Vinylic carbon is a carbon that is involved in a double bond with another carbon.

Aryl means the aromatic, cyclic hydrocarbon

differentiation to create specialised cells from naive t and b cells

dna - pre mrna - mrna - protein - RER - golgi apparatus - exocytosis from cell

that interesting that taking a communication course has influenced someone to change majors!

ph

look out for Oxidation State

oxidising agent

Acid snow is a large contributor in the spring time of aquatic systems going into shock due to the melting snow going into these ecosystems and causing problems.

I also found this interesting because of the fact that the spring time is when the weather is heating up and animals are coming out at a regular pace again. When events such as acid snow happen, and with the fast snow melting, the acid shock that takes place does effect everyone over a matter of time.

That is very interesting how just the fast movement of snow melting can produce an over amount of acid in the streams or lakes. Reminds me of ways pools are "shocked" for maintaining a clean pool.

Its amazing how the wind contributes to the movement of the sulfur and incredible how a few burning states contribute to two thirds of the total acid rain.

Man-made sources such as coal burning sites have become known for causing negative environmental impacts. One of these is acid rain and the damage it causes to earth over a long period of time.

As I looked further into the dangers of sulfur oxide in acid rain, it can make respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and asthma worse making it harder for people to breathe.

Keeping in mind what the subject is and the common conventions that writings in that subject include as far as visuals.

Taking into account not only the audience's age, but also what they will be needing this information for. For example, if you are writing a science experiment for a high school level course, you will want to include more information on the "why" of how it works more than you would if you were writing for grad students.

Great way to put things into perspective. Theis is a perfect example of how you should follow instructions when writing your definition.

Ok so when writing definitions, the right placement is needed for the definition. You can't just add words anywhere in the sentence. There must be a purpose. Some definitions may be short or long depending on the knowledge of the audience.

I agree with Jeffrey 54 that depending on the audience will determine the length of the definition. For example, if talking about PGCC students and faculty than you would need two definitions to tailor both parties.

Here is a possible list of words that you can use to define a noun and can be used in a definition. This will be a good reference go to when help is needed.

Another important factor we have been taught is the length of our information. If the audience needs a lof information to get the point across, you are going to need a lot of information. If the audience need little information so they do not get overwhelmed then you need to concise your information.

This has been emphasize many times in our projects. It is very important to KNOW THE AUDIENCE. Starting on the audience when writing can help guide you what to write.

I think a great example of specification based on this definition would be instructions, like instructions on a test booklet for example.

I believe this is reminiscent of an essay in a way. You start with the main idea, and then breakdown evidence or "systems" to support your thesis.

Proton pumps stop moving protons out of the cytosol into the extracellular space.

negatively charged-absorbed into the vacuole

I found this interesting because so much information coming out recently has shown that a lot of the negative environmental impacts have been affected by man-made sources. This is decently going to have an even more negative affect on planet earth in the future.

This is interesting to me because I never thought Canada contributed so much to sulfur oxide emissions over the United States. I thought the United States was the leading polluter country in everything.

This reminds me of when during COVID lockdown, the air began to look a lot clearer because of the decreased usage of cars.

双耳瓶

模式

True

very true

That crazy! I would've expected it to be the other way around!

This factoring is incorrect, it should be: $$y' = xy+3x-2y-6 = (x-2)(y+3)$$

Can someone give me the answers I have to study it for a really REALLY IMPORTANT TEST!

Help me please

the number of molecules in 1 g phosphorus is 6.023×1023123.88=4.86×1021

b

Error - should be -1.

Im not sure that this link is working, it takes me to LibreTexts login page

measuring conductivity relative to the products electricity.

comes from very high energy, unstable and reactive HCL , bc it is a strong acid

In turn it is a much higher in energy, more reactive, and unstable molecule than CH3CO2-

honestly am so lost at this sentence

foundational component of chem phys

spatial arrangement of atoms

alkyl halides

i wonder how other species use non verbal communication

its cool that they can still recognize nonverbal communication even though they lose their ability to utilize it

this is really interesting!

This really be a stated as a *repeating" pattern. For example, 1.01001000100001000001... has a pattern, but it is not rational.

ability to grasp the effect based on the properties, even if an undsovocred organic molecule

transient concept, for erery moment

Should be 1/3

This answer is incorrect-- by any description they've used, and all their examples, air has to be a HOMOGENEOUS mixture. Indeed, quoting from a previous paragraph in this very section "Other examples or homogenous mixtures include solid solutions, like the metal alloy steel, and gaseous solutions, like air which is a mixture of mainly nitrogen and oxygen.'

