Blogs

Our source is from Wikipedia. We believe that one shouldn't always believe Wikipedia because anyone can edit or revise the information posted. Although there are sources, the information might not always be correctly portrayed. Some of the long passages only have a couple sources and these soures might not be enough to make the paragraph completely reliable. There are diagrams and images that seem to give the website more credibility from looking at it; however, these are just images most likely taken from Google. On a positivie note, it is helpful that there are links to vocabulary words so that the reader can comprehend the passage. 

The spider is  small, about an inch in size and very thin.  It is a white and black spider with a small body seperated into two parts.  The body kind of looks like an exclamation mark in microsoft word, the top being long and thin leavdng into a circular part.  The 8 legs are coming off of this ciruclar part and are about an inch in length but are curled up.  Each leg has two large bends and one slight bend almost making the shape of the letter n with a tail.  The legs all come off the circular part going up at amost a 90 degree angle. At the first bend in the spiders legs, there is a band of black with a stripe of whitegoing across it in the middle of the joint.  The legs are quick when he moves and allow it to get anywhere in the cup quickly. The spider doesn't like to be on the cup itself, he likes to be on the web atleast partially.   The web is not visible so it almost looks as if the spider is floating.  Shaking and tapping of the cup itself casued the spider to move away from where the tapping would be.  It was trying to get out whenever the cup was moved.  If I covered the spot where the spider was then it would move to an open part of the cup and poke at the cup.  I think it's main priority was to get out of the cup.

The relationship shown in the graph is not a relationship I would expect to find in nature.  I do not think this phenomenon is possible in nature because the graph shows that local species richness is higher than the regional species richness at all points on the line.  The two X axes are set equal to each other and the slope of the line is higher than one, making local richness higher than regional richness. Since the local area is a part of the regional area, having a local richness that is higher than the regional richness is not possible. The number of species found in the local area would factor into the number of species in the regional area, constantly making the regional species richness higher than the local species richness.

Both articles seem to have well written paragraphs that flow together. The paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and then add detail and end with a closing. The difference is in the blending of the paragraphs when looked at as a whole. The research article seems to be more abrupt at getting directly into the subject matter and the paragraphs flow together so that the topic sentence of one picks up from the end of the preceding paragraph. Taken alone, one paragraph may have less of a standard topic sentence, but the research article is meant to flow from one paragraph to another and when read this way makes sense. The review article takes more liberties in the time it takes to explain something and has paragraphs that can stand independently more often. The review does not have the same limits to cohesively represent something, like an experiment, which is what the research article has to do. The review can therefore take more time in explaining details that can stand as independent paragraphs. The separate details make separate paragraphs and these inform a more layman reader.

In the research article, the headings consist of the experimental steps of the experiment. They include a summary, introduction, materials and methods, results and a discussion. The reviewed article does not have these as markers. Instead, they can change frequently and are descriptive of what is about to be discussed.

The first paragraph of the research article is the summary section. This serves to set up the experiment that was performed and what they set out to accomplish. It lays out the points that the authors say they found evidence to support. The review article begins with an abstract. This is less focused on a experiment and more on Myrmecomorphs and their resemblance to ants. This explains the type of mimicry they say is at play and why it came about. These two sections are a paragraph apiece, but other sections are longer and compose multiple paragraphs. Some also contain data tables and figures.

The research article uses in text citations with the author and year. It then finishes with a reference page at the very end of the article. The review also uses in text citation but usually mentions the author and then puts the year in parentheses. If there is more than one reference, the author names and year will both be listed in parentheses. This also ends with a reference cited section at the very end of the article.

Both articles seem to have well written paragraphs that flow together. The paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and then flow into more detail. The research article seems to be more abrupt at getting directly into the subject matter and the paragraphs flow together so that the topic sentence of one picks up from the end of the preceding paragraph. Taken alone, they may be less of a standard topic sentence to a paragraph, but the research article is meant to flow from one paragraph to another and when read this way makes sense. The review article takes more liberties in the time it takes to explain something and has paragraphs that can stand independently more often. The review does not have something to cohesively represent like the research article and can therefore take more time in explaining detail that can stand as an independent paragraph. The separate details then make separate paragraphs which serve to inform the reader.

