Welcome to the DSL100 WikiaEdit

This is our discussion wiki for DSL 100. Have fun (and be respectful!)


Hello! Welcome to our wiki page!

To get full credit, you must post your own response - and reply to at least one other classmate. Remember to always be respectful. If you have trouble - see Dr. Halloran in his office at Assaf 107.

Topic 11: Edit

In the 80s, there was a really bad movie called "Howard the Duck". The premise was that Howard came from a planet just like ours, except that birds, instead of mammals, dominated the planet - leading to an upright walking, talking, cigar-smoking duck. Why do you suppose mammals, instead of birds, came to dominate the Earth - especially given that birds are also warm-blooded AND have the additional advantage of flying? Edit

Discuss... Edit

Kimberly Canas Response:

I believe that mammals dominated the planet instead of birds because mammals have many variety advantages than birds. Mammals tend to be more smarter and can adapt to land or the environment better. And another advantage of mammals is that they aren't in so much danger than birds with babies, they don't lay eggs instead their born without a shell which makes less dangerous for mammals species to be in danger and can reproduce. Birds are often flying to different areas around the world with the seasons changing and sometimes are often left behind too and have more danger than mammals with laying eggs and just migrating to different areas. Mammals are intelligent and with reproduction system it is why in the movie they came to dominate the Earth.

Kimberly Canas response to Jonathan McGale: I agree with Jonathan because mammals are intelligent and have different reproduction system which can make them reproduce more. Its advantages are the reason why they dominated Earth.

Jonathan McGale response:

I think that the mammals came to dominate the planet because of many different advantages. Mammals are stronger than other animals but they are also more intelligent and they have different reproduction system. Birds are also smaller than the majority of the mammals so they are than less powerful. There is also the fact that mammals increased reproduced very fast so there is more mammals than birds on earth.

Matt Hobden response to Jonathan: I agree with you Jonathan, mammals are bigger and stronger than most birds throughout the world. Some apes even hunt birds for a quick meal, birds leaving eggs behind also decreases production as many animals eat them aswell.

Jonathan McGale reply to Jorge Polanco:

I definitely think that mammals have an advantage over the other animals on reproduction because they do not have to lay eggs behind them. There is a lot of risk of a predator coming to eat the eggs and this as a big impact on the reproduction. The adaptation is also a great point because it is difficult to live big environmental change for an animal if it is not able to adapt itself.

jonathon sofianos repsonse;

i think mammals came to dominate the earth because they are the stronger creature and they have use of all of their limbs, as in birds only have their legs and their wings. mammals are just the more dominant creature today, if the birds were able to have arms then it would be a different story but i think that not having hands is a big disability.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

Between birds and mammals, it is apparent that mammals dominate Earth. Birds do possess a distinctive advantage over mammals by being able to fly. However, mammals have a different lifestyle, are stronger, and reproduce differently which in total gives them a higher advantage at being dominate on Earth. Not only are mammals more dominant but they can within stand different climates, do not have a selective diet and shelter is not hard to come by trees are not around.

I disagree with Jonathan Sofianos, mammals having arms as opposed to having wings has nothing to do with why mammals are more dominate than birds. Having arms is just a part of mammals body and not all mammals have arms, some have fins to maneuver through water. There are other specific reasons why mammals have come to be more dominate on Earth. Picking a body part then classifying it as a advantage is a weak statement and undermines the true reason why mammals are more dominate.

Matt Hobden response:

I believe that mammals dominated the planet instead of birds because mammals have the advantage of being bigger, stronger, and in some cases smarter. Even with ability to fly away from things such as predictors when in danger, mammals are able adapt to their environment. With the ability to reproduce and not leave eggs behind, there is much less risk when producing a new born.

Jorge Polanco's response:

During the changes in earth at some point mammals were in advantage and this lead to their progression in a much faster way than it was for birds. As well we can appreciate how the reproduction capacity of the mammals can be safer and more efficient that the one that birds have. In other words, birds have more trouble adapting and establishing in any place than mammals; they do can fly and that's something extra, but their configuration and way of been puts birds in a desfavorable situation when it comes to compare them to mammals. Another interesting fact that comes to my mind is the mass reproduction system that mammals have; in a way it's safer than laying above eggs an that puts them in a very difficult situation when it comes to ensure the continuity of their kind; as well birds have a tendency or are very common in places near to the water were natural disasters tend to hit stronger which could put them at risk when is reproduction season.

Jorge Polanco's response to Cynara Scheuer's:

I don't agree with you when you state that mammals are more likely to live among other species. A simple reason is very close to us here in Florida; if you go to the beach you will see a lot of different birds flying around together, sharing their habitat; in fact I think it's easier for bird to live among other birds rather than mammals because birds can adapt themselves more easily, the problem for birds is that they are more fragile than must of the mammals and any change that could affect them will probably make them struggle; like I mention natural disasters could damage more birds than mammals and that in the long run could affect birds. Nice job!

Cynara Scheuer's response:

I believe that mammals dominated the Earth besides birds because they had more advantage on the land then in the air. They were able to move around to new places where not many animals that were on land could have been at. With birds, they have a disadvantage since flying to a new area can be 50/50 chance. If there is another species of birds that is already in that area, there is no way for them to be able to share the area. But going back to mammals, their other advantage is that if another species is in the area that they are in, they can share it since the species might not be the same size. Yes they will have to get a little fight to show who is the more dominate mammal but at the end of the fight they will be able to figure out which part of the area is going to be there space.

Cynara Scheuer replies to Jonathan McGale:

I see where you are coming with your point on how mammals are dominating the Earth because of their different advantages. Their main one I also believe is their reproduction. This does give them an advantage since they don't have to worry too much on predators taking their babies before they are born.

Tomer Bitton response and reply:

First off, mammals tend to be smarter than birds and can thus adapt to their environment quicker and more efficiently than birds. Even though mammals are at a huge disadvantage by not being able to fly, birds are as well (on top of not being as adaptable)mat a disadvantage. When they have offspring, they come out in eggs, which mammals eat! Thus mammals inhibit the growth of the birds species whereas as birds can't kill mammal offspring because they mature inside the body of the mammal.

Reply to cynara scheuer: I disagree with your reasoning as to why mammals dominated instead of birds. I don't believe that it's because they would have to fight for territory because if it were that reason, mammals would be worse off than birds. Plus, birds can explore way more territory than mammals because they're able to fly.

Cody Bartusiak's reply:

Although birds have the ability too fly which is really one of their only advantages, mammals have nearly every other beneficial adaptation. The advantages are nearly endless. For example, on average mammals are larger than birds which gives them an advantage when hunting and eating. The majority of mammals are also smarter than birds which leads to a huge advantage in complex communication and ability to adapt to their environment. Then there are other advantages such as mammals have teeth that help them hunt for large prey along with giving them a wider variety of food to eat. They also don't have to migrate anywhere in order to stay warm.

Cody Bartusiak's Response to Tomer Bitton:

I agree with you that mammals are smarter which is a huge advantage, however, I completely disagree with you that one of the reasons that birds are at a disadvantage are because of the way they give birth. It may be more beneficial to give live birth, but not for the reasons you've stated. First off, any baby animal can get eaten. Whether it be in an egg or alive, they are still just as vulnerable because they are defenseless against predators in which both mammals and birds rely on their parents to protect them. Along with that, just because mammals stay in their mother until birth, doesn't mean that they are any better off than a bird. Both are just as defenseless as soon as they come out. If anything, birds are at more of an advantage at birth because they tend to give birth to more than one egg when they are preginant rather than mammals which one give birth to a single offspring unless they have an unusual situation like twins. This leads to birds having more offspring which is an advantage on the sheer fact that they have a larger chance of their offspring living since they have more. Other than that though, I would agree with you that mammals have more advantage than birds do.

Christian's Response:

On a completely unrelated note Howard the Duck was in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie towards the end considering he's a Marvel character. Anyways back o the topic at hand. My main argument though it can be countered is due to the size of the animals. Mammals are huge land animals and they had to adapt to their surroundings. They couldn't fly away from prey so they had to adapt to becoming hunters and burrowing and such. Birds on the other hand can fly dos after and hunt from above so they really didn't have to adapt to much except stay away from bigger birds. It's one thing to be able to fly around and look for prey and get it but it's a tougher environment surviving on the ground where escape is very limited. I think this is the main reason mammals are dominant because they were able to a adapt easier to the ground environment. Birds would have no chance on the ground environment.

Laura Santos:

I believe the preseason why mamals dominate this earth rather than birds was result of sheer luck. I think that both sides had an equal chance at becoming the dominant species but because dinosaurs and mammals of that nature already roamed the land and claimed their status i think that birds just stayed in the air and claimed their terratory up in the sky. Although they are strengths in numbers i believe that the birds lacked the necessary strengths to walk among the land creatures. Unless theres a civilization that we are un aware of in the sky I think thats what went wrong. Birds weren't land animals that walked amongst the mammals and theres only few birds that have the ability to walk on land but also soar in the sky.

Laura Response to Christians:

I totally see what you are saying on how the mammals had to adapt and fend for themselves while birds could just fly away from their prey i do how ever believe that this isn't the only reason as to why the mammals became the dominate species. I feel like birds can have the advantage of living longer because essentially they have a birds eye view of everything and i would assume they have the intelligence and knowledge of being someone who observes everything. I kind of picture them as wise creatures due to the fact they see everything

Brittany Grant's reply and response :

I suppose that mammals, instead of birds, came to dominate the Earth because mammals are smarter than reptiles and also have a more developed brain. In reptiles, the brain primarily functions for basic survival and needs and unlike a reptile's brain, mammals brains has a more complex and able to have emotions through the Limbic system in the brain. As for my personal option, mammals are not really dominant,I see birds is as dominant as mammals but in a different essence. The way i see it, dinosaurs died simply because in the rapidly changed environment caused by the asteroid. Also considering their size back then, they were huge, and this might have contributed to the cause that they couldn't evolve fast enough. In contrast, mammals were small and most likely has small needs as well.

In response to Laura, I agree with you because both sides did have an equal chance at becoming dominant and the naturing of mammals on land and birds taking the territory of the sky. And that mammals had the necessary strengths to become dominant of earth than birds would ever have.

Topic 10: Edit

=== We are really recent creatures. Discuss the fact that humans have only occupied the Earth for .008% of it's history. Does this make us less important? === 

Damian Gitter Response and Reply: 

Humans have been less time on earth than we want to believe, we are basically a new species on earth if we compare it to the years that the earth has. 

It is difficult to determine if we are the more or less important thing tht happened to the earth because of the many things that happend before the human race that prepared the earth for humans. In my perspective, I do not believe we are the most important thing that hppend to the earth, but I do not believe twe arre the least important. Everything that happened to the earth in all its history is important because it shaped the earth to how it is today and its the reason why we live in the earth today, if this event dis not happened in the past who knows if we would be alive today or even if we would be on planet earth. My opinion is that we are not the least important but we are the same time the most important. 


I agree with Tommer what he said about that compared to the short time we been here on earth that we achieved great things but i do not believe that makes us the most important thing that happened to the earth. Yes we shown great values oif intelligence and great advances in human history and at the same time this high knowledge is leading to the human race to destroy the earth and it beauty. Still iI do not believe that we are the most importnat thing in earths history. Because we cant forget that thanks to the previous races and events that happend on earth we would not be able to live the way we live today.  

Basia Wisinski response: 

0.008% is a very short time in Earth’s 4.5 billion year old history. It’s interesting to compare our perception to time with geologic time. Geologic time divides into Supereon, eon, era, period, epoch, and age (from longest to shortest). When looking at time in terms of a supereon we are just in the beginning of out second supereon (we haven't even named it yet). In terms of epochs though, we are in just one of many that have already occurred. Currently we are in the holocene but possibly may be entering a new epoch, the anthropocene (or maybe we already have, let’s leave that up to the scientists in charge of making such decisions). This is where I would like to say that it does not make us any less important. Actually, the anthropocene gets its name from the incredible impact we are having on the Earth. Humans such a specialized species we are having an impact on the world as a whole and if anything this is making our presence on this planet overly important. 

