cbbailey's blog

Once we have reached our target area we will begin taking the soil samples. The location that the samples will be taken from will be determined using a z formation taking a sample from each corner of the orchard and one from the center for a total of 5 samples per area. Using the either the soil auger or a hand trowel we will dig out our soil. The samples should be from around 6 inches deep and should be approximately ( X ) in size. We will collect these samples in one bag per area resulting in a rough average sample of the soil composition for the area.

In the event that a retrovirus is killing domestic dogs and we are only able to save one breed, the breed of dog that we should save should be the breed that provides the most utility benefit to us humans. Currently domestic dogs provide us with a lot more than just being house pets and have roles that can greatly effect human lives. Dogs can directly help us with public services us as the Fire department, and search and rescue which directly help save the lives of humans. They also help in many services that help indirectly save human live including working with the police to help catch criminals and with the military. Dogs are also used to help people with medical problems and also help save their lives such as Guide or hearing dogs, and Dogs that alert to seizures. These services that dogs provide for use have an immense benefit on our lives. 

The dog breed I choose to save was the German Shepherd. In order to maximize on the benefit we receive from our relationship with dogs I choose a breed of dog that is able to preform a variety of different services. This results in use losing as little of these life saving services as possible when we lose the rest of the dog population. German Shepherds are currently found in use for a variety of different services includes in the Police, Military, use in search and rescue, Use as Guide and hearing dogs and Use a seizure alert dogs. Compared to other breeds I researched the German shepherd was the breed commonly used in the broadest numbers of different services. This broad range of services provided allows for us to keep saving as many lives as possible with the rest of the dog species dying. On top of all the lives saved by picking the German Shepherds to save, they still make great house pets so dog loving home owners won't have to sacrifice the ability to have a dog in their family in order to keep these services active.

In the event that a retrovirus is killing domestic dogs and we are only able to save one breed, the breed of dog that we should save would be German shepherds. The main reason I believe we should save this breed over the others is due to its variety in use to as service dogs for human. Unlike many other breeds of dogs, German Shepherds are used in many different services unlike some other species which are more specialized to 1 or 2 particular focus. Some of the uses of German shepherds include use in the military, police, search and rescue, and guide dogs. These services provided very important to our lives and with the loss of these with the loss of the domestic dog population could result in many human lives lost for a multitude of different reasons. For this reason, since German Shepherds are able, and currently used, for all of these vital services they should be the breed of Dogs we choose to save.

The main point i think to take out of this is to not be too focused on what people exactly are labeling as life or not and instead focus on the actual content of the definitions. While I took my approach more broad, one could easily do the opposite with their definition of life and take a narrower approach, as long as we are able to explain what we are talking about. If we find some form of self replicating anything on another planet, it doesn't matter if one definition includes it as life and another excludes it it doesn't change the significance of the discovery and similarly just because something could self replicate and I labeled it as life, doesn't mean it somehow contains all of the qualities that we would find the classical definition of life in biology. In the Video example wit ht he Star Trek cyborg, assuming that they don't self replicate, it wouldn't fall under the definition of life that I proposed. However this would have no influence on the decision on weather it would receive human rights or not since my definition of life has no bearing on intelligence/consciousness/ any other factor that I would argue would be required for rights. As long we are careful to clearly define what we are talking about it doesn't really matter where we draw the line for what we consider life or not. 

After reading these articles my stance on the problem of what we consider life is that we can consider all things that are able to self replicate as a form of life. When we are discussing life the main feature that people look for is the aspect of self replication. This aspect of life is found as too broad and includes things that people would be hesitant to call life. In the "Life is..." paper Carl Woese starts with the concept that life is just "an entity that can make a copy of itself from parts which are far simpler than itself" however later in the interview he goes back on this and questions this when the concept of a robots that could replicate is introduced. This hesitation makes sense since there is a numerous amount of vast differences between human made robot "life" and the life we know from studying our biology. This hesitation however is just from a naming perspective, classifying two things that are so different under the same umbrella. The question is where we decide to place this Umbrella of the term life for what and that determines what will fall under it and it has changed many times over the course of history as we learn more and more about how our world works. As brought up in the "Why life doesn't not really exist" the author points out the fact the living beings are also just a machine, just a much more complex one and therefore life does not actually exist. However there is a  distinction between the human machinery that we have created and the "life" we currently observe and that is the ability for self replication which I why i used it for my cut off point for my definition of life.