The father, the son and the holy spirit

noted

This product is a nulceophile as a protonated intermediate is formed

therefore

Concepto de la identidad.

written or poem. without mechanical stucture

adopt or support

-7

Incorrect - backwards

the concentration of Cl here is solely dependent on the concentration of NaCl since 1:1, because when you do (x+0.100) you make it approximately 0.1

LINK IS NOT WORKING

This is very interesting. I think people with low self esteem/confidence issues could benefit possibly from this instead of trying to do this in an unhealthy way

most definitely! When I dont agree with how others act I tend to make a mental effort not to engage with them

I believe first impressions in general are super important! Not even with just students and teachers, although hitting it off with a teacher really makes a difference for the student, in my experience, the more I can relate and connect with a teacher the more I feel comfortable and safe to reach out to them!

continuous

continuous

discrete

= W/out form

you can do so much on the internet

so many different ways to use it

mental health issues can stem from use of the internet however professionals in the field did not necessarily know about these mental health disorders being connected to it at the time

that it is

true

we can scroll for news on apps like Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, etc

sometimes the facts lead the user to have to do more research than they had planned as the media is not always true in what they say

good to know

true

this is due to social media as well as job sites

how are simple, single-celled organisms still complex?

what's an organism?

Strategy:

1. Break into cases
2. Apply Product rule within each case
3. The outcomes are distinct tf sum rule at the end,

OR = sum rule

this is an option

Use of surjective function

*later

n

Pay attention here!

I don't know why this section put such emphasis on Standard From of a linear equation. It could also use more example of finding an equation of a line given slope and a point that's not the y-intercept.

From what I understood, in the experiment outlined above, soil composition is assumed to be a control variable. A few weeks ago, I remember reading an article about how light exposure can change soil composition (pH, microorganism diversity, some nutrient levels, etc). So, investigating this aspect may also lead to interesting insights. But again, sometimes we need to make assumptions to make our lives easier!

This is so true! Last quarter in BIS 2C, I remember learning about Lynn Margulis and her Endosymbiotic Theory. I remember specifically learning that her whole theory just began with a few observations. This really showed me how being able to make observations could lead to something great.

Although I am familiar with the Scientific method, I don't believe I have used the Design Challenge. These two exercises seem to be great ways to get involved with the material. Sometimes just learning this content is not enough and exercises like these can be very beneficial to the students. I am excited to explore more concepts using this exercise.

This is reminds me of a discussion I had in BIS 2C last quarter with a professor regarding where some animals were placed on the tree of life. We discussed how just in a few years, we re-evaluated the placement of certain organisms; and how in a few more years, how certain things we learned in class may be looked as dated and inaccurate.

By creating the shade structure and mirror contraption, the amount of sunlight that the tomato plants can be controlled. This way there will be three levels of sunlight and allowing for more accurate results in the experiment. Based on the hypothesis, I think the plants in the shade structure will be shorter than the ones in the sun, however, the tomatoes in the mirror structure may get too much sunlight and cause the plants to burn.

A falsifying hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved false with an observation or experiment. Most hypotheses are falsified and are often critical to the scientific method. This is important to the scientific method to answer your original question. Without a falsifying hypothesis, the hypothesis could not be proved incorrect and there would be no point to the experiment.

With these key differences between the two process, we can see one is used to eliminate answers, while one is used to create them. When is it the right time to use each? how does one differentiate between the two in choosing which one is needed in a given situation? What situation calls for a design challenge process and what calls for a scientific method? When I think of scientific method, I think of a simple experiment with independent and dependent variables etc. in order to find the correlation between two things in a real life situation. While for the design challenge, I think of creating some kind of device or other solution to solve a real world problem. What other situations can be used for each and how does one decide?

These steps remind me of my previous BIM1 class as we were given a problem to solve as well as similar steps to use to brainstorm, design, and create a device to help solve this problem. We used the waterfall design process to formulate a needs statement and user needs, design input, design process, design output, and final product. culminating with verification and validation of the devices properties and effectiveness. These steps heavily reminds of what my group and I had to do in order to complete our design project. I am interested to see them applied here!

The falsifying of a hypothesis proves that the two things tested were not in affect of one another. One action or trait did not affect or impact another action or trait. However, a null hypothesis is one that is assumed to be true until proven wrong in an experiment. Null hypotheses assume there is no reaction between two variables and that one does not affect the other. Therefore a falsified null hypothesis is like a double negative, making the tow variables in fact related and affecting one another. Thus meaning the same thing as a proven hypotheses.