Basia Wisinski’s reply to Jonathon Sofianos: 

I do not think that you can say humans are the most important species on this planet. Without the complexity of working ecosystems we would not be able to even exist. The Earth was not created by humans for humans. Also, the world would not just be a grassland without us because there are many different biomes other than grasslands. I understand where you are trying to go with that statement though and I agree with you that we have created many technologies that would not be here without our presence but I also have to disagree with you upon saying we have made the Earth a beautiful place to live. I know this is a matter of opinion but what is beautiful about the world in my eyes is the nature of it (which we are destroying); not the highways we've built, the pollution we created, or skyscrapers we admire. This world is also not a joy to live in for many animal species and if we keep doing harm to it and being ignorant about environmental issues it won’t be a joy for us to live on either.

Matt Hobden response: In my opinion I think that we as humans would definitely not be where we are today if we had been around before the .008%. Being "less important" is not the correct observation, I think the world has led us up to the point right were we need to be and look further into the future rather than the past. 

Jorge Polanco's response:

It seemss like we've been more time on earth that what we really have been. I don't think we are less important, but I do think that we might've been more disruptive than any other living creature in the worlds history. in less time than other occupants we've done great and terrible things to the world. Maybe in the future another type of creatures will live on this planet that will learn from those strange but fascinating creatures (humans) that accomplished so much and created caos in a very short period of occupancy.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response to Jorge Polanco: 

I agree with the fact that it seems like Humans have existed on Earth for more time than we actually have. I don't understand what you mean by "disruptive", but Humans have had the biggest impact on the World, more so than any other species. We have done fantastic and horrific things for this planet alike, and we need to make sure that we are not the main cause for our planet turning into shambles. 

Jorge Polanco response to Tomer Bitton:

I agree with you that humans are the most intelligent occupants in earth as far as we know, but I might not agree that we are the most relevant organism that've ever lived in this planet. Maybe if we take under consideration the fact that we know other living species that have been around longer than us and could even be here more time; the don't think, they are another animal living among us (crocodiles) and that simple reason could make the. More important just because without the knowledge and intelligence that we have they've manage to survive and adapte, one simple thing that seems we're unable to do. Nice job!

Jonathon Sofianos response:

although many people try to relate relevancy to importance this is not the case for us humans. i think that we are the most important creatures on the earth and this cannot go unnoticed. the world still be just a grassland, humans have made this earth a beautiful place to live and a place where people can do what they want. weather the impact was positive or negative humans have been able to make living here a joy.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

Although, humans have occupied Earth for about 0.008% of Earth’s history, we can still be considered important. Humans may not have been around during major plate shifts or witness dinosaurs become instinct but during the span that humans have been around, a lot of progress has been made. And progress is continually increasing every single day. Humans were even capable of finding out what happened to Earth while we weren't here, which is remarkable. Without human research, entertainment, technological advancements and constant evolution perhaps the Earth may not appear the same as it does now. The accomplishments reached by humans speak loudly on how we have used our time wisely on Earth. Therefore, we are very much important.

I agree with you Christian, there's no reason to discredit the remarkable accomplishments achieved by humans even thought we haven't been on Earth that long. Yes our time is insignificant but our accomplishments aren't.

Cody Bartusiak's Response:

Humans have only been around for the past couple of thousands of years out of Earth's four and half billion years. Compared to the rest of the Earth's history, we are some of the newest living organisms to date. However, this doesn't mean that we are any less important that anything else that has lived on the Earth. In fact, humans are some of the most important species because of the impact we have made on the world whether it be a positive or a negative impact. Since humans are the smartest and most complex animals we have been able to shape the earth to our needs rather than living off the land like the rest of all other organisms. We have made tremendous leaps in the knowledge of the earth and are the only ones who have been able to fundamentally change the place we call home.

Matt Hobden response to Cody: I think your totally right, the fact of being "less important" of anything else on this earth. We have made an impact on earth itself and grown larger and smarter than all organisms living on earth now.

SerDar Altunkaya Response:

Despite the fact that humans have occupied Earth for only .008% of Earth's History, I think we are the most important creatures on Earth. Humans have the ability to do many things and continued research on our species is very important as well. As humans, we need to be doing all we can to treat Earth with as much love as possible, but we often fail to do so. Considering the fact that Earth is home to human life, we should do our best to treat Earth with the proper respect it deserves.

Tomer Bitton Response:

I think that we have been on this earth for such a small period of time compared to Earth's lifetime, but, in this short amount of time we have probably had the biggest impact on it thus making us the most important thing that's ever happened in earth's history. We are the most intelligent life forms to exist on Earth - as far as we know - and we seem to be killing the earth despite our complexity and knowledge. If humans keep going at the rate they're going, there will be no more life on earth - at least for a long time. Thus, earths ability to sustain life is threatened by us humans and if we do nothing, life will dissipate from earth - thus making humans the most important organism to ever walk this earth.

Tomer Bitton Reply to Sedar Altunkaya:

I agree with the fact that we are the most important beings to ever roam the earth, because of our complexity and knowledge and our application of knowldege to create cities, towns, civilization in general! There were no other known species in earth's history that has set up civilizations and trading routes and infrastructure and so on.

Christian Gil's Response:

I don't think it makes us any less important. I think in a sense when you look at our history it makes us very important. I mean sure earth has been around for a long time. Creatures have come and gone. Land masses have shifted. But when you look at the small time gap that is us, humans, we have done a lot in such short time. We've been able to discover many of the things hat came before us from what we can tell. We've been able to go to space, explore the oceans and so much more, all in such a short time. And to our knowledge, the first time it's been done on earth. So although we've been on earth for so little and it may seem insignificant, what we've been able to accomplish has definitely been amazing.

Cynara Scheuer's response:

Humans have been around for .008% of Earth's history because of the different eras. With the different eras, there were different species starting right after the dinosaurs were extinct. This doesn't make humans less important since they are an evolution from a species that was around way before humans could even adpat to the environment that is around now. Humans have learned to be able to roam around the Earth over the years from the different evolutions that they have gone through with the different environments that they live in. Over the years, we as humans have become one of the most impacted species on Earth. The impacts can either be postive or negative. Once we fully understand how we should help the Earth, another species could come in and understand on what needs to be done with the Earth.

Brittany Grant's reply and response,

Although we are newly creatures on Planet Earth that only takes of .008% of history. As humans, I don't think that we are less important in history as we have the biggest impact on Earth, as it relates to the research, knowledge, exploring and understanding of Earth. But also the effects of humans on earth can not be understood as we've been able to survive in environments all over the world, even harsh ones as Antartica. Also our species was distinguished about 200,000 years ago and managed to survive and thrive despite climate change at a time.

In response to Cynara, I agree with you on the statement of humans not being less important in Earth's history as we provided so much while on Earth and having the guts to be able to travel around the world and experience the different enivronments of the world. Good job!

Christians Reply to SerDar:

Exactly. Regardless of the amount of time we have spent, to all the knowledge that is available to us so far we have made the biggest impact as a species even in the smallest of time gaps. Now sure we can argue the good and bad things we have done but in such a small amount of time we have done it. Also, we should be treating our earth better like you said. That's the bad part about how we have affected our time spot. In such short time we've done noticeable damage to our earth, an earth that has been around for billions of years and in the smallest chunk, humans have been going on and destroying it.

Jonathan McGale response:

I do not think that the fact that we are a really recent species on earth makes us less important because that we are the only species that evolved to become very intelligent. Intelligence is the most powerful thing that a species can have because it allows to create and build so many things. Humans are the species which changed everything on the planet, without us, there would be no technologies, no building, no cities and others.

Jonathan McGale reply to Brittany Grant:

I exactly think like Brittany, I do not think that the importance of a species is determined by the number of time the species existed but it is determined by the impact that the species have on the planet.

Topic 9: Edit

Discuss: Why do you suppose whales are so susceptible to becoming endangered and extinct? Edit

Basia Wisinski's response: 

Whales, along with much of marine life, are susceptible to becoming endangered and extinct due to anthropogenic effects, specifically pollution and global warming. As we read in this weeks chapter, the oceans are directly linked to all the factors effecting our atmosphere such as light, pressure, rain (specifically water molecules), wind, etc. Oceans are interconnected, meaning that the negative effects of an activity, such as pollution, in one area can have an effect on an area thousands of kilometers away (you can almost compare it to one big soup bowl).This is devastating for marine life such as whales. Another disadvantage for whales is that they are a migratory species, making them easy targets for hunting! Which, unlike many of you have stated, still takes place (just at smaller scale than in previous history). Finally, I think it would be worthy to mention that whales are k-selected species, meaning they only give birth to one offspring at a time. This is important to take into account because it means that these animals repopulate at a slower pace and generally take longer to mature.

Haley Vaughn:

Whales are known for being one of the largest mammals in the entire ocean. One reason whales are more susceptible to becoming endangered or extent is that their size. Because they are a large, rare animal they are often hunted. Whales are hunted for a number of things, such as, oil for lamps, perfume, and cosmetics, and for cooking oil, margarine, and whale meat. Hunting and killing whales is illegal, however, they are still hunted and killed. It is even illegal to sell something called, ambergris, which is a waste secreted from sperm whales. Ambergris was used for perfumes and cosmetics. Another reason whales are more susceptible to endangerment is that they are extremely sensitive to pollution in the ocean. One more additional reason whales may be more likely to become endangered is that they are considered to be a "K-Seleted species." This means that whales only give birth to one offspring at a time, which means that there are less whales because they reproduce at a much slower pace than other ocean animals.

Basia Wisinski’s response to Serdar: 

I do not agree with you upon your reasoning about aquariums. There is only a small number of individuals being captured for the purpose of putting them into aquariums. Yes, this still has some impact on them becoming endangered but it is minimal when taking into account all the other anthropogenic factors effecting them such as pollution, hunting, global warming, etc. (Of course, I am not advocating for whales to be captured for the purpose of being in aquariums either).  As I stated earlier, the ocean is like one big ‘soup bowl’, meaning a negative activity in one area can be having an affect on marine life in all parts of the ocean. 

Cody Bartusiak's Response:

Whales are known to be one of the largest and most rare animals in the ocean. Due to their size they are more likely to be hunted and killed for food or enjoyment in less civilized countries. They can be seen as an achievement or "trophy" along with having many useful body parts that are used for all sorts of different things. Since they are rare, this means that whales have a higher price when they are sold due to supply and demand. Although they're endangered there is always someone out there who believes they can make a profit off of killing a rare species. There are also other reasons that they are susceptible to becoming endganers. One of these reasons is that they when they swim across the ocean they have to travle long distances which brings up more problems, such as trying to keep their young alive along with swimming through different territories that have challenges to their health such as pollution.

Cody Bartusiak's reply to Tomer Bitton:

I agree with you that one global warming is changing the populations of the prey that whales eat. However I think the part that is making it so hard for whales to surive is based more on their size and rareity. It is much harder now a days to find whales based solely on the fact that they live so far down in the ocean and when they come up to the surface, there aren't many of them due to all of the hunting that has occured from humans.

Amanda Martinez's Response: Many whales are endangered and even becoming extinct largely because of human activity. For years whales have been hunted for all the contents that their blubber can be used for, its a market. Commercial fishing has caused a trap for whales, the nets fishers put in place are becoming larger therefore leaving more possibility for the whales to get trapped in. Trapped in a secluded area they can be food deprived and the damage that can be done from all their attempts to try and get away or through the nets. Although whale hunting has become illegal at one one time it was not and thousands of whales were killed prior which greatly effected whales in general. And although it is illegal unfortunately that does not mean people still don't do it. I've also read a article stating that the speed of ships in certain areas can strike and immediately kill a whale. Designated speeds in certain areas have been set in place to help with this issue. The issue of global warming and ocean temperatures also impact the population of whales. It can effect their pray and what they eat and their location in which they can live.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response to Amanda Martinez: I agree that human activity is a huge reason why Whales are going extinct. In addition, a lot of global warming has been manmade as well, which directly correlates with why animals are going extinct. Their meat is also very valuable, which could be a main reason as to why whales are becoming extinct. 

