
Thesis
While man is part of the world and people assume any mutation caused by humans is therefore, natural, humans have their own unique and various forms of pollution. Ones that usually cause a negative mutation in animals, while the natural environment brings about changes to make stronger animals or phase out the weaker of a species’ population.
Major Points
I. Human pollution forces genetic changes.
1. Quote E1, Quote E2, Quote E3.
2. Source E: Mice and sea gull mutations in urban areas compared to rural areas were higher.
3. Source E: Mice and sea gulls near steel mills and highways had a higher number of mutations compared to other areas.
II. Human influence on genetic mutation is generally negative.
1. Source E: Mice bred from a control group and a polluted group showed higher mutations passed to the offspring in the pollution influenced group, showing hereditary, negative mutations.
2. Source D: Large populations of flightless birds lived in New Zealand mountains, but are now nearly extinct after humans came to shore with mammals such as cats.
III. The natural environment does not cause mutations, but does determine their usefulness.
1. Quote B2, Quote D2, Quote D3.
2. Source D: Penguins in Antarctica have experienced several mutations making them flightless with webbed feet and heavy with insulating blubber. This allows for a greater chance of survival in this environment, but in another, their inability to fly, extra weight, and slow movement on land would be a great hindrance.
IV. Most mutations in animals are beneficial in the long run.
1. Quote B1, Quote C1, Quote C2.
2. Source B and C: Good mutations stay, spread through offspring and eventually become a natural characteristic or a new type of species, such as Darwin’s finches.
3. Source B: Bad mutations are eliminated quickly because the animal will not survive well with it, allowing only room for a slightly negative mutation to persist.
4. Source C: The progress in species today would not exist if all mutations were negative, everything would still be as it was thousands of years ago.
Objective Points
I. All mutations are bad or useless.
1. Supported by Source A, Quote A1 and Quote A2.
2. Rebuttal: The world’s wildlife would not be where it is today if every mutation had no or only negative impact.
II. Humans are part of the world, therefore their impact is natural.
1. Rebuttal: People are innovative, not living in a natural environment; the resulting pollution is unnatural and unhealthy.
III. The environment does cause genetic mutations.
1. Rebuttal: The natural environment cannot physically alter genes; mutations are the result of a change in the type or number of chemicals or bases in DNA.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Weekly Blog Post 3
When we wrote out our introduction and conclusion it really put the pressure on to finish it within a reasonable time, something I don't often do. In fact, in most classes that have required journal entries during class-time, I've only managed to finish an entry halfway. Then I would have to go back later to complete it. The reason I mention this is, when I knew it had to get done in a time limit because we had to share with our peers, it forced me to stop being so nit-picky.
See, generally when I have to write a paper, I do it all at once and edit it as I go through, I can't get to the next paragraph until I am satisfied with the previous one. When I truly get stuck, I'll highlight in the word document the section bothering me, using different colors for different meanings. Such as 'change this word/is this needed?' or 'rework sentence' for yellow and green. On occasion I'll use blue for something else that is proving troublesome. Once I've gotten through the paper and I begin to work through it again, I'll add in possibilities after a highlighted sentence (which are also colored) and read it that way, so I can just delete the part I don't like.
The problem with this method is that most teachers want a rough draft copy, while I finish my paper all in one night, editing as I go. Of course, I can do that, call it my rough draft and come back later maybe with others for opinions and edit that, but only if it is due on different dates. When they are required on the same day, it takes much longer to write a paper because I have to transfer from one document to another as I go. So again, nit-picky and time have been issues.
One more big difference from class and my normal habits: I don't usually know my ending. I'll have a vague idea and if I think of a really great sentence I'll write it down somewhere to see if I can still use it by the end, that's about the extent of my pre-planning. I like to write the paper as I am thinking it through, it puts down my thought-process (though in a more organized manner) and I think it helps to pull people in, towards my opinion, because they understand how I reached a certain point. I may go into a paper knowing what it is about and not worrying a bit if my opinions or ideas will lose track by the end, or I may go into a paper knowing if something does change it is because my thoughts have processed it more and reached a new outcome, which I find fine because it is still legitimate.
That's a bit of a long version of how I write, I explained it because I have never written a full conclusion before actually writing my paper, especially with a time limit. It was strange and a little aggravating to limit my editing. I wrote a few notes in margins, put brackets around a few words, drew arrows if a line might work better somewhere else, and scratched them out when they didn't. It was nice though, for once I may save some time staring at a screen and my paper will still be a thought process (I've never been able to just list facts), but perhaps my brain will be spared a headache or two when I can remind myself clearly of where I am going with a point. Hopefully it'll also let me write a rough draft without spending hours on it editing, a draft is meant to be improved, so it'll save me quite some time to divide up the editing amounts.