It surprised me that the research was shorter than the review because we often think of research as being expansive and gathering a lot of data. This makes sense however given that the research article is meant to encapsulate the whole experiment and convey those ideas while also being brief. This is not to say that the results are written with a sense of levity but rather an exactness to convey the necessary. It solidified the importance of being able to flow from paragraph to paragraph without necessarily using a new topic sentence but one that continued the train of thought but showed progression in the article. The review was able to take more time in doing this and gave more detail than may be necessary in a research article. The research is meant for other experts in the field, where as the review had information that explained the goings on to those who may not poses the same level of expertise.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and human development that we are facing today. Antibiotic resistance can effect anybody, of any age, anywhere in the world. This process occurs naturally, but the misuse of antibiotic drugs by humans had accelerated the process and is causing common infections to become more difficult to treat. Infections like pneumonia, tuberculosis, gonorrhoea, and salmonella are beconing harder to treat with conventional antibiotics. Other side effects of antibiotic resistance include longer hospital stays, higher medical bills, and increased mortality. In order to combat this growing problem, the world needs to change the way it prescribes and uses antibiotics. Even if new antibiotics are developed, they will quickly become ineffective if the same practices used today are still in place. This behavior change does not only apply to doctors, but applies to everyone around the world. Most people are not prescribing antibiotics on a regular basis, but their behaviors can still contribute to antibiotic resistance. By reducing he spread of infections through vaccinations, hand washing, practicing safe sex, and good food hygiene, we can all do our part to limit antibiotic resistance. Researchers around the world are constantly looking for new antibiotics, but the rate we are finding them is much lower than the rate at which the current ones are becoming resistant. This is a global issue that has the potential to effect everybody on the planet, and it seems as if not enough people are talking about it or taking steps to limit it. By raising awareness about this issue, we can work together to ensure that antibiotic resistance does not get out of control. 

I would not expect to find this relationship between local and regional diversity in nature.  I do not think this is possible to observe in nature because the local species richness is higher than the regional species richness at all points on the line.  The axes are set equal to each other and the slope of the line is higher than 1, making local richness higher than regional richness. This is not possible because the number of species found in the local area would have to factor into the number of species in the regional area, constantly making the regional area higher in richness.

Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development we are facing today. Antibiotic resistance can effect anybody, of any age, anywhere in the world. This process occurs naturally, but the misuse of antibiotic drugs by humans had accelerated the process and is causing common infections to become more difficult to treat. Other side effects of antibiotic resistance include longer hospital stays, higher medical bills, and increased mortality. In order to combat this growing problem, the world needs to change the way it prescribes and uses antibiotics. Even if new antibiotics are developed, they will quickly become ineffective if the same practices used today are still in place. This behavior change does not only apply to doctors, but applies to everyone around the world. Most people are not prescribing antibiotics on a regular basis, but their behaviors can still contribute to antibiotic resistance. By reducing he spread of infections through vaccinations, hand washing, practicing safe sex, and good food hygine, we can all do our part to limit antibiotic resistance. This is a global issue that has the potential to effect everybody on the planet, and it seems as if not enough people are talking about it or taking steps to limit it. By raising awareness about this issue, we can work together to ensure that antibiotic resistance does not get out of control. 

In the scope of a few paragraphs, each article reads with a different tone and purpose. Although the topic sentences of each serve a similar function, the flow and ideas of each differ. At times, the review article reads like an encyclopedia and at other times it reads as a criticism or evaluation. In contrast, the research article reads like a persuasive presentation of scientific data. I was surprised by just how much tone matters in scientific writing. Although scientific writing is fact-based, the tone of either a research paper or review article must be carefully worded to eliminate bias. I definitely need to be careful in my scientific writing and tailor it to sound not only professional, but also unbiased and organized in such a way that gets my intention of writing across.

The two halves of the brain are connected by the corpus callosum. Severing the corpus callosum will completely cut off the communication between the two brains, thus creating two seperate brain halves. Although this sounds like a destructive procedure to do, researchers have actually found many benefits to this procedure. Patients with epilepsy are found to significantly improve after having their corpus callosum severed, as it decreases their seizure duration and intensity. However, there are some confusing complications that can result from this procedure. As the left brain contols the right side of the body and vice versa, the brain gets confused when there is no way to communicate between the two halves. During an experiement, a patient with the severed corpus callosum saw a picture of a square/circle; one half of the picture was a square, where the other half of the picture was a circle. When they are asked what they see looking at the picture one eye at a time, the patient will verbally say square, but then point with their left hand to the circle. Although the right side of the body sees the circle, it cannot gather the information from the left brain have to verbally say "circle". Therefore, the patient can only verbalize "square" and point to the circle. This is a result of the two brian halves not becaus able to communicate with eachother.