One thing I remember from Statistics was two different tests for determining if the error in our data was significantly different of if the difference was due to random chance. The two tests I remembered where the z test and Chi squared the latter of which I have  seen used in many of my classes this semester. I also remember that  tested for statistical significance for the hypothesis of the experiment was the main goal, not necessarily to say this is 100% true. In General as a rule of thumb the number usually used for if we could confirm our hypothesis was statistically confirmed was 95%. For most of our tests we were looking for a P value of less than 5% to confirm that our data was significant. Some terms  I remember from this this class was H0 was used for the null hypothesis, Mu was used for the mean population, and Ha was used for an alternative hypothesis.

The Bombay Phenotype is a genetic trait in which the given indivdual expresses no A or B antibodies in their blood resulting in the O blood type. This is due to another third antigen H on the surface of the blood cell which effects the ability of the A and B antigens from forming. If a individual is double recessive for this H antigen, hh, it will result in none of the H antigen being produced. Since this H antigen is required for the formation of the A and B antigens, if no H antigen is produced regardless of the genetype the cell will be unble to generate any A or B antigens resulting in the O blood type. This means that it is possible for an AB parent to have offspring O blood type as long both parents are at least heterozygous for this h antigen.   

During the spring semester of 2019 at the University of Massachusetts amherst, I began the methods project. The goal of this project was to be able to construct a multi panel figure and write a set a methods of how we created it and then have another individual try to replicate it and compare the differences. For my Figure, the interspecies interaction I chose was between a tree and some Ivy growing up its trunk. Once both figures were constructed I began my analysis on how my methods could be improved for higher accuracy. I broke these differences down into two different categories, differences with how the pictures were taken and differences with how the figure was constructed. For the Pictures I found several differences including the tree species used, the location, the lack of Ivy present, the size of the subject in the photo and the snow on the ground. From these differences I inferred that they were caused by a lack of listing a specific species, a lack of an accessible subject, a difference in the distance from the subject and the weather before the subject was photographed. For the construction of the figures I found differences with the labeling of the pictures, the lack of descriptions, the size of the photos, and the Arrow placement and size. From these differences I inferred that they were caused by a lack of specificity in the instructions for creating the figure. From this comparison, I was able to see many aspects of writing methods that I needed to improve on in order to have a methods that gives an accurate replica of my original work.

The first difference mentioned between the layout of the figures is the difference between the labeling of the pictures in the figure. This difference was because due to a lack of specific instructions for what to label each picture in the the methods. For the lack of descriptions in the replica, the methods only instructed to create a text box for the description not to actually fill it out with descriptions. The difference with the size of the pictures is most likely due to slightly different camera resolutions. The last difference results from there being no Ivy in the pictures to label, as a result the arrow placement for the arrows labeling Ivy.

The fact that the trees in the pictures look completely different is that they are different tree species. This difference came from a lack of scientific naming in the methods resulting in it being impossible for the replicator to determine the species of tree I originally shot. The lack of Ivy on the tree in the replica is most likely due the area that our specimen being too far away to be accessed by the replicator. While the original example was on campus and accessible, I decided to switch it out for a better example I found off campus resulting in the methods not explaining where one could find this interaction on campus. The difference in the background can be explained by the difference in the weather when the pictures were taken. In the original there is was very little snow in the pictures due to the pictures being taken after a couple of warm days while the replicate was taken after heavy snowfall. The difference in the size of the trees was most likely due to the photo being taken at different distances. Since the replicate is a different tree in a different location, the replicate tree was not able to photographed from up close due to the snow around it. This factor also resulted in the difference of the angle in the shot since it would be impossible to capture the specimen from a much greater distance using the same angle that I had used in the original.