This reminds me a lot of the book "Drugs for Life" by Joseph Dumit. This book is about the pharmaceutical companies and how facts become circulated and widely accepted when in reality consumers should aim to contest them or at least be skeptical of them more often. In the book readers see the bias behind pharma facts that are circulated, and the manipulation of data that us turned into an everyday fact. Thinking this way about biology also puts these facts into question as it is a good idea to always look at the context in which any fact was collected as well as make observations about if what was assumed in order to produce such a fact.

So if we as humans are unaware of many biases we have based on our own experiences, how does one create/formulate these new questions and observations to make? How does one become aware of their biases and simple assumptions they are making? How often does this happen? If humans are so conditioned in their environment to accept what they are so familiar with, what kinds of questions are we not asking, and how do we begin to ask them?

It sounds like both the Design Challenge and scientific method will be used in class to understand hypothesis. Since I'm not familiar with the Design Challenge it might take a bit to become accustomed to the process. But it sounds like it'll be useful.

Not one explanation can indeed fit every case of a problem. At some point, the explanation created may fail a category as it was only created to solve a select few variables according to the problem at hand.

There is a clear difference between the two methods as one eliminates possible answers and one creates solutions to problems. Both are needed to solve an experiment which is why we use both to full proof a proposed hypothesis.

The Design Challenge forces students to better comprehend the material. We're not just going along with the information but are having a deeper level of understanding.

In experiments, it is important to remember to be as accurate as possible. Errors in data can lead to incorrect conclusions. This is why repeated trials is crucial to ensure the reliability of data.

Science is always changing and there are new discoveries constantly. In past classes in the BIS series, the professors repeatedly say the information they give us in lecture will probably change in a decade. It's important to understand that the ideas in science and biology aren't solidified, but are open to change.

This is a bit of an odd case as even without much light in "the sunny part" both cases presented grew at the same height. Even if one had a limited light source, which shows that our null hypothesis for that area can not be rejected. However, in comparison, the "Shady part of the yard" cases between a plant covered with shade versus one provided with extra light, the one with extra light grew more. Which can allow us to reject the null hypothesis if it follows the t-test guidelines.

So, our alternative hypothesis would have to change for both groups since one area was not affected by the light but the other was. So the only variable we can change is the area these plants reside and conclude if there is some sort of difference when presented with different amounts of light in their respective area in the yard. To find the limiting resource these plants need to increase in height.

Biases are all around us; even when we believe them not to be. No matter the situation sometimes we are biased against or for an idea. That is why it is important to take into account all the biases and human errors that could occur through a studied experiment. If the experiment is passed, it could be debunked easily due to bias used by the scientist.

Since a plant in the sunlight was the same height as one in the shade right next to it, I could conclude that the amount of sunlight a plant is exposed to does not affect its height. This conclusion would lead me to consider other possible explanations for the difference in plant growth by thinking what other variables could potentially affect plant growth, observing the yard, and determining where those variables could lie. Since plant height varied in different areas of the yard, it's possible that the soil composition is different in those areas and is affecting plant growth. I would design an experiment using that as the independent variable.

The shade structure acts as the control in this experiment, since the independent variable is the amount of sunlight the plants are exposed to. The shade structure allows us to see the effects of No Sunlight on the plants and use it as a point of comparison. Based on the hypothesis that there is a positive correlation between sunlight exposure and plant height, the plants under the structure will be the shortest.

The design challenge can also be a way for students to have a more clean understanding of material. Creating questions helps students think about the material, and gives the instructor a signal of how much and how well the student actually knows the material as well.

Making accurate measurements are crucial. The more accurate the results from your experiments are, the more accurate your conclusion from your experiment is going to be. It is important to make sure that you are doing work with detail, because it can really affect your results with your dependent and independent variables.

I agree with piece of the text. The idea that creating a question for an observation can actually be one of the more challenging parts of the scientific method. I believe in order to ask a question, you actually need to have a good idea/understanding of what material you are observing. The more you know what you are studying, the better, and more concise questions you are going to be asking.

The mirror contraption could be used to test for the light the plant receieves while keeping the temperature of the soil under the plant the same.If you have the shade structure, then no light will reach the plants, so the mirrors allow the soil temperature to remain consistent, while distributing shade to some plants, and light to some plants.

The two processes are interconnected in real world application (though they are separate they are both needed in order to fully have a well rounded experiment such as in the scientist example or to fully assess and help a patient such as in the physician example).

I did this and got one wrong because I said salami and bread are "countable foods." That was wrong, so it appears that context matters when observing, because I interpret bread and salami in countable slices, whereas the person making the quiz may not have imagined them that way. Bias really does play a role in our observations.

