Cladogram
In our cladogram project, we were given a small box of hardware ( nuts, bolts, screws, and nails) and we had to create a name for each one. We also had to put them in groups to show different characteristics and species. We then had to create a story on how each the species evolved and how the got their traits.
Cladogram Story
Back in the year 3000 BM (Before Metal), there was a species made of plastic called Plastic Metallum Vertical, which later inherited other traits including different colors (grey and white), different shapes (more rigid surface or sharper tip), and got rid of the metal. In the year 3104 APBSBM (After Plastic But Still Before Metal), the trait of plastic quickly died out and got replaced with rubber, along with the new common trait of curving somewhere. The new species Metallum Flexilis, was a circular piece of metal with rubber attached on the bottom. Unfortunately, the environment made rubber a disadvantageous trait, causing the following species to only be metal. After a random mutation of a flat piece of metal with waves (which died out quickly), the new common trait among species seemed to be circular. Many species arose and died out, including having a hexagonal shape with a circle inside or having a dome on top of the circle. One mutation allowed for the species to have wings, but they were too heavy so they couldn’t fly and the useless trait died out. The following mutation, in 3587 DM (During Metal), inherited a question mark shape that was disadvantageous. But the question mark shape sparked a new common ancestor of the next species: having a head. These species had two types of heads, plus heads and minus heads. They developed the two different characteristics by reproductive isolation because they would only mate with another if they had the same head. Apparently, the minus head trait was disadvantageous, as it died out. But the plus head trait carried on and inherited the trait of having a point. The year 3917 DMWHAP (During Metal With Head And Point) was when species with round heads, rigid surfaces, and points ruled the world. There were several variations of the species (like different colors and materials), but they were still very closely related. After another drastic change in the metal world environment, having a rigid surface became useless, so the species transitioned into a smooth surface. The year 4023 ARS (After Rigid Surfaces) was when the Metallum Id Aggressus Sum existed with a big head, small tip, and smooth surface. Over time, the species developed a longer tip and smaller head, until the final species Metallum Planus Torquent with the most advantageous traits and lived forever.
Species Timeline
For our Species Timeline project, we had to choose and organism and find at least 4 direct descendants for that organism. I worked with Landon Antonio and we chose the Bottlenose Dolphin. We had to find characteristics, time period, and region that the descendants lived.
bottlenose_dolphin.pdf | |
File Size: | 163 kb |
File Type: |
PCR Lab
In our PCR lab we had to take our own DNA and test it to see our Alu Repeats. We tested it through a series of steps: we first had to swish a solution of water in our mouths to get the DNA out. then we had to put it in a master and primer mix, and finally we put it in a gel and left it there for 48 hours. Most of the classes data was inconclusive and I as well didn't get any data.
|
Lab write up
Purpose:
The purpose of this lab is to develop better lab skills and to learn about PCR and gel electrophoresis. We are doing this lab because it could show us our Alu repeats in our DNA so we can see where our DNA originated.
Hypothesis:
If our DNA shows our alu repeats then it will show I am from Italy.
Procedure:
On our First day we had to take our DNA from our mouths by moving around a mixture of salt water. The second day we had to create our PCR reaction and had to move our DNA into a primer and master mix. On the third day we had to insert out PCR reaction into our gel. On our fourth day we got to see our Alu repeats. A more thorough and detailed procedure can be found in the BABEC 2017 Alu PCR Packet.
Data/ Observations:
Day 1: The mixture we had to put in our mouth was really weird and had a very bad taste, trying to keep it in my mouth for 30 seconds was hard. We had to use pipettes to transfer our DNA into a tube which was challenging.
Day 2: Our DNA was done going through its cycle of temperatures and we had to keep it on ice, but trying to keep it from spilling was hard. Also we had to keep out hands in the ice, ice in the morning is to cold.
Day 3: We had to pipette our PCR reaction into our gel, we needed steady hands to get it in perfect, i had to put mine in well B4(can be seen in picture below). i was scared i would miss and it would go all over everyone else's DNA.
Day 4: We got to see our Dna but most of the class got inconclusive data including meAnalysis:
In well B4 I put my DNA mixed with master mix, primer, and a loading dye we measure in ul(Microliters). But as seen in the picture above I got not data, you can read a gel by looking at the first well in both A and B to see a ladder. . We ran our DNA for 20 mins in a 2% agarose Gel on 150 volts. But we did get an expected class data we got that it's expected that 10.7 students have a “+/+” genotype and 18.6 students have a “+/-” genotype and 7.8 students have a “-/-” genotype. Those are the calculations with fabricated data. At this time I cannot prove my hypothesis because i did not get any recognizable data. My data could have been up at any point from my error because other people in the class did get conclusive data. This shows that i may have messed up in my pipette skills or my DNA swishing at the very start. Conclusion:This PCR project worked for some people but for me it failed. It shows that not all labs will work and you might have to adjust to complications. For this project we had to take our own DNA from our mouths and put it through the a process called PCR. Then we had to put it in a gel and put it through another process called Gel electrophoresis. In the picture above you can see that only one person was able to get results, they are in well B3. This shows that the primer and master mix had to be right because one person got data. This also tells us that the other students including myself had to have messed up somewhere in the lab, but no lab is ever going to be perfect and errors are the only way you will be able to succeed.