See, generally when I have to write a paper, I do it all at once and edit it as I go through, I can't get to the next paragraph until I am satisfied with the previous one. When I truly get stuck, I'll highlight in the word document the section bothering me, using different colors for different meanings. Such as 'change this word/is this needed?' or 'rework sentence' for yellow and green. On occasion I'll use blue for something else that is proving troublesome. Once I've gotten through the paper and I begin to work through it again, I'll add in possibilities after a highlighted sentence (which are also colored) and read it that way, so I can just delete the part I don't like.
The problem with this method is that most teachers want a rough draft copy, while I finish my paper all in one night, editing as I go. Of course, I can do that, call it my rough draft and come back later maybe with others for opinions and edit that, but only if it is due on different dates. When they are required on the same day, it takes much longer to write a paper because I have to transfer from one document to another as I go. So again, nit-picky and time have been issues.
One more big difference from class and my normal habits: I don't usually know my ending. I'll have a vague idea and if I think of a really great sentence I'll write it down somewhere to see if I can still use it by the end, that's about the extent of my pre-planning. I like to write the paper as I am thinking it through, it puts down my thought-process (though in a more organized manner) and I think it helps to pull people in, towards my opinion, because they understand how I reached a certain point. I may go into a paper knowing what it is about and not worrying a bit if my opinions or ideas will lose track by the end, or I may go into a paper knowing if something does change it is because my thoughts have processed it more and reached a new outcome, which I find fine because it is still legitimate.
That's a bit of a long version of how I write, I explained it because I have never written a full conclusion before actually writing my paper, especially with a time limit. It was strange and a little aggravating to limit my editing. I wrote a few notes in margins, put brackets around a few words, drew arrows if a line might work better somewhere else, and scratched them out when they didn't. It was nice though, for once I may save some time staring at a screen and my paper will still be a thought process (I've never been able to just list facts), but perhaps my brain will be spared a headache or two when I can remind myself clearly of where I am going with a point. Hopefully it'll also let me write a rough draft without spending hours on it editing, a draft is meant to be improved, so it'll save me quite some time to divide up the editing amounts.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Genetic Mutations -- Intro and Conclusion
Introduction:
Genetic mutations occur in all the living animals of Earth, humans included. They can increase the chance of survival or greatly diminish it depending on the surrounding environment. People have influenced the wildlife with their civilization and various forms of pollution while the natural environment has demanded changes in its “only the strong survive” mentality. That’s it isn’t it? Only the strong survive… but are these mutations actually helping or are they weakening a species’ population? Then the problem is, of those beneficial genetic mutations, are the people of this world causing an imbalance with an increase in negative mutations?
Conclusion:
Through all of these studies it is fair to reason that the human impact in the world of mutations has not been a beneficial one. Genetic mutations are heavily influenced on helpful or harmful by their environment, though they are not caused by it. That is, until pollution comes into play, forcing a change in the genes. While most mutations can go either way, in the long run, the majority can be considered beneficial in improving survival chances or weeding out the weaker of animals. Genetic mutations are a part of life, something that cannot be changed. Though, perhaps they can be improved with human action to cut down their own personal, negative impact.
Genetic mutations occur in all the living animals of Earth, humans included. They can increase the chance of survival or greatly diminish it depending on the surrounding environment. People have influenced the wildlife with their civilization and various forms of pollution while the natural environment has demanded changes in its “only the strong survive” mentality. That’s it isn’t it? Only the strong survive… but are these mutations actually helping or are they weakening a species’ population? Then the problem is, of those beneficial genetic mutations, are the people of this world causing an imbalance with an increase in negative mutations?
Conclusion:
Through all of these studies it is fair to reason that the human impact in the world of mutations has not been a beneficial one. Genetic mutations are heavily influenced on helpful or harmful by their environment, though they are not caused by it. That is, until pollution comes into play, forcing a change in the genes. While most mutations can go either way, in the long run, the majority can be considered beneficial in improving survival chances or weeding out the weaker of animals. Genetic mutations are a part of life, something that cannot be changed. Though, perhaps they can be improved with human action to cut down their own personal, negative impact.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Proposal
I want to write a research paper about Genetic Mutations in animals because I think it is important to be informed of nature’s physiology in order to understand whether the effects that may carry over to humans, and that humans are inflicting on their surrounding environment, are beneficial or harmful. This is an important subject to study, not only to improve the health of animals, but to improve mankinds as well. If a scientist can discover the causes of negative mutations, such as air pollution, in the wildlife, preventative steps can be taken to ensure that mutation does not travel beyond those select animals. In order to begin I will conduct a thorough search of internet articles about genetic mutations in animals. I will narrow them down by focusing on articles discussing the pros and cons in a type of mutation, what influences those pros and cons, as well as the differences between human induced mutation (ie: pollution) and the natural environment induced mutation.