Amanda Martinez response to Serdar Altunkaya: Although I do believe its wrong that whales are captured and used in aquariums I do not believe that is why they are becoming extinct. They profit off these whales and a good whale they will use to reproduce several times, ultimately creating more whales for their profit purposes.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

Whales and among other species part of the marine life are susceptible to becoming endangered or extinct because of human activity as well as climate change. As humans continue to participate in commercial whaling the number of whales and other species out in the ocean will decline at a rapid rate. The ships used to hunt whales even cause death to the whales. On top of human activity, marine species have to deal with climate change. Global warming affects the water temperature in the ocean which leads to the prey of whales to migrate elsewhere. Without consistent food supply and clean water the whales continue to suffer and therefore, become extinct.

I disagree with Kimberly Canas’s response. I don't see why people would put in a ton of energy into hunting whales, for food. That seems extreme for just a quick bite. Trading is possible but then again what can you trade a whale in for. I do agree with her other points about why whales are endangered.

Tomer Bitton response:

Whales are susceptible to becoming endangered becuase of many factors, but mainly because of global climate change. Most large whale species depend on krill and fish as prey. Global climate change make ocean temperatures rise, affecting prey populations. Climate change also affects ocean currents altering prey locations, feeding grounds and migration paths for whales. Another big factor in whale extinction is commercial whaling (which is now illegal) and whales getting tangled in commercial fishing nets. By being stuck in these nets, they aren't able to feed, and they get very weak and most of them die.

Tomer Bitton reply to jonathon sofianos:

I disagree with what you said about them washing up on shore because it is very rare occurrence; that isn't why they're going extinct. I do agree with the fact that they are hunted for in some religions, which is now illegal - but is still a problem.

jonathon sofianos repsonse:

whales are suspetible of getting extinct because in sime cultures they are looked at as ways of living and when i saw that i mean their blubber is a very valuable commerce in some societies so alot of people go hunting for whales and that means they are able to live off the money they get from the whales. another reason why they get extinct is sometimes the ecosystem that they live in is dangerous becasuse they are able to be washed up to shore and become beach and most of the time when that happens the whale ends up dying. Also when those big ship cruse the open oceans sometimes they hit and kill the whales and that is also another way that the whales and suspetible to being extinct.

Kimberly Canas Response: Whales are becoming endangered and extinct species because of ships, pollution, and people hunting them. Whales get hurt by the ships in storms, oil or gas that falls or comes out of the ship can affect them. The pollution as well affects the marine life because of the temperature in the sea and how many marine life migrate to different areas leaving whales with less or no food at all. People are hunting whales for commercial or trading them and killing them for food.

Kimberly Canas Response to Serdar Altunkaya's: I disagree with Serdar in one of her response with Whales being capture in order to entertain people in aquariums. The people that capture Whales to be in their aquariums does not make them extinct. Whales that are in the aquariums are whales that been hurt or don't have a fin or tail and they help them live and take care them not make them extinct.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response

Whales are becoming extinct because they are being captured in order to be place in aquariums to entertain people. For example, there is a whale in the Miami Sea Aquarium that has been there for decades. While the creature should be in the wild, most whales in captivity for a long time would not be able to survive back in the wild. This is due to the fact that they would be accustomed to a totally different environment from the wild and would not be used to the enviornment in the wild. Hunting is also a big problem. People will hunt whales just for the sake of hunting whales. 

Matt Hobden Response: Throughout the world and its ocean all different types of whales are coming I contact with humans our careless acts. Whales are becoming more and more endangered everyday because of people such as hunters and diffrent types of oil ships/rigs. The amount of population of whales decreases every year to the extent that song they will no longer will exist. Without humans hunting down whales and without oil rig/ oil ships polluting the oceans water there would be a much greater amount of whales in our world.

Cynara Scheuer's response  

Everyone has different opinions on why whales are becoming endangered and extinct but from a person who is becoming a marine biologist there is more reason to why this is happening. Whales are becoming endanger and extinct because of the different human activities that are happening around them. Before going into depth of the different human activities, back in the day, before regusllations were around; people use to capture different kinds of whales for entertainment not for studies or how they are as a creature. Once they were capture, they weren't properly treated correctly that when they were release back they didn't have their wildlife instincts anymore. But going back to the different human activities, they vary from the areas that these are happening. One of the biggest human activity that was causing whales to disappear is commercial whaling. Commercial Whaling has been happening since the 1800s. It hasn't affected the whales today but some whales species are still on the endangered list. Another impact of human activity is ship strikes. When the whales are migrating to a different area, they usually overlap with the different ships in traffic. The last big impact is climate change. Climate change can be affecting the water where their prey is and then once the prey leaves cause of the different water temperature, the whales won't have any source of food in that area and slowly die off.  

Cynara Scheuer replies to Christian Gil:  

I see where you think that the main reason why they are getting endangered is because they are large animals but that's not the main reaason. The main reason is the human activities that are affecting the whales and making them endangered. Yes, the hunting is a big issue, especially in Japan but there is so much more that is causing the whales to extinct.  

Matt Hobden response to Cynara: Very interesting to know that ship strikes played an effect on the amount of whales in the ocean. Humans invading their territories and overlapping with diffrent ships while the whales are migrating is something that we need to change and develop maybe better radar so we're not crashing into these massive whales.

Christian Gil's Response:

I think one of the main reasons is because they are such large animals. This causes problems because it makes them easier to hunt but also they need to eat a lot to stay alive. Because overfishing is an issue it makes it harder for them to find food. Although whaling is illegal in most countries, Japan continues to hunt whales for food. Whale is very valuable in Japan and they mask their hunting activity by saying it's for "science." So because of over fishing, hunting, and just the state of the ocean it makes it really hard for whales to live. They can't life happily if their habitat is being invaded or their food sources are being taken away.

Jonathan McGale response:

I think that one reason that could bring the whales to extinction is whale hunting. There is so much whales who are killed everyday and this is dangerous because one they they will have only few whales and than we will realise that we need to protect the whales. There is also the change in climate caused by pollution that can affect the whales. The change in ocean temperature will affect all fish and some will move or die so it there will be less food for them after.

Jonathan McGale reply to Basia Wisinski:

I agree with Basia when she said that global warming and pollution can bring many species to extinct. Pollution in the ocean is horrible, there is thousand of animal that are killed because of human activity. Global warming will also affect the food of the whales, it will be more difficult to find food. I think that the idea of migrating species could also cause whale extinction was also interesting.

Brittany Grant's response and reply:

Whales are becoming endangered from a variety of threats, most of which are the direct result of human activities. In the past century, many of the large whale species were hunted almost to extinction of commercial whaling though some of those species are now recovering now the hunts are banned in many areas of the world. Whales are susceptible to enlargement in commercial fishing gear. This can slow whales down, weakening them, and can prohibit them from feeding leading to eventual starvation and death. Also climate change has a multitude of effects on the oceans which can have adverse impacts on marine mammals. Most large whale species depend on krill, a small shrimp like crustacean, and a fish prey. As ocean temperature rise from climate change, prey populations can be affected. Climate change also affects ocean currents altering prey distribution, feeding grounds and migratory pathways of whales. Other threats include the ingestion of marine debris, oil, and gas development, disturbance by recreational watercraft and noise pollution.

In reponse to Jonathan, I agree with you, on whale hunting as it drove some whale species to extinction and some species have still not recovered from being hunted and are currently listed as endangered. Although whale hunting is not the biggest threat facing whales today it still exists.

Laura Santos Response:

I believe that if an animal is becoming extinct it will most likely be at the hands of humans. I do remember writing on essay number seven on how dolphins along with whales produce one calf at time rendering them to repopulate such an immensely slow rate. The rate of reproduction being besides the point this day in age people do still go whale hunting instead of staying in their lane and just go whale watching. Because whales have a migration route it makes them susceptible of being attacked by another human or pollution that is happening in the ocean at the time. Its a chain reaction when it comes to the ocean because at the end of the day everything is connected so that oil spill that happened all the way to the west can somehow manage to affect the fishes all the way to the east , whether it be because the fishes are dying so the whales have nothing to eat and they die of starvation , or they eat a plastic that is meant to clean up a mess that the humans made or so on. Also some whales are being captured for entertainment purposes and being raised in a domestic environment where they usually dont survive cause they commit suicide and stuff

Laura Santos Response to Jonathon Safiano:

So I agree with the whale hunting , I didnt even think about the blubber . I dont think people are aware that people are stil hunting whales and even dolphins as well and like breeding them in a domestic environment as well. Im not trying to bad mouth sea world but that whole program is shady.

Christian Gil's response to Marcus Stimphont's:

While I agree that the enlarging of whales is in large part to hunting them and global warming, I think we also have to add over fishing to that. Although over fishing isn't a direct link to whales in itself, we are taking away their food supply. If we continue to take away their food supply at the rate we do now that doesn't allow much time for fish to repopulate than Whales will not only be dying from over hunting and warmer waters, but also from hunger. It has to be extremely hard to swim in such a huge ocean and not find any food because humans have decided to scoop it all up.

Damian Gitter Response and Reply:

Discuss: Why do you suppose whales are so susceptible to becoming endangered and extinct? Edit

 Whales are suppose to become endangered and extinct because mainly of the climate change and the act of manking. Hunting animals in danger is illegal still there is a black market where animals, skins of animals, tooths, etc that are in danger are being sold because they are exotic. Whales is ine of these animals. Man has always been intreged about animals and has always tryed to show their superiorness by hunting animals. This is one of the reasons they are in danger. Also is because of the garbage, pollution on the habitat of the whales that is produced by mankind, this is a very common reason of why water life is decreasing every year. Lastly is because of the climate change. The climate change the enviorment animals live in keeps changes everyyear and its changing fast. Animals such as the whale have to adapt to this new cinditions in order to survive, many of the, fail to do this.


 I agree with Jonathan McGale because mankind is the main reason why animals such as the whales are in danger. We like it or not, us human beings produce global warming changing the temperatures of the oceans, we hunt because it pleases us and we tend to not give importance to species untill they are in the boarder of being extict such as the panda bear.

Topic 8: Edit

Let's suppose that human society can only afford to either explore our solar system or the depths of the ocean. What should we explore? Why? Edit

Amanda Martinez response: I believe that it is most important to explore the oceans rather then solar system because only 5% of our oceans have been explored! Yes exploring our solar systems are important as well but we have already made such great advanments towards that. We have already sent humans to the moon and discovered that its impossible for plant life to grow on the planets we have explored. We haven't even searched the bottom of the ocean, who knows what type of plant life can be under there and all the different organisms. The media goes crazy when tv specials like Mermaids are Real come out because we just don't know what can be out in the ocean. Its easier for a person to believe that there may be life on other planets then it is for someone to believe that there may be life like mermaids in the ocean. I think we would learn so much from taking a better look into the oceans.

Amanda Martinez Response to Cody Bartusiak: I disagree completely, I believe that we have explored a great deal into the solar system already. Yes I see his point about human life and living on other planets but we also don't know what can be living under the oceans. Just like there can be aliens in space there can also be mermaids in the ocean. Most of my classmates agree on the fact that it would be beneficial to explore the oceans.

Jorge Polanco's response to Basia Wisinski:

I agree with you we you mention that we have more understanding of the ocean than about the solar system. As well is important to mention that we can't live without the Sun and if we get to know better what's out there we might get, as I mention in my response, some sort of plan B if the Earth eventually becomes a place no longer habitable for humans. Is a very though call as you mention, but I must agree that it'll be better to explore the solar system.