Purpose:
The purpose of this lab is to develop better lab skills and to learn about PCR and gel electrophoresis. We are doing this lab because it could show us our Alu repeats in our DNA so we can see where our DNA originated.
Hypothesis:
If our DNA shows our alu repeats then it will show I am from Italy.
Procedure:
On our First day we had to take our DNA from our mouths by moving around a mixture of salt water. The second day we had to create our PCR reaction and had to move our DNA into a primer and master mix. On the third day we had to insert out PCR reaction into our gel. On our fourth day we got to see our Alu repeats. A more thorough and detailed procedure can be found in the BABEC 2017 Alu PCR Packet.
Data/ Observations:
Day 1: The mixture we had to put in our mouth was really weird and had a very bad taste, trying to keep it in my mouth for 30 seconds was hard. We had to use pipettes to transfer our DNA into a tube which was challenging.
Day 2: Our DNA was done going through its cycle of temperatures and we had to keep it on ice, but trying to keep it from spilling was hard. Also we had to keep out hands in the ice, ice in the morning is to cold.
Day 3: We had to pipette our PCR reaction into our gel, we needed steady hands to get it in perfect, i had to put mine in well B4(can be seen in picture below). i was scared i would miss and it would go all over everyone else's DNA.
Day 4: We got to see our Dna but most of the class got inconclusive data including meAnalysis:
In well B4 I put my DNA mixed with master mix, primer, and a loading dye we measure in ul(Microliters). But as seen in the picture above I got not data, you can read a gel by looking at the first well in both A and B to see a ladder. . We ran our DNA for 20 mins in a 2% agarose Gel on 150 volts. But we did get an expected class data we got that it's expected that 10.7 students have a “+/+” genotype and 18.6 students have a “+/-” genotype and 7.8 students have a “-/-” genotype. Those are the calculations with fabricated data. At this time I cannot prove my hypothesis because i did not get any recognizable data. My data could have been up at any point from my error because other people in the class did get conclusive data. This shows that i may have messed up in my pipette skills or my DNA swishing at the very start. Conclusion:This PCR project worked for some people but for me it failed. It shows that not all labs will work and you might have to adjust to complications. For this project we had to take our own DNA from our mouths and put it through the a process called PCR. Then we had to put it in a gel and put it through another process called Gel electrophoresis. In the picture above you can see that only one person was able to get results, they are in well B3. This shows that the primer and master mix had to be right because one person got data. This also tells us that the other students including myself had to have messed up somewhere in the lab, but no lab is ever going to be perfect and errors are the only way you will be able to succeed.
Concepts
Evolution: Change in a kind of organism over time; process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms.
Natural Selection: Process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment survive and reproduce most successfully.
Survival of the Fittest: the individuals most suited to their environment survive.
Adaptation: Inherited characteristics that increases an organisms chance of survival
Micro Evolution: small scale evolutionary changes
Macro Evolution: Large scale evolution changes that take place over long periods of time.
Charles Darwin: the first one to theorize evolution/ natural selection
Cladogram: A diagram that shows the evolutionary relation among a group of organisms
Speciation: The process of forming a new species
Sympatric Speciation: The process through which new species evolve from a single ancestral species while inhabiting the same environment
Allopatric Speciation: A species is physically split apart so they have to find different food sources which can change their traits.
Taxonomy: Discipline of classifying organisms and assigning each organism a universally accepted name.
Natural Selection: Process by which organisms that are better suited to their environment survive and reproduce most successfully.
Survival of the Fittest: the individuals most suited to their environment survive.
Adaptation: Inherited characteristics that increases an organisms chance of survival
Micro Evolution: small scale evolutionary changes
Macro Evolution: Large scale evolution changes that take place over long periods of time.
Charles Darwin: the first one to theorize evolution/ natural selection
Cladogram: A diagram that shows the evolutionary relation among a group of organisms
Speciation: The process of forming a new species
Sympatric Speciation: The process through which new species evolve from a single ancestral species while inhabiting the same environment
Allopatric Speciation: A species is physically split apart so they have to find different food sources which can change their traits.
Taxonomy: Discipline of classifying organisms and assigning each organism a universally accepted name.
Conclusion
Overall, I think these projects helped me learn a lot about evolution. My favorite project would have to be the PCR lab because I like more hands on learning, I learn better when I'm doing something that helps teach me about a specific subject. I do feel like I could have contributed to my group more, I should put more ideas on the table so we have a wider variety of ideas to choice from. I could also do a better job at being a leader, I could have taken control of the project when my group was stuck. I did do I good job cooperating, I was always willing to help and do things for my team. I also had a good work ethic, I was always doing something that contributed toward our final project. All in all, these projects were really fun and let me learn a whole lot about evolution.