I want to show how varied the causes of a mutation can be, along with what makes it beneficial, harmful, or neutral. In doing so, I hope such a paper could influence others to look into the subject and take some form of action. I intend to educate the audience of this paper about how they are personally affecting wildlife and also how it may, in turn, affect them. I find knowing the affects of an existence and its environment to be intriguing, especially when dealing with noticeable shifts in the external or internal body. Understanding a concept means the creation of hypothesis is possible, making room for tests and allowing the potential for improvement to grow. As a student of the University of Cincinnati and as a living person in the current world I believe it is my right to make use of the articles about genetic mutations and infer my own conclusions for others to read and consider.
I want to show how varied the causes of a mutation can be, along with what makes it beneficial, harmful, or neutral. In doing so, I hope such a paper could influence others to look into the subject and take some form of action. I intend to educate the audience of this paper about how they are personally affecting wildlife and also how it may, in turn, affect them. I find knowing the affects of an existence and its environment to be intriguing, especially when dealing with noticeable shifts in the external or internal body. Understanding a concept means the creation of hypothesis is possible, making room for tests and allowing the potential for improvement to grow. As a student of the University of Cincinnati and as a living person in the current world I believe it is my right to make use of the articles about genetic mutations and infer my own conclusions for others to read and consider.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Weekly Blog Post 2
This week we talked about ethos, pathos and logos and how they applied to different videos and ads. It got me thinking a lot about past videos, songs, ads, and more that have pulled me one way or another by using these techniques. I thought I'd try to find some I've seen and even mention one or two I've employed myself.
First off I should say that I definitely feel the best way to suck someone into an issue is by tapping into their emotional side. I think a clever idea would then be to mix in facts and statistics to weigh on the mind. I've remembered countless facts over time from little blurbs online, in the paper, on the radio, or on t.v. What's more, once I do not use one for a while and begin to forget it, it drives me crazy trying to remember. Which, in turn, leads to doing vague research somewhere in the hopes of reclaiming that fact I once knew. This leads me back to the original source or something related so that I see what they want all over again. Which can be really good for those people, as I may take interest and act on it or spread the word about it.
Now, while credibility is important, if I'm given a fact from an unknown source who can back it up, I will be more willing to believe them than a big corporation with the idea of overpaid CEOs and possible corruption around them. Sometimes it's just hard to trust those well known names, though not always of course.
Anyway.
One of the best examples I can think of for pulling at someone's heartstrings to bring them in (in particular pull in that good grade) would be when I worked with 2 partners on a project in a sophomore class in high school. We chose the topic of adoption to tell about, we also were required to make a CD of songs related to the topic and play one for the class before or after the presentation. We played the song 'Heaven' by DJ Sammy with the remix of the little girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug8onr9d3wI This is a link to the song on YouTube, it got our class pretty choked up. Throw in a video of kids looking for a home afterwards and it had a pretty strong effect.
A couple examples of logic and stats being used that I have seen most recently would involve coffee and the social media.
The media one is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFYPQjYhv8
and the coffee which also has the known name 'WWF' with it is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDTmjR_GG1w
The videos on emotion that I've seen most recently were already shown in class. Except perhaps the music video 'If Everyone Cared' which can fall under pathos, logos, and ethos in my opinion. That link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IUSZyjiYuY
To finish off I guess I''ll mention a video that I have been wondering category-wise about for a while now. It's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I saw it over a year ago and still can't forget the first time I saw it or resist the urge to watch it every now and again, it gives fact because it is word-for-word from a document I suppose, and I guess it tries to pull people in for the ending credit to be motivated to act, I'm not sure, but somehow, it got to me.
That video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE
First off I should say that I definitely feel the best way to suck someone into an issue is by tapping into their emotional side. I think a clever idea would then be to mix in facts and statistics to weigh on the mind. I've remembered countless facts over time from little blurbs online, in the paper, on the radio, or on t.v. What's more, once I do not use one for a while and begin to forget it, it drives me crazy trying to remember. Which, in turn, leads to doing vague research somewhere in the hopes of reclaiming that fact I once knew. This leads me back to the original source or something related so that I see what they want all over again. Which can be really good for those people, as I may take interest and act on it or spread the word about it.
Now, while credibility is important, if I'm given a fact from an unknown source who can back it up, I will be more willing to believe them than a big corporation with the idea of overpaid CEOs and possible corruption around them. Sometimes it's just hard to trust those well known names, though not always of course.