From what I gathered it (the design project) seems like the foundation step to what will become what was discussed above in the article and will help us garner the skills to make the educated and meaningful questions that are the cornerstone of scientific discovery. It forces you to look at the problem verses just making an observation.

This reminds me of an article I read earlier today, talking about how the Big Bang Theory may need to be revised with the discovery of galaxies larger than they should be if the timeline of the Milky Way's development is what we base the ages of galaxies off of. I think something we often forget in science is that most concepts are just theories, and that theories can still be changing, since we learn new things every day.

Without questioning what we don't and what we "do" know there would never be any new discoveries about the world around us. If it weren't for people questioning the way the world worked years ago we wouldn't have made the discoveries required to have advanced in society the way we have. Regardless if their findings were later disproven, the fact that they had a desire to know a meaningful reason as to why things exist is what mattered. Or at least that's what I took from this segment and from prior classes. The whole point of science isn't to be right or better put, to have your hypothesis to be correct, but rather to test what we know and expand our knowledge of what we don't.

accurate, indicating the closeness of a set of data to a standard data; precision, indicating the closeness of two sets of datas' closeness.

This is to say that the experiment's controlled environment limited the variables that the experimenter intended, which is very crucial.

Since the plants under the shade are around the same height as the plants in the sunny area, we can conclude that the amount of sunlight the plant receives does not affect the plant height. This result would lead us to accept our null hypothesis that the amount of sunlight the plant receives does not have a significant correlation to plant height.

This is an interesting point here because I was not familiar with the design challenge before reading this. After reading the purposes of each, I understand the benefits of both and importance of each. Based on my understanding it seems that the scientific model is essential to make testable predictions and come up with explanations for certain phenomena, while the design challenge is more focused around using the concepts learned through the scientific model to come up with new solutions.

I completely agree with the other ideas mentioned that there are multiple factors that could affect the plant height, other than the just the amount of sunlight. I had a similar idea that the soil could be a factor because it is possible that in the initial experiment (without the shade structure) the soil could have been less nutrient rich in the shaded area than the sunlight rich area and that could have been the affecting factor, rather than the sunlight. To ensure that the soil type and, as a result, nutrient level, is a control variable we would create a shade structure to adjust sunlight level while keeping the soil the same. Then in this setting, if we determine that the shaded plants are shorter than the unshaded, we can be slightly more confident that it is the amount of sunlight that is affecting the plant height, not the soil nutrient level.

The null hypothesis would suggest that there is no correlation between the amount of sunlight the plant receives and the height of the plant. The alternate hypothesis would, on the other hand, suggest that there is a correlation between the amount of sunlight the plant receives and the height of the plant. In order to determine if there is a significant correlation between amount of sunlight and plant height and to either accept or reject our null, we would have to use statistical analysis techniques such as a t-test. - Null Hypothesis: An increase in the amount of sunlight the plant receives, does not correlate to a significant increase in plant height. - Alternate Hypothesis: An increase in the amount of sunlight the plant receives, does correlate to a significant increase in plant height.

I find the process akin to the Socratic method of questioning on a procedure level. Both focuses on testing a statement's objectiveness, and correctness. Both based on a singular question, derives a implication from it, verify the implication, gives solution to the answer. However, we should not see them as distinctive methods to solve a single question, we should use them subsequently. Socratic method is useful in determining a question's independency, fundamentality, and eventually testability. The socratic method requires the question provider's effort in deciding whether the question is basic, or compound in terms of singular or multiple independent variables are involved in the first place. This is verified by further dividing the prior question to more precise and accurate descriptions of a process or a system with clearer statements of independent, and dependent variables. Once the verification step is over, the Socratic Method also implies that the user should rely on the quotations from established sources to first establish the assumed foundations. After that when we incorporate the scientific method to verify the correctness of the original assumed answer to the question. Eventually we need to incorporate Socratic Method again for further development of the question.

My idea of a mental model is an image or scene that is created in my mind when a term or concept is prompted to me. I would be able to describe the details of that concept from what has been made within my mind on its own. I think it's very important to be able to make mental models as they create ease of access for things I have learned and need to use for other, newer concepts. I can also apply this to pretty much any topic or class as well as it helps with creative and independent thinking.

I interpret a mental model as picturing something in your mind that is or organizes material that will help further your understanding of a concept. This could be picturing the way atoms are bonded together or a model of similarities and differences between two processes. Although a mental model can be helpful to some students, sometimes a physical picture or model is more helpful to the teacher and student when learning a new concept.

I interpret a "mental model" as a strong conceptual understanding of a process. If a professor refers to a specific step or phase of a process, a student with a strong mental model will be able to recall all of their current understanding of the specific topic, and make the necessary adjustments to their mental models.

