🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Biology
2
answers
0
watching
59
views


You are on another jury for another case—you really need to get ajob or something. Anyway, the defense lawyer brings in a DNA expertwho shows that the RFLP pattern of the perpetrator’s DNA DOES NOTmatches the defendant’s pattern. She says, “I have now proven thatthis defendant is not guilty.” What should your reaction be?Why?

Watch
2
answers
0
watching
59
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Bunny Greenfelder
Bunny GreenfelderLv2
28 Sep 2019
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Molecular Cell Biology
8 Edition,
Lodish
ISBN: 9781464183393
Biology: Science for Life with Physiology
6 Edition,
Belk
ISBN: 9780134555430
Biology
2nd Edition, 2013
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172517
Concepts of Biology
OER Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781938168116
Essentials of Biology
5 Edition,
Mader
ISBN: 9781259660269

Related questions

The Eye Exam It was a sunny day in 2005, and time for Eric’s annual eye exam. Dr. Tim flipped through his charts. “You know, we really should measure your visual fields. It’s been at least ten years since you had that done!” “I hate them!” Eric grumbled. “I get disoriented and, anyhow, we already know I have a large blind spot.” He raised his hand, squinting through one eye. “Here. I can’t see my finger here.” “I know.” Dr. Tim was sympathetic. “But weren’t you just telling me you haven’t seen stars for a while? It’s important. You had that tumor on your pituitary gland. Your optic nerves cross in that area, right in front of the pituitary, so if anything is happening again we’d probably notice it first by changes in your eyesight. It really is important!” An hour later, Eric was seated in front of a large white screen, staring intently at a light in the middle. “Keep looking at that light, so your eyes don’t move. If you see another light anywhere else, push this button.” Eric began the test by focusing on the light he saw in the center. The machine then successively displayed points of light of varying intensity in different places around the entire visual field. When Eric saw the peripheral light, he pushed a button. He did his best to detect the flashes, but realized he was probably missing some. The machine mapped out where he could see and where he could not. Dr. Tim looked at the printout. His face grew serious. “Eric, we have a problem. You have limited peripheral vision, and it’s bad enough that I don’t think you should be driving! This looks to me like something called retinitis pigmentosa. We should refer you to a specialist.” He pulled out more papers. “Here, look at this. Here are your visual fields. The numbers show how well you can see in that area of your eye, and in the graph on the right the darker the box is the less you can see. Now here are a normal person’s visual fields. Do you see the difference?”

1. How do your eyes work? What is the difference between focal vision and peripheral vision?

2. What is the anatomy around the pituitary gland? Why are the optic nerves likely to be affected by pituitary tumors?

3. Eric has retinitis pigmentosa In this disease pigments lining your eye gradually break down, so you can’t sense the light that hits your eye. Why do you need the pigments in order to see the images and light?

First of all I am not endorsing Intelligent Design (Wikipedialink); I'm asking this because I (someone who does not have abackground in biology, organic chemistry, or philosophy) got into aconversation with someone who does endorse it, and I'm trying tosee his point of view as far as rationality can allow. Second ofall, I apologize for any vagueness; Intelligent Design isn't wellenough defined as a theory for me to help that. I also apologize ifthis is rehashing content already plentiful on the Internet, butfor my purposes I can't simply depend on the likes of Wikipedia orTalk Origins, so what I'm looking for here instead is to take theopposite approach and see, based on your informed minds, if therecould possibly be any reasonable likelihood of an ideal ID theorybeing adopted.

I'm looking for the most favorable consideration for what IDmight be if it were best developed as a viable hypothesis or theoryto get an idea of how far such a discussion is worth taking. Anunbiased, informed Devil's advocate, if you will.

My cursory investigation of what Stephen Meyers (video link) andMichael Behe (video link) say (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to bethat either the first cell was likely designed intelligentlyjudging by the complex code of DNA and that evolution took coursefrom there, or that the first cells were made and many instances ofevolution were from some kind of intelligently guided mutations aswas needed to make "irreducibly complex" cells or body functions(whether the guidance stops after the Cambrian or continued even tothe point of making different types of new bacteria and differenttypes of apes/humans or whether every single mutation and adaptiveability is being guided, I'm not sure if they're at any consensus,and that's why I don't know if I should stop my question atabiogenesis or include evolution). The person I spoke with alsobrought up some specific claims (everything looks designed, DNA hasordered, complex information, blood clotting is irreduciblycomplex, ID can and has make predictions like decades ago that"Junk DNA" wasn't junk) that I don't need you to debunk (I haveGoogle).

But if there could be any possible support or truth to any ofthe above, I would appreciate knowing about that. (Again, Devil'sadvocate so I can be informed and understand where the points comefrom.) Reading an ID book alone, it would be in places hard to knowwhere they differ from actual scientific conclusions. After all,when someone who seems to know what they're talking about and canexplain something in technical detail says that something isimpossible or extremely unlikely, it's hard for me to know why theywould be wrong (are they ignoring other possibilities?misrepresenting facts? are they really right and just getting thecold shoulder from an atheistic scientific community because itimplies a deity?). So I focus on mainstream sources, even if theydon't bother entertaining ID and leave me ignorant of its possiblevirtues. And thus I'm hoping someone from this informed communitymight enlighten me to what those possible virtues might be.

Comments on this, i need a paragrapgh on comments abaout this...

Abortion keeps being a controversy because both sides of the spectrum have valid points. The side that is prolife it right about abortion being the termination of an organism. Their believe system states that murdering human being is wrong and since an unborn child is still a human child, then by default this should be condemned as a wrong thing. They also say they are helping the woman themselves because abortion can have “the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women” however the same study states “the results across all epidemiologic studies of this premise are inconsistent—both overall and within specific subgroups. The risk of breast cancer should be re-examined”. This means we should not jump in to conclusion because more studies need to be done before accepting something as fact. The side for pro-choice states that a woman should have the choice to make her own decision no matter if it is a good or bad decision. A decision that will change her live completely and most of the time make it harder for a woman to get ahead in life.

I am pro-choice, not because I like terminating live, I am actually pro-live of any type of organisms not just humans, but because woman who phase this problem should have their reason or really are not prepare to have a baby in a modern society, and as Mack T Brown said “The value of a self-represented future resides within the person herself, as a feature of a richly complex mental life". Both sides of the argument go to the extreme to explain their case pro-choice and give the example of a raped woman. Pro-live give the example of that a baby is always a good thing. Both acceptable, however most woman are not in this spectrums, an example that is more relevant is a woman who does not have the emotionally and or financial maturity to make the choice that is to have a child. Physically a girl is ready to have a child when her menstrual cycle begins that is usually around 13. Most people would agree that a girl of that age will not have any type of maturity to take care of even herself less a child. Let’s not go far let’s say a girl of eighteen years old getting out of high school, she may have a rare emotional maturity at that age to have the child but in today’s society impossible without any help from family members to take care of that child. How many hours will she work? How will she take care of the child? How will she go to school to better herself for the future to come? These girls that are asking themselves if they should have an abortion is not because it is something they would like to do, it is a hard decision to postpone taking that live changing decision before they are ready to do it and not be a burden in society.

The current abortion law is strict, so abuse of the law will be very hard to do. In the third trimester a woman would need 2 signatures of two physicians to be able to do an abortion. I personally think that this is great this way we can assure that there is no negligence from any party. The part of the law I do not agree with is that the law says that if during the abortion the baby is born alive they need to offer emergency services. This defeats the purpose of an abortion that as harsh as it sounds it is to terminate the pregnancy cycle before time.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Biology 460,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in