Anyway.
One of the best examples I can think of for pulling at someone's heartstrings to bring them in (in particular pull in that good grade) would be when I worked with 2 partners on a project in a sophomore class in high school. We chose the topic of adoption to tell about, we also were required to make a CD of songs related to the topic and play one for the class before or after the presentation. We played the song 'Heaven' by DJ Sammy with the remix of the little girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug8onr9d3wI This is a link to the song on YouTube, it got our class pretty choked up. Throw in a video of kids looking for a home afterwards and it had a pretty strong effect.
A couple examples of logic and stats being used that I have seen most recently would involve coffee and the social media.
The media one is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFYPQjYhv8
and the coffee which also has the known name 'WWF' with it is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDTmjR_GG1w
The videos on emotion that I've seen most recently were already shown in class. Except perhaps the music video 'If Everyone Cared' which can fall under pathos, logos, and ethos in my opinion. That link is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IUSZyjiYuY
To finish off I guess I''ll mention a video that I have been wondering category-wise about for a while now. It's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I saw it over a year ago and still can't forget the first time I saw it or resist the urge to watch it every now and again, it gives fact because it is word-for-word from a document I suppose, and I guess it tries to pull people in for the ending credit to be motivated to act, I'm not sure, but somehow, it got to me.
That video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Annotated Bibliography for the Research Paper
“Genetic Mutation?” Themes. N.p. N.d. Web. 6 April 2010.
- “Genes are genuinely magnificent. They are extremely complex, intricate, convoluted, grouped in hundreds of thousands, and, of course - extremely efficient! It follows, therefore, that any mutations within the genes are always detrimental to their function.”
- “A depletion of the gene pool results in a loss of genetic information! Upward evolution of one species into another requires an addition of ordered genetic information, not a removal of genetic information!”
--In this article as said directly by the author, "The evidence I will discuss clearly demonstrates that mutations, for practical purposes, are always useless or harmful." The paper is about disproving the idea of a “good” mutation.
Harter, Richard. “Are Mutations Harmful?” The Talk Origins Archive. N.p. 20 June 2003. Web. 6 April 2010.
- “Some mutations are fatal or very bad. These mutations get eliminated immediately. Some are silent and don't count. Sometimes a mutation is definitely advantageous; this is rare but it does happen. Almost all mutations which aren't silent and which aren't eliminated immediately are neither completely advantageous nor deleterious.”
- “It is important to realize that mutations do not occur in response to the environment. They simply happen.”
- “Mutations are changes in the genome (genetic constitution). There are quite a number of ways in which mutations can happen. They also differ in the way that they impact evolution.”
--In this article there are basic explanations of mutations that anyone can comprehend and each explanation can become vastly detailed for the serious, scientific researcher.
“Helpful Mutations.” Newton BBS. N.p. N.d. Web. 6 April 2010.
- “Pretty much all the variation in existing creatures living on earth are the result of helpful mutation, otherwise, the only living things on earth be exactly the same as the ones when life first came to be on earth.”
- “Any mutation that creates a protein that wasn't there before, but can now be used by the body for something is helpful.”
--This article discusses with scientific fact how the answer to whether most genetic mutations in all kinds of animals is helpful or not is yes.
“Mutations.” Nature Niche. N.p. N.d. Web. 4 April 2010.
- “Mutations are random changes in the genetic information of an organism. These lead to new varieties and traits in an organism. Most are harmful, but a few are neutral or even beneficial.”
- “A beneficial or neutral mutation can quickly become harmful when the environments change.”
- “The environment greatly affects an organism’s ability to survive, and even a small change can be harmful to some organisms.”
--This article gives examples on how the environment is the ultimate decider in whether a genetic mutation is harmful or beneficial to an animal.
Ruder, Kate. “Air Pollution Causes Genetic Mutations.” Genome News Network. N.p. 13 May 2004. Web. 4 April 2010.
- “The source of the mutations was not known at the time, but the prime suspect was air pollution because the gulls nearest the steel mills had the most mutations.”
- “Still, the new findings suggest that genetic changes caused by pollution can be inherited.”
- “One group of mice breathed polluted air, while the other breathed filtered air… After ten weeks, the researchers bred both groups of mice… Baby mice in the “unfiltered” group inherited twice as many mutations as mice in the “filtered” group.”
--In this article, scientists explain that it can be factually proven that air pollution affects animals' genetics and suggests that these changes can also be inherited.
**Note: I do not have page numbers on these sites because they were not divided up by pages, making them all 'Page 1' I suppose, but I wasn't sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)