I have also found this reviewing strategy to be very beneficial in many different college classes. Although I have found it difficult to stay on top of and tedious. I am definitely planning to use this technique to learn the content of this course.

One common example is the difference between the academic and colloquial uses of the word "theory". In academia, a "theory" is something that has been rigorously tested and proven, but informally the word is often used to mean a conjecture or an idea that is untested. This leads to lots of confusion. One example that people think that since evolution is "just a theory", it isn't proven.

In chemistry classes, my past teachers and professors have often anthropomorphized atoms to describe the octet rule. For example, I've often heard that Fluorine is so close to having 8 electrons that it really "wants" to get to the full octet. This is a useful way to understand the octet rule, but it can fall apart in the case of some exceptions. For example, many transition metals are most stable with 5 electrons in the d block. The metaphor is not helpful for understanding this, and to understand it you need to understand the pauli exclusion principle.

I have always found engaging with fellow students to be helpful in learning new topics together. I am hoping that the time planned in the lecture for small group discussion will benefit most, if not all, students.

Am I assuming correctly that we will discuss both plant and animal cells, individually, as well?

I think it is entirely possible for multiple people to view a situation in multiple ways. In fact, I think it happens all the time in real life. There are many factors that can lead to this, such as one's upbringing and thought process, one's context of the situation, as well as the perception of the witnesses and what they infer to be happening. For example, you may think of an instance where a homeless woman steals food from a grocery store. One may view this as a careless, dishonest act that proves a problem of morals and integrity, while another may view it as an act of desperation and view the problem to be that of homelessness and poverty in their community. Further, some may see it as both, or maybe something entirely different. In sum, I believe everything can be up for interpretation when those viewing one situation are different, with their own thoughts and perceptions. In an academic setting this can also be seen, there can be many different interpretations of an unclear problem on a test or homework assignment, leading to many different student answers. If a a problem or question is vague and open ended, more problem solving is required, making the answer or the path to find the answer possibly different for different people. Overall, problem solving is a skill that looks different for everyone and takes practice.

Having the study guides will be a huge help in figuring out what of the lecture material is still no as clear to me and what I need to go back and review in more detail. I'm happy we have this resource almost as a checkpoint after each lecture to evaluate our understanding of the material as we progress in the class.

This makes me think of the vat-grown meat, where stem cells are taken from an animal, and are then treated to multiply, and eventually grow into a product that resembles meat.

Though ill-structured problems are more similar to problems in real-life situations, to be good at solving these problems, one needs to start with well-structured problems and gradually build into solving more complicated problems. In this way, one could begin with considering one factor at a time and learn how multiple variables interacts with each other and know that there could potentially be multiple answers. Therefore, practicing both types of problems would be essential to the success in this course, or any course.

I like how I am able to see my classmates' responses and see others' questions as well as my own. I like that I will be bale to check if others' have the same questions as me as well as see their thought process in understanding the reading material. I have used platform like this before in another class but not regularly and not for the purposes of further comprehending the lecture material. I am excited to use this platform to ask questions and see my peers' thought processes as well.

It is important to note how important biology is in not only about learning major concepts regarding the world we live in, but how we can use that information to help us improve our world so we can continue to thrive.

I have never been provided a study guide for lectures and am very curious to see what these look like and how effective they will be in helping me to study and retain information. I have only been given study guides for final exams etc. Do the simply ask questions regarding what was or will be gone over in lecture? Will vocabulary words be included within the problems asked within the guide to help solidify their definitions? How effective are these guides on their own? Should they be taken without the help of lecture notes and other materials?

In my chemistry class my professor tried to explain the discrete nature of all energies using a figure of a man walking up stairs (discrete) versus walking up a slope (continuous) to illustrate the difference of the two. That model worked in explaining that there are only certain levels of energies that could exist, yet the actual energy levels are not arranged evenly like stairs but in a way where the gaps between each level gets closer the further away from the ground state, which is where the model didn't work.

I have found that doing assignments and ensuring your understanding of new material the same day the material was introduced the most beneficial. Personally, reviewing new material the same day helps me to not only solidify the knowledge that I do understand, but rework and comprehend the lecture material that is not yet as clear. I find that when the most recent lecture is fresh in your mind its easier to grasp and make sense of the substance of the lecture. I also think waiting until the. last minute adds another note of stress that isn't necessary and can even make it harder to study or complete an assignment.