Jorge Polanco's response:

Ocean or solar system, both have in a way a very related aspect and it is that we know there’s a lot more than what we know about both. Currently we understand the fact that exploring any of the two would represent a very huge expense for the society, as well a challenge to truly get significant results that could help to improve or protect the future of the human race. In my opinion exploring the solar system could bring more benefits to our human society, I think as well we might find some scape place if things get to rough for us in Earth, but choosing this option makes me feel that a very large part of the society will be left a side because not every country have the resources to go outside the planet and explore. Maybe the ocean would be easier for everyone but I prefer the challenge getting out of what we already have even if it means that we don’t know everything about it.

Haley Vaughn:

The ocean seems to be more important to explore than the solar system. We have only explored 5% of the Earth's oceans, as opposed to the solar system, we have have already sent satellites, space ships, and people into space. If we had to choose between the two, the oceans would be important because they may hold answers to questions we have about Earth. We have no way of knowing until there is more research done. There could be thousands of unknown species and organisms in the depths of the ocean that could further develop earth science and possibly explain more about how species evolved on earth.

Cody Bartusiak's Response:

I believe that it's more important for society to explore our solar system. I understand that it is important to explore the oceans because we know so little about them but the solar system has a greater reward to society for the amount of money it takes to discover each. Our solar system has the potential to teach us about what possiblities we have of expanding if humanity was someday going to have to start living on other planets. It also hold ansers to what life might be out there in the universe and other obsticles we might find when exploring outer space. It also has a greater possiblity of finding new materials that we don't have on earth do to the different types of environment. Overall, it would be smarter for humanity to explore our solar system becuase there areway more benifits of exploring our solar sytem then there is in the ocean.

Cody Bartusiak's reply to Kimberly:

I disagree with you that the ocean is more important. Yes, we don't know a lot about it especially for it being what makes up most of the earth but there is a reason we know so little. There isn't a great enough reward for the amount of "risk" or time and money that it'll take to explore it. Its not worth it to disccover it just on the basis of curiosity either, no matter what we find it would bhe as helpful as what we could find while exploring our solar system.

Tomer Bitton Response:

I think that if we had to choose one to explore we should choose the solar system. By exploring the solar system, I believe that it will enhance our understanding of the universe and not just life on earth. Additionally, we could eventually learn how to create suitable conditions for life on other planets, which would be a huge leap. If we chose to explore the oceans, however, we would only be able to learn about certain undiscovered species that live in extreme conditions. Essentially, exploring the solar system would benefit the existence of human kind whereas exploring the oceans would simply benefit one field of science instead of saving humanity.

Tomer Bitton reply to Kimberly Canas:

I disagree with your view because exploring the oceans wouldn't benefit humankind as much as exploring the solar system would. By exploring the depths of our oceans, we would possibly find new species that are able to live at those depths. But by exploring the solar system we would be able to expand humanity onto a different planet and because at the rate we're going at with earth, it might not be suitable for humans for much longer.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

There is so much focus on the world we live in, rather the solar system. I believe human society should explore the solar system more. We already live on earth. We as humans don't live in the depths of the ocean because we simplicity can not survive in that environment. As the population of the world increases expanding out to another planet if possible is not certain to happen but could eventually happen if further focus and research is taken. 

I agree with Tomer,  researching the depths of the ocean does not benefit the existence of humanity. Studying the ocean will prof Rutherford information about life in the ocean but humans are increasing in population. Therefore, we need to explore our options of possible expanding human existence in space. 

Basia Wisinski response: 

In this discussion board, I believe it is hard to take a stand on of the two sides. Both areas have barely been explored and need further research. From a conservation perspective, I believe that the oceans need more attention at this moment in time but this thought is also limited by the fact that we do not have much knowledge about our solar system. I would choose to put funding toward exploring the solar system. We most certainly do not have close to enough knowledge about the ocean but at least have a slight understanding of its environment. I choose to fund the exploration of the solar system, not only because we are eternally looking for life outside of our planet, but I believe there are so many different environments to be tested that it surpasses those here on Earth. After all, the Earth is only one planet out of eight in the Solar System. 

Basia’s reply to Kimberly (and basically everyone else): 

I like that you did a little bit of outside research to share with us in your response. Most people don’t know how little of our oceans we have actually explored. I find it interesting to find that everyone is supporting to explore the depths of the ocean, stating that it’s “our” planet but from a larger perspective one can also argue in the same manner stating that the Solar System is “our” system of planets. As I read though the responses I am surprised that no one stated discovering life, liquid water, etc. on different planets would be a substantial contribution to our knowledge. 

Kimberly Canas Response: I believe we should explore our depth of the ocean more than our solar system because we already have some facts that we need to more importantly and yes, everything in the solar system is important to find more information about our solar system. But because our scientist have only discovered our ocean less than 5%. They should start making technologies and ways we can go more in depth into our ocean and see whats more into our world ocean that covers our world 70% of it. Since we're so high advanced with technology, this would benefit us americans to learn more about life in the ocean and maybe other species that we don't know of and what its like to be under the ocean then we already have explored.

Matt Hobden response to Kimberly: I agree with you Kimberly: discovering what is already on our planet and more easily accessible would benefit us much more than diffrent objects and planets that we can't even use on our world.

Kimberly Canas response to Jonathan McGale: I agree with Jonathan because we need to learn beyond our solar system and learn more about our ocean because we haven't studied our ocean enough than our solar system and we can find new species under bottom of the ocean.

Jonathan McGale response:

I think that if we had the choice to explore our solar system or the depths of the ocean we should explore the depths of the ocean because it is on our planet, we had passed more time to study what is outside of the earth than what is on the planet. There is maybe some species of fish that we do not even know that exist, We are not sure about what we could find in the bottom of our ocean and I think that this is more important than to explore other planets because we already knows that there is no other planets which we could live on in our solar system.

Matt Hobden response: I think having the choice to choose between exploreing the depths of the ocean and the solar system, the one that would benefit us the most would be exploring the ocean. Having the ability to discover new organisms on our own planet which we are able to access a lot more easily than objects outside our solar system could benefit our world.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response:

I feel that we should explore the oceans on our planet more than life in our solar system. While it is important to explore what's around the Earth, I feel that it is more important to explore life on our planet first. Life on our planet is more important to explore because we are the life that makes up the planet. We need to know how to adapt to life on Earth before we research the solar system around Earth.

In response to Brittany, it is ironic that we are researching nature outside the Earth before we research the nature in our own backyard. I think we should continue to research the environment on Earth before we explore what's outside of it. We should continue to search the oceans on Earth for new life as opposed to searching for life outside Earth.

Brittany Grant's reply and response:

It is pretty ironic, that we are pursing resources/habitats outside of the planet earth, while we are ignoring what lies right here. So in that case, I think before exploring the solar system, we should explore the depths of the ocean. Would it be better if we focused more exploring the oceans rather than on exploring the space just for getting astonishing views and photographs? As it would require lesser resources to develop technologies to explore the ocean. And also it would be probable that we can get something out of this exploration to combat the worldly problems.

In response to Jonathan, I agree with you that we should explore the depths of the ocean as there is still so much to learn about planet earth and its depths before running off exploring somerhing new when we don't even know half of what lies here with us in the oceans of earth.

Cynara Scheuer repsonse:

If we had the chance to explore the solar system or the ocean, it would have to be the ocean. If you compare the two, you will see that both are important but the ocean is more important since it's on Earth. With the ocean, scientist are able to explore the different ecosystems that are on Earth and find new discoveries that could teach us more with the animals that are on Earth or find a discovery to help people that are sick. This will be more efficient on money because we wouldn't be wasting millions of dollars for projects that are for the ocean. Being able to discover what is in the depths of the ocean will be groundbreaking and help us learn new things about the ocean itself and the animals that live in the ocean.

Cynara Scheuer replies to Kimberly:

To think that we haven't study enough of our oceans isnt acceptable. Kimberly and I both said in our response on how they should start creating technology to help search and discover new findings that are in the depths of our ocean. New findings are so important because it does teach us on how everything has evolved and how they are surviving all the way at the bottom of the ocean.

Laura Santos Response:

Within reason I would opt for the us to further explore the depths of the ocean. We actually haven't fully explored the ocean due to the fact that there's only so far you can get with machine due to the pressure. On the other hand because the solar system can provide with energy , it will only last for so long whereas the ocean and hydro energy wouldnt reach its end game.I believe that it's worth it to search the area that's closes to us since if anything were to happen in regards to the ocean we will immediately feel the effects.

Laura Santos Response to Kimberly Canas: I completely agree with you especially the fact that our scientist have indeed only discovered 5% of the ocean which is crazy when we have direct access to it.

Christian Gil's Response:

I think we should explore space. Yes the ocean is vast and we have only explored so very little of it. However, we already know biologically what most likely lives in the ocean. We know or have theories at the depth of certain animals and the depth at which life may no longer be valuable. However, what we don't know is, is life sustainable anywhere else in the universe. That's an important question. Humans can't live in the ocean, the pressure and lack of oxygen would kill us. However exploring space gives us a huge chance to explore further and find signs of life and as well as habitable places for humans.

Christian Gil's reply to Cynara:

While I agree it would be great to explore more of the ocean, I still think space is a more interesting exploration. Not only that, but a better use of our time in order to find new life and places where life can be sustained. That I think is a little bit more important than the ocean. Now should we explore the ocean more? Sure. We know very little and we have theories of what lives below us but we really don't know. But I stand by my statement, space has more possibilities.

Topic 7: Edit

Discuss: This past week, we have looked at how the discoveries of scientists from outside the field of biology have shown us how and why life evolved the way it did on Earth. Do you think there is enough communication across fields (even between scientific fields and non-scientific fields). Do you think a lack of communication between these fields has led to a lack of understanding the world around us? How or how not? Edit

Amanda Martinez Response:

I believe there is a decent understanding between different fields but like all communication it can be improved. I feel as though professionals do have a basic understanding of other fields such as a medical professional understanding the basics of evolution. On the other hand I believe that communication is most important for the devlopment of this fast changing world. If a scientist for example is trying to develop a new helpful system to improve the mind of a human, you can also have a medical professional recording the effects it has on the body. Not saying we don't already do that but I believe it should be standard to have several different ares of knowledge working together to produce one great outcome that can change the world.

Amanda Martinez's Response to Basia Wisinski:

Just as Basia I agree that its not as simple as no communication and communication. There is some communication between feels but not as much as there could possibly be. Her statement is very accurte in the sense that science is such a vast field and so much knowledge is apart of it. It can be hard for another professional to understand all the logistics. Great minds think alike, but several different minds with understanding can create something amazing.

Tomer Bitton Response:

I think that there is more than enough communication among the different fields of science, and I do not think that the lack of understanding in the world around us has to do with communication among scientists. I think that the lack of understanding of the world around us is because we do not have the technology nor the innovation to do so. Essentially anything a scientist wants to know about any field of science is readily available to him/her - especially with the Internet available for instant communication. I think that a lack of communication across the field of science and non-science (which to me doesnt exist) is not a justifiable reason for our lack of understanding of the world.

Haley Vaughn:

I believe there is a good line of communications between the scientific and non-scientific fields. Scientists and doctors keep up with the latest studies, research, and new discoveries to further advance science and medicine. There are constantly new break-throughs in both medicine and science. Communication comes through studies and research released to scientists and doctors. These fields need each other to continue to evolve. The general lack of understanding for the world around us is not to be blamed on communication between scientific and non-scientific fields. It is up to us as a society to educate ourselves and educate those around us.

Reply to Valerie Speer:

I disagree with Valerie because all scientific discoveries that are proven to be true are published and their results communicated worldwide because of the Scientific Method. Scientists would not have difficulty finding information about a different field - especially with the technology we have today. A simple e-mail to a respected scientist of a different field would get the information needed.

Matt Hobden response:

I think there has been a lack of communication between these feilds, I feel as if there were even more communication than there already is then there would be even more findings and discoveries than there already are. I understand it's difficult to communicate and keep up with other scientists throughout the world to share their findings.

