Evolution of Humans
Script
The oldest ancestor we have is this long latin name, it is over 540 million million years old, It was a small species, only a millimeter in length. It lived in the ocean which was watery… very watery. In between grains of sand.
After this specie, a couple things happened. These included the evaluation of fish, then amphibians. Then, a couple of slides later, a new specie came into the limelight. This was Ardipithecus kadabba, of which not much is known. It probably came around 6 million years ago in East Africa. It did not walk on its knuckles, as it was biped, worked together with others of its specie, and like an obedient kid at the pool, they could not run. It most likely ate fibrous foods such as nuts. This all came about to adapt to the changing climate of the time. Next up was Australopithecus afarensis, Which originated in grasslands of eastern africa about 2.7 million years ago. They had apelike proportions. which is easy to see because we share dna with apes with long arms and curved fingers, these traits were used to climb trees. Some abnormalities, they had canine teeth due to dramatic climate change. The next up to bat was Homo Habilis. These people were found 1.5 mya in grasslands East and South Africa. These curious creatures were known for their innovation of tools. No, not those tools, but these tools. This was necessary to gain an advantage against other Habilis’ and animals in the dangerous environment that they lived in. Homo Erectus *under breath* pause for laughter. Originated in africa and in the stepes of eastern west asia. They were the first to make hearths and they cared for the weak and elderly. Their body structure was similar to humans. A couple of small innovations later, such as language and art, we arrive at: Homo Sapiens, are the present forms of humans, originating about 200,000 some years ago. They had a larger brain and skull, they developed art, and they have a continuous evolution. Every day we strive to match the brilliance of such inventions such as art, art, and more art. Our innovations know no boundaries, coming up with the unparalleled pet rock, diet water, and bread gloves. Who knows what else the future holds. |
Where did we come from?
Find out the evolutionary timeline of a modern day organism In order to learn about direct ancestry, we were told to go out and choose any species that exists today. We would then find five species that were direct ancestors of that specie. Looking at these, the next step would be to analyze each specie, searching for
Reflection This project was well executed... or not exact bad. The first of our problems was when we were the project, we spent several hours trying to figure out how to present our nonexistent results. We decided to do a slides presentation, which then grew into a hurricane of 50 slides (mainly because of me). It would have been advisable to organize them in an orderly fashion and approach them with some of plan in mind. However, despite these setbacks, there were several things that we did that were with mention. The effort and time put into this project seems to be above average. Despite the unorganized approach, we managed to complete the project. Our second success stemmed from one of our failures, and was the creative touches that we put on our presentation ( i.e me saying that homo Neanderthalis was sexy, which after much consideration, we took out). This engaged the audience in a way that a typical slides presentation could not. This was inspired by such youtube channels like GCP Grey and Exerb1a. For these reasons, I believe that I am content with the results of this project, but I wish we could have done things a bit differently. |
Cladogram Project
The Cladogram project was groupwork, we had to organize various pieces of hardware into groups based on traits. We put all of them on a cladogram and made fake species names for each of the different species. From there, we wrote stories on how the "species" evolved, why, and in what order.
PCR Lab
Purpose The purpose of the lab is to find the get lab experience, to see the history of our DNA, and to learn about lab practices common in biotechnology today.
HYPOTHESISThe hypothesis in this lab was if our DNA was luminescent under a UV light, that would mean we have Alu insertions.
PROCEDURE Any and all procedures can be found in Alu PCR Lab Bay Area Biotechnology Education Consortium.
DATA
We have 6 DNA samples with ALU insertions (see circled items). 2% agarose gel ran at 150 volts for 20 minutes and stained using gelred for 72 hours. Lane 1a and 2a have 100bp ladder. The rest of the lanes ( 1 B-H and 2 D-H) are filled with 20ml of a DNA and loading dye solution. Lane 2A (the top right) is the one I worked with.
Genotype # of students
+/+ 15
-/+ 10
-/- 12
Analysis
15+10+12=37 people
37 x 2 alleles
74 alleles
What we have here is 15 people with +/+ alleles (30 +), 10 people with +/- alleles (10 +/ 10-), and 12 people with -/- alleles (24 -), making 37 people and 74 alleles.
Expected +/+ frequency= (.54)^2= 0.2916
Expected +/- frequency= 2(.54)(.46)= 0.4968
Expected -/- frequency= (.46)^2= 0.2116
Actual +/+ frequency= 0.4054
Actual +/- frequency= 0.2703
Actual -/- frequency= 0.3243
The maths should always add up to one.
CONCLUSIONOur overall discovery is that an error was made somewhere in our process.
This experiment was to use PCR and gel electrophoresis to find the quantity of alu repeats we contain. This also gave us lab experience.
Our results were inconclusive as shown by a picture above as you may note.
This evidence leads me to believe that we have errored in the procedure that we followed. This is due to a lack results and human error. And when one says human error in this lab, it means that we could have let the DNA sit in the hot plate for more than ten minutes, not enough solution was added to each ladder, or something could have happened between the collecting of DNA samples to making the GEL plate to cause us not to get as many results as we did.
REFLECTION
My group and I finished making the cladogram early on, but revisited frequently to make small changes. In making our presentation, we spent too much time with the "creative" aspect of our work, which led us to having less of the necessary data (i.e. Specifying what the species eats). We'd rushed to change it the night before presentations were due. Next time, it would be wise if we kept better track of the requirements and when they were needed to be done.
HYPOTHESISThe hypothesis in this lab was if our DNA was luminescent under a UV light, that would mean we have Alu insertions.
PROCEDURE Any and all procedures can be found in Alu PCR Lab Bay Area Biotechnology Education Consortium.
DATA
We have 6 DNA samples with ALU insertions (see circled items). 2% agarose gel ran at 150 volts for 20 minutes and stained using gelred for 72 hours. Lane 1a and 2a have 100bp ladder. The rest of the lanes ( 1 B-H and 2 D-H) are filled with 20ml of a DNA and loading dye solution. Lane 2A (the top right) is the one I worked with.
Genotype # of students
+/+ 15
-/+ 10
-/- 12
Analysis
15+10+12=37 people
37 x 2 alleles
74 alleles
What we have here is 15 people with +/+ alleles (30 +), 10 people with +/- alleles (10 +/ 10-), and 12 people with -/- alleles (24 -), making 37 people and 74 alleles.
Expected +/+ frequency= (.54)^2= 0.2916
Expected +/- frequency= 2(.54)(.46)= 0.4968
Expected -/- frequency= (.46)^2= 0.2116
Actual +/+ frequency= 0.4054
Actual +/- frequency= 0.2703
Actual -/- frequency= 0.3243
The maths should always add up to one.
CONCLUSIONOur overall discovery is that an error was made somewhere in our process.
This experiment was to use PCR and gel electrophoresis to find the quantity of alu repeats we contain. This also gave us lab experience.
Our results were inconclusive as shown by a picture above as you may note.
This evidence leads me to believe that we have errored in the procedure that we followed. This is due to a lack results and human error. And when one says human error in this lab, it means that we could have let the DNA sit in the hot plate for more than ten minutes, not enough solution was added to each ladder, or something could have happened between the collecting of DNA samples to making the GEL plate to cause us not to get as many results as we did.
REFLECTION
My group and I finished making the cladogram early on, but revisited frequently to make small changes. In making our presentation, we spent too much time with the "creative" aspect of our work, which led us to having less of the necessary data (i.e. Specifying what the species eats). We'd rushed to change it the night before presentations were due. Next time, it would be wise if we kept better track of the requirements and when they were needed to be done.