I like that we will be given a post-lecture study guide because I have a hard time creating my own questions and knowing what to review right after class. This will help me understand which concepts are more difficult for me to grasp so I can focus more on those. I can also see myself going back to them when I am reviewing for the midterms and the final to make sure I understand the concepts from one lecture before moving on to another lecture.

I really hope this occurs frequently throughout the quarter. I think it's really cool that us students can have an impact on what content is being reviewed during lecture, and I think that this will not only motivate students to be active on discussion assignments, but it will help content understanding as well.

I fell victim to this mindset in a past class, and I can say from personal experience the statement "because the answer choice "makes sense"" is very true in how many people see reviewing study guides. Reviewing a study guide that way is not so much understanding the material as it is memorizing the correct answer for a very specific question (which you are not likely to be asked about on an exam) .

I agree that constant self testing is extremely important to ensuring you understand all the material covered. This allows you to figure out which concepts are your weakest and focus on those concepts more so that you don't fall behind when future topics build on previous ones. Even areas that you find easy will benefit from constant self testing because if you find a concept easy at one point, you might not study it as deeply, leading to you forgetting it. These active studying techniques, versus simply re-reading your notes, will help you retain more information in the long run, especially as we approach midterms because you have already been actively studying the material since you learned it and you won't need to rush to try to memorize all the information (which is almost impossible for BIS2A where you need to understand the processes, and not just vocabulary terms).

I've previously had a class that had pre-lecture assignments and quizzes, and I found that they tremendously helped my understanding of what was being taught in lecture. I'm curious to see if the same will happen this quarter as well. I'm also curious to see if other students find pre-lecture assignments beneficial or tedious?

This action is crucial during the learning process that many seem to neglect, if done correctly it will provide many with beneficial learning and boost critical thinking. I think this is a very important point to keep in mind for all classes as it is always better to ask rather than stay clueless!

It is essential to be able to solve unseen problems before by using similar knowledge found in class. I think mastery over this skill is great to succeed in any exam as it allows you to know how to answer a question rather than hope to be asked the exact question studied for.

I fully agree with this! I feel like as a whole, we always think that whenever we get called on we need to know the answer fully in order to answer the question, which is totally wrong. I believe no matter whether the answer is correct, half true, or even fully wrong, we learn so much. In fact, when an answer to a question is wrong, its better than the answer being correct. I believe when someone answers a question wrong, it gives an opportunity to actually work through the problem, and actually figure out what the correct answer is, and why its correct.

This is such an important fact to note down. A lot of people, even including myself sometimes forget how applicable the subject of biology is to lots of everyday topics and areas. Sometimes I forget biology is not just associated with medicine and the medical area, but also affects community work, upcoming technology, and modern day art as well.

Self testing by completing a practice quiz/test/questions fully and without looking at notes is very helpful because when you go over the answers after, you have an idea of what you already know, what questions you can reasonably infer the answers to, and where you need more work. I find that looking at the answers after every question makes me less likely to try as hard because I can just assure myself that I would get it right in hindsight.

I find that helping others understand the material is my favorite way to study because it allows me to understand concepts in a way that makes sense in my vernacular, and I can help others learn at the same time. I think also looking at models gives you real-world examples to attach concepts to, which helps me to remember it on tests later.

Creating connections between topics from what I've read previously has, if I remember correctly, been proven to be one of the most effective ways of learning and truly understanding new material since the connections between ideas not only can make them easier to learn but the connection can also make it easier to retain that information.

I think its really nice that the aspect of anxiety is discussed in this part since its the main reason that I often don't outwardly participate in lectures since the sudden pressure of speaking can sometimes make me blank on the topic at hand so I appreciate that it was outwardly stated that it is alright to say "I don't know".

I think this part of the text is really interesting since in the medical field I feel like we've seen rudimentary versions of these since they can "grow" new ears in say a patient arm but they're just a prosthetic and aren't truly functional. With what they're claiming in the article however would be truly revolutionary and beneficial to those suffering with chronic illnesses or people with disabilities.

Sometimes I am amazed on how far this scaling goes in terms of the amount of cells in one person outnumbering the total human population ever born by multiple times.

I find it exciting on how things we see in sci-fi movies such as regenerating limbs can be found in some animals like axolotls and other topics can already be found crawling around on this planet.

I think that many forget that these classes are still teaching about the real world by using real life examples. For instance, I would see my high school classes as just a class to get by rather that seeing in the deeper core to them. So far, I can tell this class will teach a lot of in real life problems and solutions.