Valerie Speer Response and Reply:

I do not think there is enough communication across fields between scientific and non-scientific. I believe its hard for scientists and doctors to keep up with each other considering everyday there is something new being discovered. I also think that us, being normal people of society, are constantly hearing the two sides toe every story when it comes to a new scientific discovery or theory. There's always an underlying factor that is misunderstood and that is where scientists and non-scientists need to tie the nights. I believe the lack of communication has caused a lack of understanding the world around us due to the fact that there is always something to be questioned, its hard to get the full answer or explanation behind a scientific breakthrough.


I agree with Basia when she responds to Jonathon S regarding the importance of the two fields communicating. I like that she brings up comparing them as puzzle pieces and that you need to pair the two together, remembering that it is essential to understand basic science before we try to understand facts. I would also like to add that the two fields need to communicate in order to establish a common ground system where they can work hand in hand with sharing each of their known facts in order to demolish the barrier between the two when it comes to communication.

Basia Wisinski response

I do not necessarily believe that there is a lack of communication between scientific fields but rather that science can be such a complex subject that it is impossible to understand every field of it in-depth. For example, when a student decides to pursue a degree in science they will most likely have to take classes that include the basics of a verity fields such as chemistry, biology, and environmental health before they focus primarily on one specific field. Also, without communication between these fields it would be impossible to explain events such as photosynthesis. Though, I do believe that there is a lack of communication between scientific fields and non-scientific fields. For example, prescription drugs are advertised on television, online, etc. by the seller in order to make a profit. Through these ads patients either misdiagnose themselves or believe that a medicine will have profound effects. These patients later go to the doctor (who has a better understanding of the medical field) and ask for prescriptions, later to be told that they either do not have the disease or virus that they believe they did or that the medication being advertised has too many risks for them to take. 

Basia Wisinski’s response to Jonathon S: 

I disagree with you upon it not mattering if the fields communicate. All science fields have links between themselves, they're like puzzle pieces: you can only see the whole picture by putting together the different pieces. It is not only essential for science fields to communicate between each other but also with non-scientific fields. I believe it is important for all of us to have at least a basic understanding of the field of science, without it we wouldn’t know simple facts such as "the Earth is the 3rd planet from the sun" (which has an astounding effect on the development of life on this planet). 

Kimberly Canas Response:

I believe that their isn't enough communication across the fields because there is still many places or subjects on earth that are not known of and i think that since both fields rather stick to their own research of what their field is more about and find more interesting have made the world a very lack of understanding of it or just don't want to discuss about it because they don't have sufficent information or evidence about it.

Jonathan McGale response:

I think that the non-scientific are not enough informed about all new technologies and this lack of information can slow down the development of future technologies. There is also a lack of communication between the scientists about what they discover, this also slow down a lot the process. If all scientists would share more their work they could make it evolve faster together,

Jonathan McGale's reply to Kimberly Canas:

I totally agree with Kimberly when she said that their is a lack of communication between the different field and that this cause many consequences. For example, the lack of understanding some new theories or technologies invented.

Brittany Grant's reply and response:

I believe that there is not enough communication between scientific fields and non-scientific fields. As science is apart of a scientist's everyday life. Scientists must give, write papers and proposals, communicate with the non-scientists and educate them. Thus to do this succesfully, scientists must learn how to communicate effectively. But as of this day and age communication between scientist and non-scientists are not being clearly and concisely transmitted so that is it understood. There are many things on earth that are still not known or understood by non-scientists because of the lack of communication and because scientists aren't communicating effectively it doesn't build any support for science nor does it promote understanding wider relevance to society and encourages more informed decision making at all levels.

In response to Jonathan, I do agree with the fact that scientists aren't informing the non-scientists enough for better understanding and knowledge and yes sooner or later the lack of communication towards technologies are going to slow down because of it.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response: I feel that there isn't enough communication. While many subjects on Earth communicate with each other, there is a divide in technology for certain places on Earth. Certain places in Earth do not have the technology available for communicating with others. I agree with the notion that the lack of communication between fields has contributed to a lack of understanding. 

In response to Jonathan Sofianos, I disagree with your notion that it doesn't matter what happens in a field of communication. It always matters. There is a lack of understanding, but it's because communication is not the same in all fields. 

jonathon Sofianos respond;

in my opinion it doesnt matter if the different fields communicate between each other because if the scientist are studying there own fields why should it matter what happens in a field that has nothing to do with it. unless the scientist goes out looking for answers in another field they shouldn't need to be informed after every little advancement they accomplish in that field.

Jonathon sofianos reasonse to Kimberly;

although I understand where you are coming from and trying to say, i will have to respectfully disagree with you on this one because I believe that there is enough communication between fields. If a scientist doesn't understand the complexity of another field they can ask and that's what they do today and I personally do not believe the communication level has to become greater.

Laura Santos Response:

Clear communications is key yet in the case between the scientific fields and non- scientific fields they lack it. Knowing that both fields evidently non intentionally withhold information from one another leads to a slow development of technology , innovation and information all throughout the earth. Due to the fact that both the scientific fields and non-scientific fields have the capability to create and find things that can eventually contribute to our knowledge of the world around us but knowing they fail to work hand in hand I do believe that the lack of communication between these fields has led to a lack of understanding the world around us

Matt Hobden response to Laura:

I agrees with you, the communication between scientific feilds and non-scientific fields is lacking and they would be able to accomplish so much more if they were to. Having the communication and know late between the two feilds would give us a better understanding of the world.

Laura Santos Response to Jonathon Sofiano:

I agree with you to a certain extent because yes why does it matter what each field come up with when they are both polar opposites and along with their information they both won't have things in common but it's always good to just gather all information possible to get to a conclusion or just to expand our knowledge of it all. Who knows what each field comes up with that they may need more information to develop and lo and behold the other field had the other complementary information that can lead to a grand discovery. It's usually good to share information.

Discuss: This past week, we have looked at how the discoveries of scientists from outside the field of biology have shown us how and why life evolved the way it did on Earth. Do you think there is enough communication across fields (even between scientific fields and non-scientific fields). Do you think a lack of communication between these fields has led to a lack of understanding the world around us? How or how not?

Cody Bartusiak's Response:

I personally believe that scientists do communicate as much as they can. However in reality, it is too hard too communicate everything all the time between all the different fields of science. I'd be incredible to see the progress made if there was more communication, but it's just not realistically possible. It's too hard to always be telling everyone what you are doing. Yes, most new disocveries come from scientiest reading about what others have done as in the case of evolution where Darwin looked at political science and geology. However, it's up to scienetist to find these links between theories and ideas of oothers on their own just like Darwin did. There is a lot of scietific discoveries that get published but there are somethings that are just too important not to share. With this being said I do believe that this had lead to a lack of understanding in the world around us, but it is common and there isn't anyway to get around it.

Cody Bartusiak's reply to Brittany Grants:

I disagree with you that there isn't enough communication that leads to different fields not understanding the world around us. Yes there are people who are uniformed about certain things, but it's also their fault for not knowing. If they wanted to, they could find the papers that the scientists from different fields have wrote and learn about what they have discovered. It is not the purpose of a scientist to make sure that everyone knows what they have just found out. It would take way to much time and effort to educate everyone. However, most scientists do make sure that they publish their work in order for other people to have the baility to learn it them selves. The only way that there could be more sommunication is if two different fields purposely came together to collaborate on new ideas.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

In the past there might have been a drop off in communication between scientists that study biology and those who study outside of biology. Now in today's modern day age, communication is continually increasing between scientists who study scientific and none-scientific fields. Scientists have done more than enough to better understand the world we live in.

I disagree with Brittany Grant,  because no one except for actual scientists of different fields know if they communicate together effectively. And yes there are things in this world that are unknown but that's a result of communication between different fields. Scientists understand the importance of sharing research and theories that will eventually help other scientists.

Christian Gil's Response & Reply:

I feel like in some fields and certain topics communication has allowed for some great discoveries and advancements in certain areas of science. That being said, I feel like their are still areas that should benefit on research but aren't. Areas like climate and such are being held back by religious groups or special interest groups. It would be much better if science had nothing stopping it from reaching it's answer but sadly in todays world theirs a lot that gets in the way of communication.

In response to Cody, I don't think it's entirely up to the people what they can and can not learn. Theres a lot of societies and stuff that tend to hide the information even if it is out their. Communities that have certain religious beliefs will never truly benefit from reality because it's kept a secret. Or a country like North Korea the people will never find out the truth because the govenmernt won't let it happen. It's not always the fault of the people for not knowing, many times it's the fault of the source.

Damian Gitter Response and Reply:

This past week, we have looked at how the discoveries of scientists from outside the field of biology have shown us how and why life evolved the way it did on Earth. Do you think there is enough communication across fields (even between scientific fields and non-scientific fields). Do you think a lack of communication between these fields has led to a lack of understanding the world around us? How or how not?

I believe that there is sufficient communication between the two fields, But it has been improving more and more every year. Thanks to the discoveries of both fields helped the other progress and gain more knowledge of a topic. Obviously, the scientific field is more respected and is believed that most of their conclusions are right but in recent times it has shown that other fields outside of biology can bring correct conclusions too and dares to prove wrong conclusions made by the scientific field, helping both of them progress and learn more. This is why I think that they both need each other and that the communication is growing stronger by the pass of the years, communication is key in order to progress. Lack of communication had lead to lack of understanding because in previous years, before these discoveries by scientist non in the scientific field, the communication between the both fields was very low and both field thought that the other field was wrong and it was not worth comparing ideas and conclusions. but since it has been improving the world around us has been easier to understand simply because they both share their discoveries and ideas and this communication is growing stronger and stronger.


I agree and at the same time disagree with Laura Santos because like she said communication is key but I think that nowadays the two fields don't lack communication like they did before. Before both fields hold back information that could possibly benefit each other, but now, since discoveries from the non-scientific field that helped the scientific field they "learned" that they both know things that could help each other and that it is worth sharing this information. I believe nowadays both fields concentrate on their researches but the communication is strong enough that they both share information if one field needs help.

Topic 6:

Discuss: How do you think primate evolution is tied to the use of energy in an animal. Remember the arboreal adaptation theory in your discussion. Include the different energy types. Edit

Basia Wisinski response: 

Primate evolution is tied to the energy usage because primates needed to adapt to an arboreal lifestyle. Living in trees, even for part of the time, involves a great deal of energy usage. The most common forms of energy are kinetic, potential, thermal, electrical, chemical, and nuclear. Kinetic energy can be seen as primates try to break, for example, nuts, potential energy can be seen in primates as they swing through the trees (in the form of brachiation), an example of thermal energy is body heat, and chemical energy is created in the digestive system as acids break down ingested food (such as leaves which are ingested high-up in the trees). 

Reply to Cynara: 

I do not agree with your statement that arboreal adaption was “created” to have scientists understand why primates live in trees. The arboreal lifestyle of primates is an evolutionary trait that occurred long before the presence of humans (and is still evolving today). This adaption benefited primates in terms of food, shelter, and reproduction and can be seen as a characteristic of natural selection.  

Haley Vaughn Response:  

Evolution in an animal is tied to the use of energy in an animal. Living things use many types of energy, such as, kinetic, potential, thermal, electrical, chemical, and nuclear energy. For example, animals use kinetic energy to catch and eat their prey. Animals that hibernate use their body heat, thermal energy, to keep each other warm during hibernation. An example of the arboreal adaptation theory in evolution in primates, they developed depth perception because they swung from tree to tree. Without depth perception they would not be able to successfully swing from tree to tree. 

Cody Bartusiak's Response:

Primate evolution is tied to the use of energy in an animal because different primates used different amounts of energy depending on their environment. This is easily seen when looking at the arboreal adaption theory because primates that live in trees like chimps have to use more energy to move around and hunt rather. Whereas primates like humans and gorillas live on the ground so there is less overall energy being used on average. So as primates became more arboreal they used more energy than non tree dwelling animals.

Cody Bartusiak's Reply to Tomer Bittom:

I completely agree that arboreal life uses more energy than primates that live on the ground. When you take into account how much more energy it takes to move around in trees where they have to use both their arms and legs plus other muscles, it's hard to not see how they use more energy. Where as primates like humans don't have to put in nearly as much effort since we only have to use our lower body for the most part throught the day.

