Monday, November 23, 2015
Unit 4 Reflection
This unit was about cell division (meiosis/mitosis) and sexual reproduction. We also learned about Mendel's laws and what patterns he found in pea plants. Students were required to understand inheritance, the cell cycle, and basic Mendelian principles. This unit was quite easy for me and I was able to understand all the concepts quite quickly. Some things that were new included a few of the genetic "complications" like epistasis, dihybrid crosses, and x-linked inheritance. Even though they were new to me, I found making Punnett squares for things like dihybrid crosses and x-linked traits quite interesting. One setback was turning in these blog assignments. We haven't really had that many labs and blog assignments this unit so when I had 2 large ones (Coin Sex Lab and Unit 4 Reflection) at the end of this unit I was unprepared. I turned in both late and although hopefully this doesn't impact my grade too severely, the lateness will probably result in a loss of a couple points. From this experience I learned that even something relatively easy will fade in memory and skill if you don't practice it for a while. In my case this unit, the skill that I left unpracticed was typing up a blog post or conclusion about a lab. This teaches me that I should probably not leave future skills unused till the last minute when they are extremely important. One other thing that taught me an important lesson about turning assignments in on time is the infographic. I did not work on the infographic much in class so it ended up getting finished in the last two days. However, my work was surprisingly good for a last minute job and I am actually quite proud of the way my infographic turned out. This experience also teaches me that I shouldn't hold assignments off till the last minute, but I may be a good last second worker. I really want to learn more about x-linked traits, epistasis, and epigenetics. These complications interest me quite a bit and I will probably research them in my free time. I also wonder about what exactly causes dominance. I already know how an X chromosome is rendered dominant in female's cells, so I wonder if the process is similar for autosomal alleles. My numbers are as follows: Visual-10, Aural-9, Read/Write-9, Kinesthetic-7. These results are more or less what I expected. However, I thought there would be a larger difference between visual & read and aural & kinesthetic. This is because I like to make organized diagrams and do labeling. I also learn from watching videos, reading wikipedia, and understand directions best in ordered written form. I usually zone out when I'm listening to a teacher and find manipulating objects entertaining but unhelpful. To prepare for tests, I will make diagrams when applicable and write ordered lists where it seems helpful to my learning.
Coin Sex Lab Conclusion
In this lab, we flipped coins to simulate the processes of meiosis and gene recombination. The coins served as models for a variety of concepts including: sex of offspring, simple autosomal dominance, x-linked recessive alleles, and dihybrid crosses.
Coins are good analogies for genetic concepts because they can be used to visualize probability and gene inheritance. For example, flipping one coin could decide between X and Y, while another is labeled X on both sides and therefore has no probability of passin on a Y chromosome. Another good example is that if both parents are heterozygous, each coin could be labeled with "X" and "x". Four flips of each coin together would show one possible inheritance scenario.
For the dihybrid cross we had 11 brown hair brown eyes (instead of 9), 2 blond hair brown eyes (instead of 3), 3 brown hair blue eyes (same as expected 3), and 0 blond hair blue eyes (instead of 1). I'd say that these results aren't that unexpected because the maximum deviation was by 2. The reason why the results aren't the same as what the Punnett square tells us is that it is all about probability. It is completely possible, although highly unlikely, that someone has 20 kids and they all have blond hair and blue eyes. Probability would dictate that only about 1 of these kids should have those traits, but this chance is a chance; not an undeniable fact. Punnett squares serve as models for the most likely situations and genotypes that probability models, not as the genotype combination that will be present every time.
The limit of probability is that it can never tell us exactly what babies will have what traits and how many of those babies we will have. It can give us a most likely number that is found if you take an average of those crosses, but will not tell us what will always happen in our situation.
Understanding that I can predict the possibilities of my child's traits means that I can only hope that my child will have certain beneficial characteristics and won't have any disorders. If I really wanted, I could create a monohybrid punnett square for my parents and wife's parents to figure out whether we are homozygous or heterozygous. We could then do a cross of these to find the traits our child may have.
Coins are good analogies for genetic concepts because they can be used to visualize probability and gene inheritance. For example, flipping one coin could decide between X and Y, while another is labeled X on both sides and therefore has no probability of passin on a Y chromosome. Another good example is that if both parents are heterozygous, each coin could be labeled with "X" and "x". Four flips of each coin together would show one possible inheritance scenario.
For the dihybrid cross we had 11 brown hair brown eyes (instead of 9), 2 blond hair brown eyes (instead of 3), 3 brown hair blue eyes (same as expected 3), and 0 blond hair blue eyes (instead of 1). I'd say that these results aren't that unexpected because the maximum deviation was by 2. The reason why the results aren't the same as what the Punnett square tells us is that it is all about probability. It is completely possible, although highly unlikely, that someone has 20 kids and they all have blond hair and blue eyes. Probability would dictate that only about 1 of these kids should have those traits, but this chance is a chance; not an undeniable fact. Punnett squares serve as models for the most likely situations and genotypes that probability models, not as the genotype combination that will be present every time.
The limit of probability is that it can never tell us exactly what babies will have what traits and how many of those babies we will have. It can give us a most likely number that is found if you take an average of those crosses, but will not tell us what will always happen in our situation.
Understanding that I can predict the possibilities of my child's traits means that I can only hope that my child will have certain beneficial characteristics and won't have any disorders. If I really wanted, I could create a monohybrid punnett square for my parents and wife's parents to figure out whether we are homozygous or heterozygous. We could then do a cross of these to find the traits our child may have.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)