I think this is very important for later references, and revision purposes. I had an art history class before in which the professor relied the absorbance rate of knowledge on students' notes taking efficiency by not posting any worded ppts online, which resulted in a devastating scoring in the later exams. I am saying that the test score reflects the low efficiency in transmitting knowledge from professor to the students, which is a direct resulting from not posting lecture contents later after the class. And I absolutely agree with the decision to post lecture slides, and recordings online.

I believe this center should serve as a extremely important resource in terms of learning/establishing concepts from lectures or understanding some confusing ideas.

I think it is of priority to deduct the correct information, including independent variables, conditions, and dependent variables from whether a rational, a question, or a set of facts; It is important to get an accurate, and precise presumption or take it as a basis for later construction of details and further questions.

I think the ability of providing a lineage of questions that surrounds a specific question, with rational deduction, or an underlying implication should be a crucial part to participate in the lecture's discussion.

In other classes, I experienced success when I set my own deadline by which I would review a set amount of the content. Having post-lecture study guides makes keeping deadlines and a sense of discipline much easier. Also I've never had questions accompanying each lecture, so I'm very excited about that! I think it will much studying for exams much easier.

I can see how this ties to BIS002B in that we learned about polygenic and pleitropic traits, as well as epistasis. BIS002A seems to look less at the effects of that, and more so at the root of what causes them.

I really like the idea of having pre-lecture study guides. In my previous classes, I had to come up with my own ways to prepare for the upcoming lecture. As I was predicting what might be covered, sometimes I would spend too much/too little time on certain nuances, reducing efficiency. Given that the instructors themselves will be creating these study guides, I look forward to being more effective with my pre-class studying!

I couldn't more strongly agree with this! I've had amazing experiences in the past connecting basic concepts I learned in class with more complex ideas. An example of this can be seen with a nutrition class I took at community college. A few of our lectures touched on the nutrient-gene interface and disease prevention. This prompted me to look into how these 2 concepts can be fused, leading me to nutrigenomics. When I'm reading papers on this concept, I can usually use the knowledge I learned in that course as these scientific papers build off of what I learned. I'm very excited to see how I can connect the principles I learn in BIS 2A to other ideas.

This really highlights how biology and chemistry are such interconnected fields and how either one can not be fully understood without understanding the other. After taking BIS2B last quarter and focusing on biology on a larger scale, I'm excited to explore biology on much smaller scale in this class by focusing on the atomic level.

Having learned the concept of 'schema' in my high school's psychology course, I think the mental models should mean the same thing as schema: we either assimilate new knowledge to pre-existing mental structures or we accommodate new knowledge to form new structures. These mental structures play essential roles in increasing the speed of memory encoding and recalling. Even though sometimes schema may cause memory distortions since it's based on pre-existing notions, with enough rehearsal, this could be avoided.

Some of my previous chemistry professors have used anthropomorphism to describe the strength of bonds between atoms. For example, they described how certain atoms were "more greedy for electrons" to describe electronegativity. While this simplified complex vocabulary and made the concept easier to understand, it was not scientifically accurate, since atoms are not actually "greedy". Using these anthropomorphistic terms to scientifically prove ideas would technically be incorrect and in more advanced chemistry courses I am expected to use more complex terms. The tradeoff in this case would be that I understood the concepts much more easily, but I was not exposed to the complex vocabulary.

I'm seeing the emphasis on sketching and drawing in this class for quite a few times now, and I'm getting a sense that learning through visualization would be a key skill in understanding the materials in this class.

To me, the term mental mode refers to a method of visualizing and organizing the concepts I've learned. It is important for learning because it provides an additional level to understanding the information, instead of just through words or blocks of text. It accompanies those words with diagrams, pictures, and processes, allowing me to more deeply engage with the information I have learned.

I've always learnt molecular biology at a very microscopic level only. How would a shift of perspective apply to micro and macro levels of biology simultaneously? And where can we see them in the real world?

I completely agree with this statement here. I feel that sometimes there is this impression that biology is about memorization, but in reality, that is not completely accurate. While there is definitely some memorization, it is mainly about problem-solving. This is especially because pure memorization would never pave the way for new discoveries and innovations; it does not allow us to make connections and use those connections to solve greater problems. I've realized that problem-solving is definitely challenging, but through enough practice and deliberate effort I can improve my problem solving skills, and this class is an opportunity for me to do so.

The post-study guide is new to me. So far I've only had classes that gave study guides at the end of every unit, I wonder how having one after every lecture would make a difference in my learning process.

This is where I see the "connection of dots" in the learning process of the bis2 series happening. After taking bis2b and 2c with heavy focuses on diversity in evolution and the tree of life, I wonder how far we will go in terms of zooming in the focus on molecular level diversity in bis2a.

intensity = radiant/radiation (energy) density? radiation energy vs radiation energy density? intensity is proportianoal to num of photons

speed?

answerr

answer

To increase water solubility, we would want polar functional groups, since polar molecules are soluble in polar water. Some polar functional groups are alcohols, carboxylic acids, and aldehydes.