Tomer Bittom Response:

Primate evolution is tied to use of energy in an animal by arboreal adaption because the arboreal adaption theory states that primate characteristics are an adaptation to living in trees. Living in trees requires much more energy than living ground; you need a lot more stamina and strength in the muscles to be able to swing from tree to tree - and it requires a lot more energy to hunt in trees as well. These primates need to consume more food in order to gain more energy (since they waste more) so these primates that live in trees most likely eat more than primates that didn't live in trees.

Bittom reply to Laura Santos:

I agree with her that not only did the primates just evolve the obvious characteristics but stuff like vision, eating habits, complex communication systems, sharper teeth, using their tails for balance I'm trees, and more.

Jonathan McGale response:

I think that primate evolution is tied to use of energy in an animal because they are adapted to the environment where they live. They live in the trees so they need to be adapted to be able to climb in trees and move from a tree to another. They have a very high level of agility to be able to survive and find food in the environment they live.

Kimberly Canas Response:

Primate evolution is tied to use of energy in an animal by arboreal adaption because primate characteristics are an adaptation to living in trees. Which makes primates use their hands and legs as well to crawl or move to one tree to another, and also when they go up to a tree to get food. So yes evolution is ties to use energy in an animal with the arboreal adaptation.

Matt Hobden response to Kimberly:

I totally agree with you, moving from one tree to the other helped develop primates hands and legs over time . Especially when it came to picking certain foods such as apples and bugs off the ground shows how primate evolution is tied to the use of energy.

Jonathan McGale's reply to Sedar:

I totally agree with seder, I think that primate adapt themselves to the environment they live because it is the only way to survive and find food. The characteristics of the primates are totally different if they live in a house or if they live in a forest.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

Prime evolution is tied to the use of energy because primates have to adapt to living in trees. Living in trees is not  the same as living on land. Many of the same concepts of survival still apply as far as, creating shelter, finding food and even feeding primates. The main difference is living in trees requires energy for climbing and swinging around on. Primates like humans still us and need a lot of energy but not for the use of climbing trees on a daily basis.

In response to Kimberly Canas, I agree that primates who use their claws to climb, crawl and swing require a different use of energy for living in trees, which explains why the arboreal adaptation theory came into effect. 

Serdar Altunkaya's Response:

Primate Evolution is tied to the energy usage of an animal because primates use their energy based on the envioronment they are in. For example, if a primate lives in a house rather than the wild, his energy usage is going to be different because he is in two different environments that differ in condition and size specifically.

In response to Matt, I agree that their traits they acquire are based on the environment in which they live in. So, theoretically, if a primate lives in trees, he will know how to climb efficiently and probably be able to jump from tree to tree as well.

Kimberly Canas response to Matt Hobden:

I agree with Matt because we both agreed that evolution is ties to animal using arboreal adaption because primates have the characterstics of using their hand and legs to move from one tree to another to get food or other activities they do.

Matt Hobden response:Edit

I think primate evolution is tied to the use of energy in an animal because though arboreal adaptation primates developed several of their traits and habits while living in trees. This required them to use their hands for everything such as moving from tree to tree, crawling, and eating certain foods.

Brittany Grant's reply and response:

Primate evolution is tied to the use of energy in an animal by the diversification of primates from early mammals that took place partly because of the ancestors of the primates that came to inhabit a unique environment, the trees.They got their energy from the development of the many features to allow them to move quickly in the arboreal habitat. In doing this they evolved the ability to direct and focus both eyes on objects, called binocular vision, which allowed them to accurately judge distances to branches and other objects. They also developed grasping hands and feet, with opposable digits, thumbs and big toes. The fingertips were broader in these early primates, to apply greater grip strength to branches, and instead of class primates developed wide nails. All of these features helped primates to succeed as arboreal specialists And the development of their energy.

In response to Matt Hobden, I agree with you because the arboreal adaption of primates they developed different diversification of many traits and habits as you stated while living in trees which moving around required these primates to develop energy.

Laura Santos Response:

I think that the primate evolution is tied to the use of energy in animal because of the use of their motor skills to be able to adapt and survive living in trees. Thats where the arboreal adaptation theory comes in to play. Some traits and habits are developed from living in the trees. The hands are developed from leaping from tree to tree. the sense of perception is deepened , and their daily diet all had a change all of these mention characteristics all contribute to the use of energy that is taken and given back.

Laura Santos respnse to Kimberly:

I agree the primates use of legs and arms are what takes and gives energy in animal

Cynara Scheuer respons:

Primate evolution is connected to the use of energy in animals by different ways. Arboreal adaption was created to have scientist understand why primates live in trees, The primates that live in the threes have shown us on how they get their energy. They get energy by the source of food that they have adapted to, the weather temperatures, and the movement that they are doing. Since scientist found that primates adapted to arboreal, they saw how their features changed as well. They got better grip to better vision for them that we'll help the survive.

Cynara Scheuer replies to Brittany Grant:

I agree because primates has evolved to arboreal adaption so their features have changed as well to help them survive in their living situation

Christian's Response:

I beleived they are tied because of the envirorment they were brought up in.

Topic 5:

Discuss the following: Is there a place for secondary sources in sceintific research? If so, what? Edit

Juan Pablo Prado's response:

In scientific research itself there is no place for secondary sources. When doing research, people need to know exactly what happened and not what people think or were told happened. In science on small different factor can result in an entire different result. Secondary sources could have altered or wrong facts and could give way to different results or lead to erroneous thinking.

Juan Pablo Prado's response to Kimberly Canas:

I do not agree with Kimberly. Although Kimberly has a point in saying secondary sources help students in their studies and to understand material by their nature of simplified thoughts and vocabulary, she forgets we are talking about scientific research and not about scientific teaching. Secondary sources might have information that is not 100% correct. Also, scientific reasearch is not only done by people starting to study the material but by people looking to expand the subject. Secondary sources are good for innovative concepts though, as people will not necessarily stick with what happens but also give their ideas and opinions in what can happen.

Tomer Bitton response:

No, I don't think there's place for secondary sources in scientific research. The sources in scientific research has to be as accurate as possible and preferably first-hand information, which fits into the primary sources category. Secondary sources are good for simplifying and making information more interesting for the general public. For example, national geographic may publish an article based on a study done on frogs. They will not put all the information done on that study in the article, they won't include the steps of the scientific method taken throughout the study, they will not include graphs and charts, the list can go on. In saying all of this, I'm not saying that secondary sources aren't informational or that they're bad, but I think that they should not be included in scientific research.

Tomer Bitton reply to Nicolas:

I disagree with him saying that secondary sources can be included in scientific research because it is for the genteral public as he said. I do not think that the general public conducts scientific research on a regular basis, that's why secondary sources are not for scientific research. It does not go into the depth that primary sources do.

Kimberly Canas response:

Yes, I do believe that there is a place for secondary source in scientific research. Secondary sources are useful to children in elementary, middle, and high school to give them a broad and more clear understanding of science or their scientific research. Secondary sources are as well useful for adolescents for college students because it would give them more explanation to what their researching and what they will be looking for in their primary source. Overall Secondary sources play a big role in general to everyone because, it is able to understand many people who have a hard time understanding a primary sources that go into more in depth of information and have big vocabulary words that confuse people and make it more harder for people to find their research interesting unlike secondary sources it gives out some information but it still gives a clear information about the research and make it interesting for people to want to learn and understand the material .

Serdar Altunkaya's Response:

There is always a place for seconday sources, as long as they are deemed credible. While primary sources are always better, secondary sources can be very helpful as long as they are credible. Secondary sources are a little useless if they do not seem credible at all, but should always be checked thoroughly. Additionally, primary sources go more in depth on an issue because it is usually a peer reviewed source, so secondary sources are a little easier to understand for a person in general. The Scientific Method should be applied to Primary and Scondary Sources alike.

In response to Kimberly Canas, I agree that secondary sources are useful to children in elementary, middle, and elementary school. I like that you mentioned that college students can utlilize secondary sources as well. Secondary sources can be very useful, just as long as proper research is done for the secondary source. National Geographic would be an example for a secondary source which many people would deem credible.

Kimberly Canas response to Jonathan McGale:

I agree with Jonathan because Primary sources are very difficult to comprehend and to be understood because scientist writes it with their information they have experimented, which in the other hand secondary sources only give a part that summarizes and helps people understand more clearly on what their scientific research is more about.

I'm Nicolas Arimany response:

Yes, I believe there is a place in scientific research for secondary sources. It is important for the general public to understand what is happening in the scientific community. Secondary sources make it easir for people who are not scientists to comprehend advances, discoveries and studies in the scientific community. Primary sources are more scientificaly detailed than secondary sources, therefore, they are meant for everyone to read or understand. Secondary sources take their information from primary sources and make it easier for the general public to comprehend.

jonathon sofianos response:

yes, i do believe that secondary sources is important in the scientific community. Although primary sources are way better but it is nice have the view of someone that is not a scientist, to get the so called "normal" persons opinion on whatever the topic is. secondary sources help people understand what is going on without getting to confused. secondary sources have a way of connecting to people more than a primary source because of the material involved.

jonathon sofianos response to Pasha:

i agree with Pasha, how the normal person will not understand the material in the primary source. At least in my opinion the average person will enjoy and understand the secondary source. it doesnt matter what the subject of the article would be but it would just be more enjoyable for the reader.

Pasha Vreeken Response:Edit

Yes, secondary resources are key for research by scientist to be simplified and shown to the public. Your average person is not going to come across scientific research that they understand, but if they read it in a magazine or want to know about a topic and they search it and get a informative website they will be able to access the research in a way that is easier to comprehend. Secondary sources are the most commonly used resource for many students when researching a topic. The role secondary sources play in scientific research is to create an easier access to comprehensible information.Edit

Jonathan McGale response:

Yes, I really think there is a place for secondary source in science. A lot of magazine, journal, book, website and others use secondary source to make the population know a little more about what is happening in the scientific world. People often read magazines, books, website and others to know what is happening in the world, this is why those secondary sources take information from the scientifics and publish it again. Primary sources are made by the scientifics who actually made the experiment, this is often hard to understand for most people. This is why secondary source are made a lot easier, so, everybody can understand it.

Matt Hobden response

Yes, I think secondary sources are very important when first understanding scientific research. Is helps simplify information and can be accessed by the general public It makes obtaining information easier and more interesting, primary sources can be very complex and hard to understand. Being able to digest information in a more fun and efficient way is very important to understanding scientific research.

Jonathan McGale reply to Jonathon sofianos:

I agree with Jonathon when he say that secondary source are very important. I also understand his point of view when he says that primary source is better because the person who made the experiment directly writes them. But I think they are essential because they are people who can’t understand primary source because they can sometimes be really complicated.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

Yes, there is a place for secondary sources in scientific research. Primary sources are predominantly the better sources because they are written by the scientists who performed the research.  Primary sources are also original and provide fist hand evidence from reliable research. Secondary sources on the other hand,  rely on primary sources to interpret the information provided form the main source of research. Having secondary sources is important because the general public has quicker access to that information. Magazines and newspapers typically have secondary sources but the public are able to understand and find that information at a faster rate.

I agree with Pasha Vrekeen’s response, because secondary sources provide simplified information that is easily accessed by the general public. Scientific research needs both primary and secondary sources to continue educating scientist as well as anyone doing research. As stated by Vrekeen,  secondary sources are the most common sources. Eliminating the most common form of sources from scientific research takes away from the information provided in primary sources because only a limited amount of people will understand and have access to that information.

Cynara Scheuer's response:

Yes I think that there is a place for secondary sources in scientific research. The reason I believe this is because in any research it is always important to get a second opinion. The reason a second opinion is important is that it gives another opiniom on whatever the topic may be. Sometimes during research it is possible that the primary source could be wrong or the research may have missed something or taken a different approach than was needed. So the secondary sources are important for reevaluating research and getting that essential second opinion.

