Perfect Paragraph

What I learned in Statistics

                I had the opportunity to take statistics (stats) twice in college because I transferred schools. Both classes were geared towards science majors and had very similar goals. The first stats class that I took was team-based and they wanted students to get a good understanding of data collecting and understanding data distributions. The second class I took was online and was taught its students the general concepts of stats and how they can be applied to understand and organize data sets. Both classes have been applicable to many of my biology classes such as ecology, genetics, and general biology. The skills from stats that I used included finding the standard deviation, calculating the probability, understanding p values, and learning how to use programs like Microsoft Excel. In the advancing times, we are living in taking a stats class is incredibly important to anyone in the biology field.

The methods project showed the importance of a detailed methods section in a scientific paper, and the importance of how the methods section is formatted to present this information. In this project, I created a figure and wrote a methods section on how I created the figure. Then I had someone try and recreate my figure based on only my methods section. The differences in the figures in this paper can best be explained by a lack of detail in the methods section and the creator of the replicate not fully reading the methods section.

This project includes the process of creating a methods for another person to follow in order to obtain the same results when creating the same figure. The figure has to be of a type of flowering plant. Each figure has to have 3 panels that include an image of the plant itself, a close-up of the flower or flowers of the plant, and a map of the native origins of the plants. The project results in differences between the figures created. The differences include the objects visible in the images and the exposure of the images. These results indicate there are factors that lead to the differences. The factors include the type of camera and the level of specificity in the methods.

I didn’t write how many pictures I had taken and what it consisted of in my methods. My original had 4 pictures as my partner only had 3 which is the main or the biggest difference. I included the name of the plant and my partner didn’t because I did not specify which picture I had used. Also, I didn’t write where I was standing or the position of where the picture was taken and what part of the plant I took a picture of. A is the zoomed in picture of the blossom of the tree in both figures but different blossom was used due to the lack of my description of which blossom it exactly was. Also, the fonts and the size of the fonts used to letter each panels are different. Figure 1 and 2 both have text boxes around the letters yet Figure 1 has a lighter background compared to the darker background in the Figure 2. B in Figure 1 is the name of the plant as B in FIgure 2 is the zoomed out version of the tree with its blossom. C in Figure 1 is the zoomed out picture of the plant or tree itself just like the B in Figure 2 however C in Figure 2 is the map of where the plant comes from. Due to its mismatch in the numbers of the pictures used, Figure 1 has the letter D that shows the map of where the plant comes from just like the Figure 2 C. The location and the position altered the picture that was taken for Figure 1 and 2. Also, the fact that many flowers including my own flower I have chosen were harvested at Durfee conservatory did not help the case of replicating the same figures. Many other factors are included such as the camera that was used, lighting of the room, lack of directions, and arrows.

In Spring 2018, as part of the Writing in Biology Course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, pictures were taken of  a flowering plant and a close-up of one of that plants flowers. Using these pictures and a map locating the flowering plants origins, a multi-panel figure was then made on the program Inkscape.  Methods were written to describe in detail how the multi-panel figure was made as well as what was photographed and how it was photographed. The methods were then shared with another student in the class for them to replicate what was done.

Inhibitory interneurons make it harder for action potential to fire. They work by allowing GABA to bind to transmembrane receptors that allow chloride ions into the cell. This binding makes the membrane potential more negative and the threshold for action potential harder to be achieved. If these were changed to excitatory in the stretch reflex, functions to maintain the muscle at a constant length would fail. As soon as the stretched muscle began to contract the antagonist muscle would stretch & both muscles would contract simultaneously.

The arms allow the force on the torso to be displaced without the use of extra energy by muscles. If arm swing is done incorrectly while walking or running, extra energy will be used by your core muscles to keep proper posture. This extra energy is inefficient. A study conducted on people while walking and running showed that the swing of the arm is powered by the movement of the legs and not by the muscles in the shoulders, and that the arms act as a “passive damper” reducing head and torso rotation (Pontzer, Holloway, Raichlen, & Lieberman 2009).

Between Figure 1 and Figure 2 there are 15 total differences observed.  These discrepancies were observed in panels A, B, and C of the figures.  This section begins with general differences found between the labeling of both figures followed by differences organized by each panel.  Beginning with panel A and panel B differences in color, angle, and orientation are described.  Finally in panel C differences between the maps and countries highlighted are described.

The fonts for each panel label are different, and the font in Figure 1 is not bolded.  The location of the panel labels are also different.  The labels in Figure 1 are located above the images and the labels in Figure 2 are located to the left of the images, however they are both located in the upper left-hand corner for each image.  The panel labels in both figures are not overlapped on top of the images and are both colored black.  

The images of the orchid in Figure 1A have a different hue to them than in Figure 2A.  In Figure 1A the orchid is located closer to the photographer and the sign is facing the camera more dead center.  The sign in Figure 1A is also less straight up and down than in Figure 2A.  In Figure 1A there is less of the plant to the right of the plant of interest included in the photo than in Figure 2A and the bench upon which the plant is sitting is less included in Figure 1A.  

In part B, the amount of blooms included in Figure 1B is different from Figure 2B.  There are also differences in hue between the two figure images.  Figure 1B has only the bottom half of the bloom included instead of the entire bloom included in Figure 2B.  The angle in Figure 1B is pointed more towards the floor, whereas in Figure 2B it is more parallel to the bench.  There is also more of the plant to the left of the orchid and the bench included in Figure 1B in comparison to Figure 2B.  The pot of the orchid is not present in Figure 1B but is included in Figure 2B.

Part C was where most differences between the two figures occured.  The world map in Figure 1C contains an elliptical outline where in Figure 2C there is no outline but there is a rectangular shape.  The world map in Figure 1C is also smaller than that of Figure 2C and is less stretched out on both sides.  The depiction of antarctica in Figure 2C is also a lighter color gray than the rest of the map.  The colors by which the countries were highlighted were both turquoise but Figure 1C was a brighter turquoise than in Figure 2C.  The countries colored in included Central America, but the caribbean islands were highlighted in Figure 2C which was inconsistent with those highlighted in Figure 1C.

In Spring 2018, as a part of the Writing in Biology Course at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, students in the class were given a project to create methods to a multi-panel figure. Following the creation of the methods, and creating our own original figure while keeping the figure private, Professor Brewer shared these methods with a classmate whom was to follow these methods to create a replicate multi-panel figure. Once complete, the replicate figure was uploaded to a course website where the original was then posted to compare the differences between the original and the replicate figure. Observable differences between the original and the replicate of this multi-panel scientific figure was clear. Differences including size of the figure, images, borders and map, labels presence, angle of which the images were taken, orientation of the images, and range map. These differences contributed due to software use, capabilities, knowledge and experience, as well as physical stature and positioning during photography. Unclear methods to be the underlying cause of each of these differences. Together, these differences leading to the clear and observable differences between the original figure and the replicate figure.

Another prominent example of recent evolution resides within the ability to drink and digest milk. Most human adults are incapable of digesting lactose and therefore milk. Babies are capable of drinking milk due to a gene that codes for lactase, which breaks down lactose. In people who are lactose intolerant, the gene essentially switches off after weaning. However, a mutation known as lactase persistence arose in recent human history that allowed lactase to be produced into adulthood. This trait likely provided a selective advantage to individuals with access to domesticated dairy animals, who consumed the unfermented milk. “Analysis based on the conservation of lactase gene haplotypes indicates a recent origin and high selection coefficients for lactose persistence, although it has not been possible to say whether early Neolithic European populations were lactase persistent… (J. Burger et al., 2006)”