When we talk about hydrogen bonds, that is an intermolecular interaction between a very electronegative atom (O,N,F) and hydrogen. The partial positive charge would be on the hydrogen and the partial negative charge would be on the very electronegative atom. Electronegativity refers to an atom's ability to attract electrons, so a more electronegative atom (partial negative charge) is more likely to accept electrons than give them up, making it the hydrogen bond acceptor, while the less electronegative atoms (hydrogen) with the partial positive charge is more likely to give up electrons, making it the hydrogen bond donor.

I learned about electronegativity and types of bonds in previous chemistry courses, but it is so interesting to see that these concepts can be applied to biology. I am so curious to see how we can apply the concepts of electronegativity and the strength of bonds to biology. It seems that based on varying degrees of electronegativity there are different bonds and interactions are present. The greater difference in electronegative would be ionic bonding and the smallest difference in electronegative would be nonpolar covalent bonding.

From Carbon 1, we would see the greatest "pull' of electrons from the oxygen (more electronegative) and smallest "pull" of electrons from the hydrogens (less electronegative). In other words, there is a partial negative charge on the oxygen and partial positive charge on the hydrogens, causing an overall dipole moment toward the oxygen. From Carbon 2, we would see the greatest "pull' of electrons from the nitrogen (more electronegative) and smallest "pull" of electrons from the hydrogen (less electronegative). In other words, there is a partial negative charge on the nitrogen and partial positive charge on the hydrogens, causing an overall dipole moment toward the nitrogen.

I think this sentence ties into how vocabulary plays a major role in BIS002A because I never knew this was what this was called, and thinking of the word sphere helps me envision this as a 3D image, which I didn't do previously due to the fact that most images are shown as 2D.

I would expect to see about 109.5 degree bond angles, but since there is a more polar bond between carbon and oxygen, the oxygen may be closer, and since oxygen has a higher electronegativity, I would expect more of the electron density to be around the oxygen.

I would propose that ionic bonds are very strong and require much energy input to break, but that in water, these bonds dissociate easier due to the polarity of water. The polarity of water and its ability to dissolve ionic compounds plays into how bodies function with dissolved minerals and salts.

Does anyone know if this also includes alpha particles?

In this section, the focus is on small group communication which involves interactions between three or more people. These individuals are connected through a common purpose, mutual influence, and a shared identity. While many communication skills from two-person interactions (dyadic communication) can be applied to small groups, the complexity of group interaction requires some adaptations and additional skills. The discussion includes characteristics, functions, and types of small groups.

How is that possible? So are these rankings? Ratios? These numbers were constructed somehow, I think that statement is a little too ambiguous

I wonder if all gases can solidify! I looked it up and I suspect the answer is yes

I always appreciate when professors make us interact with the material more than just memorizing vocabulary words. I’ve definitely noticed with classes that require problem-solving strategies rather than pure memorization on homework and exams, I always finish the term feeling like I actually learned/remembered things. When tests require straight memorization I often forget most of the material shortly after the exam is over.

I once had a professor tell me that a good way to see if you understand the material is if you can explain it to a 5-year-old. I definitely have found that this is true, for anyone can memorize and spit back out an explanation from a textbook; however, explaining it in simpler terms takes mastery of a topic to break it down into an easy-to-understand concept. I always do this in my head when I’m studying to make sure I am comprehending the material properly.

This is one of the many reasons genomics is so fascinating to me—something as seemingly simple as a grain of rice has (correct me if I’m wrong) more genes in its genome than a human being! I wonder how many, if any, are protein-encoding.

Whenever my mom is driving the two of us somewhere, we have a tendency to be sort of directionally challenged and miss turns and whatnot. Driving 8 hours to move into my dorm room was a bit of a nightmare. Personally, I think it's partially her fault too for not listening to me very well, but I've since learned that to avoid both getting lost and any lectures from my mother, I need to be very clear and precise about the directions I give. Instead of a "turn right at the light," I'll have to say "turn right on X street in Y miles." It saves us both the headache.

To be falsified is to prove that the statement/claim is false. In this case, the null hypothesis would indicate that the new drug does not have any influence over blood pressure. So, if the experiment had falsified the null hypothesis, then her experiment showed that there was an influence on blood pressure by the new drug. Falsification is critical to the scientific method because it acts as a step towards a "more accurate" explanation by eliminating what is not accurate.