Cynara Scheuer's reply to Pasha Vreeken:

I disagree with Pasha because she states that for students, secondary sources are the most important research tool. However, this is not true because when researching a topic you want to consult as many primary sources on your subject because that is the original material. If a researcher relies mainly on secondary sources they will find a lot of opinion within these secondary sources and this could impact the researchers own opinion rather than forming an opinion from the primary source itself. It is useful to use secondary sources as another point of view to compare to your own point of view.

Christians Response:

Yes there is. Secondary sources provide a fun way for younger children and adults to learn about science. Even though many of these sources leave out some fo the important date, graphs, charts and other scientific points; it presents a primary source in a more friendly way. It allows readers to digest information and learn about information in a way that would make it fun and enjoyable. It's also a good way to present it to people in school or who are learning science because if gives them a brief overview of the situation without too much technical information.

Matt Hobden's reply to Christian:

Totally agree with you, digesting information in an easy to learn format is very helpful when it comes to scientific information. Getting a brief overview of the information can be a lot more helpful than just reading off complicated facts and figures.

Christians Reply to Nicolas:

As Nicolas says, it informs the general public in an easier way. Most people might be confused or turned off by big charts and data that makes little to no sense. But adding pictures, and transforming that information to something readable makes the experience a lot better. For those who want the more technical information they are free to look it up. But for those who want the information that is readily available and easy to comprehend it's good to have a secondary source.

Cody Bartusiak's Response:

Yes, I do believe that there is a place for secondary sources in scientific research. It helps make the research be more interesting and easier to read, where as a primary sources is more or less boring and is filled with data and is much more in depth. The secondary sources makes it easier to read by summarizing the info found during research. These sources are also the way that the public usually gets informed about new research. It appears in magazines, journals, and newspaper articles which is much more likely to be read by normal people who aren't trying to know every single fact and peice of data. However, when it comes to doing your own research, it is usually better to use a primary source so you can follow the study much more in depth.

Cody Bartusiak's Reply to Christian:

I completely agree with Christian that there is a place for secondary sources and that their purpose is to help make the research more fun and easier to read for people of all ages. This is completely true especially when people aren't trying to really learn the study to indepth, but rather get a summary of what has happened and what the scientists have descovered from the data they have found. Without these sources it would be much harder for the public to know about new discoveries beause it would take more time and energy to understand what has happened rather than having an enjoyable way to learn about it.

Valerie Speer Reply and Response:

Yes there is absolutely and will always be a place for secondary sources.  Secondary sources are useful to people who are not looking for loads of data and long facts, secondary sources can be useful for quick information when looking to learn about something simple.  Although secondary sources are not as lengthy and accurate as primary sources, we still need them in everyday life.  People usually turn to magazines, newspapers and articles when looking for quick information on something currently happening or just to enhance their knowledge on a certain subject.  There will always be a place for secondary sources.

I agree with Cody when he talks about how secondary sources make it easier to read by summarazing. Thats an important fact because most people get turned off of primary sources after reading just a few sentences.  I also like the point he brings up when he talks about normal people just reading a magazine or newspaper and not wanting to know every little bit of data or statistic. 

Basia Wisinski reply and response: 

There is a place for secondary sources, especially in scientific research. They may not be as prevalent as primary sources but they help the average person understand certain topics (such as science)  in a comprehensible manner. I see primary sources as the key to backing up my hypothesis and ideas in research and secondary sources as the key to explaining the data found in my primary resources. 

In response to Cynara, I do not agree with you upon secondary sources being a secondary "opinion". Primary sources cover the research done by the researcher and are written by the researcher while secondary sources cover research that the author does not physically preform themselves. Secondary sources create an overview of tricky data and information found in primary sources to be presented to the general public.  

Brittany Grant's Reply and Response:

As it relates to secondary sources in scentific research, yes there is a place for it. Secondary sources analyze and interprets primary sources. Also second hand account of an historical even or interprets creative work. As it relates to science, secondary sources analyzes and interprets research results and scientific discovers. It is helpful to our knowledge, which makes it easier to understand. For example, publications about the significance of research or experiments, clinical trial and review of results of several experiments or trials.

In response to Valerie Speer, I absoutely agree with you that they are useful in every day life and a better understanding to people who aren't looking for a lot of information. Which makes research quick and easy, because no one wants to be going through so much information as primary sources where to find a specific thing it's paragraphs in the article. Secondary sources really make learning information an ease rather than a task.

Topic 4: Edit

There has been an ongoing controversy- specifically in some areas of the United States - about teaching Natural Selection in science classes. Opponents suggest that it should be taught alongside creationism/intelligent design. Do you agree that creationism can be taught alongside natural selection in science classes? Why or why not? What consequences, if any, do you foresee? Edit

jonathon sofianos respone;

i do not think that they can be taught along side each other because in many ways the theories contradict one another. in my opinion there would be some backlash with this being taught but it all depends on what type of school it is being taught in because if it is a religious school then no way is either of these being taught in it, but if it is a public school then they could be taught but i think they would have to figure out with theory they would like to stand by and defend.

jonathon sofianos response to PHaley Vaughn;

i agree with you, because that is right about the first amendment, the church and the state should be separate because they are two different entities. Each have there own way of going about things. But again it all goes on to depend which type of school would be teaching this because in a religious school they can teach about the church so if would just have to depend on the school in my opinion.

Laura Santos Response:

I do believe that there's a place for secondary sources in scientific research, but I do feel like they shouldn't be something you should heavily rely on. It's cool to be able to read up on other people's scientific contributions and what not but to use as a research material maybe not so much. I don't want to say that secondary sources aren't as reliable and credible, but this person who's writing on about other people's work may not know a lick of science to begin with or if anything their main goal may be way far from what you're actually trying to accomplish, which is why I say that the secondary source can only do so much good.

Laura Santos Response to Kimberly Canas:

I totally agree with you especially when you stated that “Overall Secondary sources play a big role in general to everyone because, it is able to understand many people who have a hard time understanding a primary sources that go into more in depth of information and have big vocabulary words” which I can completely relate to knowing some of my classmates having trouble dealing with some of the primary source or when things had to be broken down for us in AP Bio.

Juan Prado's Response to PHaley Vaughn:

Although I agree with Vaughn that creationism shouldnt be taught in public schools I do not think it is do to the first amendment or that the two teachings contrdict each other. The first amendment states the separison of the church and state but does not say the state could not teach about ideologies of religions. Also since Pius XII popes have been saying evolution does not go against religion. Most recently John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and even Pope Francis have advocated that evolution does not go against creation but actually embraces it. An example of this is that the Bible says the world was created in 7 days but does not state how long the days were but is most likely a symbol of time.

Juan Prado's Response:

Creationism should not be taught alongside natural science in public schools. Public schools are funded with tax dollars that come from people with diverse views on the universe. Private schools, on the other hand, could decide to teach creationism alongside natural selection as they are funded by people who agree to send their kids there and are aware of the curriculum. Public schools could potentially teach creativism as common knowledge on how many people think but wouldn't be right to compare with natural selection. If they would choose to do so the general public (taxpayers) could complain about the public education's curriculum.

PHaley Vaughn

I think creationism should not be taught along side natural selection. First of all, the first amendment says that church and state are to be separate. If creationism is a teaching of the church, which is unconstitutional. Another reason creationism should not be taught along side natural selection is creationism contradicts natural selection. Teaching creationism is at the discretion of the child's parents, it is not up to the state to teach religion. Natural selection and creationism being taught together would cause confusion. Natural selection is based on facts. Creationism is based more upon an ideology.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response:

I think creationism should be taught alongside natural selection in science classes. Teachers and students alike should be informed as much as possible about each of topics. In addition, the teacher should talk about the positives and negatives of each without acing bias towards one of the ideas. Students should also have an open mind about each of their ideas and draw their own conclusion they feel is accurate. However, students should not argue with each other about whether they feel creationism or natural selection is more correct.

In response to Cynara, I disagree with you because I don't think creationism is all based off religion. I get why you think religion is the main component involved, but I feel that creationism has more to do with science than it does religion. I view creationism as a theory more so than a religious idea.

Jorge Polanco's response:

I believe in God. I’m a Catholic and studied in a Catholic School all my life. While I attended to this school I learned different theories; some fully accepted by the Church and others that weren’t. In my particular school the fact that something was against my religion didn’t mean that it was forbidden, it’s simply a part of the learning process any student should have. Teaching a person different things is not the same as implementing a doctrine.

As well I think that if the people in charge of creating the class curriculums think is a good idea, I’ll support them; obviously if the intention is to expand the student knowledge is a great call; they are the experts, lets just allow them to do their work. In my point of view is better to teach creationism along natural selection because this will open the students mind even more. The only consequence that I see for this is that students will be able to judge what they believe or not with more arguments, not only because that’s what they learn in class and everything else is wrong.

Jorge Polanco's response to Cynara Scheuer:

I disagree with you; I don’t see it as a religious thing. It’s simple a different theory, and to teach both in science class, as theories will give the student a much wider perspective of two different versions.

I think that saying religion to religious is kind of discriminating the theories. They don’t need to be both strictly correct, and no one is force to believe in any; but learning about both theories is something that will contribute to your science and cultural knowledge, and learning and having more information to develop a personal judgment it’s something good. Nice Job!

Matt Hobden response:

In my opinion natural selection should not be taught alongside creationism. Depending on a students religion, the average teacher would have no idea what the students beliefs are and would cause nothing but dispute and problems. It's one thing to teach students about organisms evolving but a completely different story when you comine natural selection and creationism into the same category.

Christians Response: Edit

No I do not agree that creationism should be taught with Natural Selection. The opponents are almost all religious. Religion should have nothing to do with school. I think the only place it could be taught is a school like a Catholic school or a Jewish school. This is because religious ides should be taught in a religious setting. The consequences is simple, you're teaching kids creationism which is a religious idea. forcing your religious ideas on learning is wrong. Natural selection is based on science. I'm personally a Chrstian but I strongly believe all religion should only be taught in religious settings. If they want to dumb down religious children they can, keep it out of public or nor religious private schools.

Cynara Response:

For me, I believe that it should not be taught in science classes. Science and religion can have many arguments with this issue. If you were a private school child like I was, you were talk about this in religion class not so much in science class. When it comes to public schools, they don't even talk about this topic at all. Yes they are trying to bring it to science class but this topic is more to be talked about in a religious class since it's mostly about religion.  If we talk about religion and science together people will have so many agruments because of the different faiths that are in public schools.

Cynara Scheuer replies to Christian:

I agree what Christian's response is because religious topics should stay in a private school that is about a certain religion. it will bring a lot of issues that schools nowadays don't need.

Laura Santos Response:

I firmly believe that there should be a clear and concrete line between religious education and the common core education. If a parent wishes their children to learn about anything that takes roots that leads back to religion or a person's faith then they should take the stride to enroll their children in a primarily religious academia. One can't always please every parent and politician or just anyone focused on the things being taught in schools. We are the future and realistically we spend the majority of our days in school and we are susceptible to the molding that our teachers and professors impose on us. so i don't agree that creationism can be taught alongside natural selection in science class because there's no concrete evidence that a kid can look up without having to resort to a bible or quran  or textbooks along those lines. If creationism is taught alongside natural selection in a science class i feel that kids will be given an ultimatum and the views will be mixed and it just will never be one fluid answer to their question because you would have to take both sides into consideration whenever answering a question.

Laura Santos Response to Cynara Scheuer:

I completely agree with Cynara, I went to public school and it was never brought up but because of my hispanic culture i was made to attend sunday school where all the creationism was covered briefly really . i feel like way back then when religion really governed the state this debate would be a prominent issue but for now it really isnt a pressing issue and it just may be a big thing in like the south or somewhere around there.

Christian Replies to Cynara:

Basically we share the same view. If religious parents wish for there children to be taught a religious view than so be it. Just don't force it into public schools. I can understand the other side when they're extreme. They feel there way is the only way and the right way. That's fine and I won't argue with that. However like you said, teach it an environment that makes sense. Not force it on others who most likely won't believe the same way.

