BIOL 1201 : EXAM 1

6 views11 pages

azuremammoth471

15 Mar 2019

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

What is science: understanding the natural world, study of how the world works, a process. What do scientists do: make observations, attempt to discern patterns, assume future is like the past. Theory: tested hypothesis many times and supported it. Law: tested theory many times and supported it. Reductionist approach: isolate one thing, control experiments one thing to figure out how it works. Difference between those chemicals and you: how they"re organized. Polar dissolve in polar solvents, nonpolar in nonpolar. Smallest unit of matter separable by normal chemical means. Smallest unit of matter that retains all of the properties of that element. Composed of many smaller particles: particle mass electric charge, proton +, 1 dalton, neutron no charge, o dalton, electron -, 1 dalton. Atomic number: the number of protons in an atoms. Atomic mass: the number protons and neutrons in an atom (approximately) Isotopes: variants of an atom, having a different atomic mass (neutrons)

Related Questions

The investigator never begins an experiment without a prediction of its outcome. The prediction is always based on the particular experiment designed to test a specific hypothesis. Predictions are written in the form of if/then statements: "lf the hypothesis is true, then the results of the experiment will beâ¦"; for example, "if cactus spines reduce herbivory, then removal of the spines will result in greater surface area removed by herbivores." Making a prediction provides a critical analysis of the experimental design. If the predictions are not clear, the procedure can be modified before beginning the experiment. For the soybean experiment, the hypothesis was: "Exposure to sulfur dioxide reduces reproduction." What should the prediction be? State your prediction.

To evaluate the results of the experiment, the investigator always returns to the prediction. If the results match the prediction, then the hypothesis is supported. If the results do not match the prediction, then the hypothesis is falsified. Either way, the scientist has increased knowledge of the process being studied. Many times the falsification of a hypothesis can provide more information than confirmation does, since the ideas and data must be critically evaluated in light of new information. In the soybean experiment, the scientist may learn that the prediction is true (sulfur dioxide does reduce reproduction at the concentration tested). As a next step, the scientist may now wish to identify the particular level at which the effect is first demonstrated. Review your hypotheses for the numbered questions. Consider how you might design an experiment to test the first hypothesis. For example, you might measure auditory function by performing hearing tests or observing changes in structures in the ear. The prediction might be:

IF cell phone usage reduces auditory function (a restatement of the hypothesis),

then people who use cell phones will score lower on hearing tests than persons who do not (predicting the results from the experiment).

Now consider an experiment you might design to test the second hypothesis. How will you measure "mental advantage"?

State a prediction for this hypothesis and experiment. Use the if/then format:

The actual test of the prediction is one of the great moments in research. No matter the results, the scientist is not just following a procedure but truly testing a creative explanation derived from an interesting question.â

1. Honeybees provide 80% of the pollination services for crops, including almonds, squash, melons, alfalfa, apples, and pumpkins. Migratory beekeepers transport over 2 million hives to farmland as crops begin to flower. In 2006-2007 beekeepers were alarmed when 50% of the honeybee colonies in 26 states were lost. In fact one of the biggest mysteries was that the bees were not found dead in the hives, but rather were simply gone! Scientists have termed this Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). They are currently considering three alternative hypotheses: emerging pathogens (viruses, bacteria, and/or fungi), environmental toxins or chemicals; or abduction by humans (or aliens). Using the criteria in Lab Study B, Developing Hypotheses, select the hypothesis you would pursue as a scientist and justify your choice.

What exactly was Hooker's response to Darwin's, Origin of Species? Thank you for your help. I need help deciphering what his opinions truly were.

Hooker, J. D. 1859. [Review of] On the origin of species. Gardeners' Chronicle (31 December): 1052. Part 1.

From the above expressions it will be inferred that we have risen from the perusal of Mr. DARWIN'S book much impressed with its importance, and have moreover found it to be so dependent on the phenomena of horticultural operations, for its facts and results, and so full of experiments that may be repeated and discussed by intelligent gardeners, and of ideas that may sooner fructify in their minds than in those of any other class of naturalists, that we shall be doing them (and we hope also science) a service by dwelling in some detail upon its contents. Thus much we may premise, that it is a book teeming with deep thoughts on numberless simple and complex phenomena of life; that its premises in almost all cases appear to be correct; that its reasoning is apparently close and sound, its style clear, and we need hardly add its subject and manner equally attractive and agreeable; it is also a perfectly ingenuous book, bold in expressions as in thought where the author adduces what he considers clear evidence in his favour, frank in the statement of objections to the hypotheses or conclusions founded on its facts and reasonings; and uniformly courteous to antagonistic doctrines. In fine, whatever may be thought of Mr. DARWIN'S ultimate conclusions, it cannot be denied that it would be difficult in the whole range of the literature of science to find a book so exclusively devoted to the development of theoretical inquiries, which at the same time is throughout so full of conscientious care, so fair in argument, and so considerate in tone. . . . Hitherto most [naturalists] have, as we have already observed, contented themselves with the hypothesis that they were independently created, and the minority have clung to the only other explanation hitherto conceived, that they have all been created by variation from a single first-created living organism, or a few such. Now it must be borne in mind that both these views are mere hypotheses in a scientific point of view; neither has any inherent or prescriptive right to a preference in the mind of the impartial inquirer; but the most superficial observation will show that the hypothesis of original creations is incapable of absolute proof, except the operation be witnessed by credible naturalists, and can only be supported by facts that are either not conclusive against the opposite doctrine, or may be regarded as equally favourable to it; and this hypothesis is hence placed at a disadvantage in comparison with that of the creation of species by variation, which takes its stand on the familiar fact that species do depart from the likeness of their progenitors, both in a wild and domestic state. On the other hand the hypothesis of creation by variation labours under the disadvantage of being founded upon a series of phenomena, the action of each of which individually, as explained by Mr. DARWIN, would appear to prevent the possibility of species retaining their characters for any length of time, and it therefore appears at first sight opposed to the undisputed fact, that many hundreds of animals and plants have transmitted their characters unchanged (or nearly so) through countless generations, and covered, even within the historic period, many square miles of country each with millions of its exact counterpart. To explain this anomaly and to raise this hypothesis of creations by variation to the rank of a scientific theory, is the object of Mr. DARWIN'S book, and to do this he has endeavoured to invent and prove such an intelligible rationale of the operation of variation, as will account for many species having been developed from a few in strict adaptation to existing conditions, and to show good cause how these apparently fleeting changelings may by the operation of natural laws be so far fixed as to reconcile both the naturalist and the common observer to the idea, that what in all his experience are immutable forms of life may have once worn another guise. The hypothesis itself is a very old one; it was, as all the world knows, strongly advocated by LAMARCK, and later still by the author of the "Vestiges of the Natural History of the Creation," but neither of these authors were able to suggest even a plausible method according to which Nature might have proceeded in producing suitable varieties, getting rid of intermediate forms, and giving a temporary stability to such as are recognised as species by all observers. Mr. DARWIN has been more successful, though whether completely so or not the future alone can show. We shall proceed to examine his method in another article.