(remember - be respectful!) Edit

Damian Gitter Response and Reply: Edit

There has been an ongoing controversy- specifically in some areas of the United States - about teaching Natural Selection in science classes. Opponents suggest that it should be taught alongside creationism/intelligent design. Do you agree that creationism can be taught alongside natural selection in science classes? Why or why not? What consequences, if any, do you foresee? Edit

No, I do not believe that creationism should be taught alongside with natural selection is science. There is a reason why they have different name although they talk about common things. We all agree by the question that Natural Selection is taught in science class. With this we learn about Lamarck and Darwin and their theories, all of this from a scientific perspective. Creationism is a completely different thing. First of all, creationism is explained though a religious perspective denying any scientific perspective because "god was the creator of all living things". I grew up in a school were we learned this things by separate everyone each having their own class and by being different subjects. i believe that we cant teach this two matters together because of the perspectives they have. We could start by doing this is the two matters came to an equal ground but this is up to the scientific field and every religious church, synagogue, etc. Because scientist believe that everything has an explanation and that everything developed though time and because it was needed and in the religious side it is believe that god was the creator of everything and this shouldn't be questioned.


I agree with Cynara response because it all depends on what school you attend to. In every school this is taught different. In private schools (catholic schools and jewish schools) creationism and science are two different subjects. In public schools creationism is not considered a subject and thats what churches and synagogues are for and that why they have their own activities, classes apart form school, to teach the youth about creationism depending on the religion. Also, its very true that is creationism would be taught in public schools there were would be many beliefs because the diversity of religions is important.

Kimberly Canas Respinse:

No i don't believe that Natural selection should be taught in Science class mainly because Religion and science have two different views and meanings for everybody in the world. I don't think it would be fair to teach it in school and have kids who don't believe in religions or science have to be forced to learn about one or the other's views and meanings without the child actually wanting to know or even care to know at all. It would bring too much mixed information to the table that can only end up stirring things up and leaving many school kids lost and confused about what they firmly want to believe in. If natural selection wants to be taught in school alongside creationism, i think they should be taught in two different classrooms with the option of choosing them individually or not choosing them at all.

Kimberly Canas Response to Cynara:

I agree with Cynara because this topic is more relatable in private schools or catholics schools because it talks about religion and that would not work so well in public schools because of the different earnings and ideas behind each subject.

Cody Bartusiak's Reply:

There has been an ongoing controversy- specifically in some areas of the United States - about teaching Natural Selection in science classes. Opponents suggest that it should be taught alongside creationism/intelligent design. Do you agree that creationism can be taught alongside natural selection in science classes? Why or why not? What consequences, if any, do you foresee?

I don't believe that creationism should be taught along side natural selection in science classes. Releigion isn't scientific in any way so there should be no reason that it should be taught in a science class. However, I don't believe that science teaachers should be bias towards being atheist. I think religion should always be a choice and no one should ever take that away from a person, but on the other hand they should know that evolution is real and isn't controversial since there are facts that back it up. If they want to learn about creationism then they should take a religion class because there isn't really a place in science for no factual beliefes. If creationism/intelligent design was to be taught in a science class, the biggest consequence would be that students would be learning information that isn't completely true in a class that is based of only facts.

Cody Bartusiak's Response to Damian Gitter:

I completely agree that they should be taught seperatly and that creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class. Science is all based on factual knowledge where as religion depends on what you choose to believe because there isn't any concrete proof.

Tomer Bitton response & reply:

I do not agree that creationism and natural selection should be taught alongside one another. Dsrwin's theory of evolution is purely scientific and is based on physical evidence and has been proven over and over again. On the other hand, creationism is not based on scientific observations supported by physical evidence but it is backed by religious beliefs. These two subjects should not be taught alongside because they clash with one another, forcing students to choose what they believe and what they do not - which creates a huge problem for both science and religion.

I agree with Cody Bartusiak, especially with the fact that religious teachers shouldn't press students to follow a faith and science teachers shouldn't press students to be atheist. Mixing science and religion would confuse students to believe what's real and what's not - if one wishes to take a religion class then they should be able to but it should not be mandatory.

Brittany Grant's reponse and reply:

First of all, creationism in a nutshell is the belief that God of some form of higher power had a hand in the creation of mankind and the universe. On the other hand I do agree with creationism can be taught alongside natural selection in science classes. Reason for this because i believe that freedom of speech and expression is very important and in that case arguing that creationism is forcing religion on children is saying a history class on World War ll is forcing facism on children. Living In a society that allows people to express their views openly without fear of hostility as long they do it nicely means that we will often have to hear things we disagree with. It's important for children to know and understand these views. Painting every issue as black and white, right and wrong, gives them an unrealistic view of the world. The same thing that gives you the right to not believe in religion gives other people the same right to practice it.

In response to Kimberly, I don't agree with you because children's minds are a wonderful thing, they absorb knowledge faster and they have amazing ability to process information on a mass scale while young. In this case they can separate what they believe in and what they don't, they'll have a option and not just one thing forced upon them and also teaches them diversity which encourages children to articulate thoughts that help them develop skills that simply cannot be gained through a strictly academic education.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply to Jorge Polanco:

Creationism should be taught alongside natural selection in science classes. Although, creationism does refer to religious belief, it still doesn't impose on or discriminate any particular religion. By expanding further knowledge on creationism, students will be able to compare natural selection and creationism, to build their own opinions on science topics. 

I agree with, Jorge Polanco’s response. As a Christian myself, I do understand that learning about a different science topic will not effect my religious beliefs. Students, normally establish their religious beliefs outside of school therefore schools wouldn't be imposing on a new religious belief just because they expose a different science topic in science classes.

Jonathan McGale response :

I do not think that creationism should be taught alongside natural selection in science classes. I think that creationism is based on religions. Science and religions are too different to be teached in a same class. I think that it should be teached only in a catholic school. The religious ideas are too much different from the science because religion is based on belief and the science is based on results that scientific founded. I do not think both should be teached in a same class, each of them should be learned in different settings.

Matt Hobden response to Jonathan:

I completely agree with you, creationism taught alongside natural selection is nothing but a recipe for disaster. Both of them are completley diffrent subjects and should not be linked within the same subject.

Jonathan McGale replys to Serdar Altunkaya :

I do not agree with you because I do not think that natural selection should be teached in science class because they are too different but I agree with some of your ideas. If both were teached together, I agree with the way of teaching it. I think that religion should be teached in a religion class, not in science class.

Barb Wisinski reply and response: 

I do not believe that creationism/intelligent design should be taught alongside Natural Selection, especially in a public institution. I find it more accepting at a religious based school since parents are sending their children there for the specific reason of getting a religious based education. In my opinion, when taught along side each other, especially to younger students, children will have a hard time deciphering what to believe since the ideas contradict. 

In response to Haley, I completely agree with your response. I like how you state that creationism is based on ideology and Natural Selection is based on facts. It is important in the world of science to have evidence to back up a theory and this is not the case in creationism.     

Topic 3: Edit

Discuss how you think the science of biology would function without taxonomy. Could it function at all? Edit

Why or why not? Edit

Pasha Vreeken's Response:

Without Taxonomy biology would not function. How can you begin to make discoveries and advances without order? Taxonomy creates order with species and organisms allowing connections with species to be made. Without that organization in biology i believe it would make it easier for generalizations to be made, because biology is defined as the study of life. If not for taxonomy the study of life would be a mess of theories regarding a single life form making it hard to delve deeper. The connections and classifications set in place with Taxonomy allow for life to be studied in the most efficient manner.

In Response to Serdar Altunkaya:

I believe we have very similar ideas of what would happen without Taxonomy. But rather than be on pause i believe biology would advance slower and in a more inaccurate and jumbled manner.

Jorge Polanco's response to Haley Vaugh:

I totally agree with you. The simple fact of not having, as you mention it "an organization system", would be so difficult for biologist to go deeper and advance in their studies. We all know that information is all over the place, but the key is to understand how to organize it in order to understand it in a way that’s helpful and productive. Nice job!

Jorge Polanco's response:

Taxonomy as we understand it, is basically an organization system. In some ways we could compare it to a phone directory or an agenda. If we didn’t have any of those we would’ve to randomly search and save the information in which might have any kind of nterest. The same happens with taxonomy in biology; As Georges Luis Leclerc mentions in his Natural History of Animals, Vegetables and Minerals: “Classification, minute observation, and factual description are essential to scientific inquiry.” We can appreciate that if taxonomy didn’t exist the science of biology might probably not be what we know in these days. Though it might be different I think that it’s very difficult to function without taxonomy because of all the specific details that are involved.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response:

The beautiful thing about Science is how organized it is. Taxonomy is great because it is an organizational system for Biology and specifically looks at the classification of animals. Without Taxonomy, Biology would be on pause due to the fact that there would be no classification system in place. Biology is defined as the study of life, so without a classification system to study living organisms, it would be nearly impossible to study life. 

In response to Damien, I competely agree that no classifcations for living organisms in Biology would make it difficult to study Taxonomy. Biology would be hard to study without Taxonomy because there wouldn't be classifications for living organisms and everything would just be a mess. Therefore, because of the mess, studying Biology without Taxonomy wouldn't "work", just like Damien said. 

Haley Vaughn Topic 3 Response:

Biology without taxonomy would be like a light bulb without electricity. Biology is the the study of living organisms divided into many fields. Taxonomy is simply a branch of biology that more closely examines the classification of living organisms. Taxonomy allows biologist to further their understanding of living organisms. This leads to new discoveries. Biology without taxonomy would, in a way, put biology at a stand still. There would be no classification system in which biologists could use to group organisms together.

Marcus Stimphont's response and reply:

One of the main reasons why the science of biology functions accurately  is because of taxonomy. Utilizing taxonomy as a tool is essential to classifying living organisms. Due to the enormous variety of species in biology, keeping track of every living organism would be difficult  without a proper organizational system. The power of taxonomy has allowed biologist to formally describe, identify and characterize all biological organisms accounted for. Taking away the advantage of taxonomy, puts biologist at a disadvantage when studying the science of biology and makes their job difficult to classify living organisms.

In response to Serdar, I believe the study of biology is only possible with accurate classification. Serdar also touch the beauty of organization. Being organized is essential to biologist. Without taxonomy to align and specify the foundings of biologist, keeping track of all living organisms would be considered impossible.

Matt Hobden response to topic 3:

To begin with, Taxonomy would be considered as the science of classification, and without it there would be no organization of all the different types of organisms. Without the identification of organisms the science of biology would have no concept and be indescribable. Having the classification of organisms is what makes the science of biology able to study life and living organisms. Without it the science of biology organisms would have no classification to their description, identification, and characteristics.

Cody Bartusiak's response:

I believe that the science of biology and taxonomy go hand in hand. Nether science could be possible with out the other. In order to further biology and discover new things within it, you must be able to know the origin and characteristics of the organism being studied whcih comes from taxonomy. However, the same goes for taxonomy becuase there wouldn't be anything scientific to characterize organisms by without knowing the make up of an animal and how it works. This leads to both biology and taxonmy being biproducts of eachother because they need eachother'ss information to be able to evolve and become more accurate.

Cody Bartusiak's Response to Matt Hobden:

I completely agree with everything you said. I also believe that they need eachother in order for them to survive or otherwise the other science would be nonexistent. This would lead to biology and taxonmy being non-progressable and it wouldn't prevail to the extent that it does today.

Matt Hobden response to Haley:

Your statement about comparing biology without taxonomy to a lightbulb without electricity couldn't be anymore correct. Taxonomy is the main branch of biology and without it the organization of organisms would be one big mess.

Brittany Grant's response and reply :

Taxonomy, is a subdivision of systematics which is the science of biological classification, so without taxonomy biology wouldn't function. Not only is taxonomy used to indicate relationships among organisms, but also to help identify organisms whether we wish to do so purely for pleasure or for research purposes. In addition, a description of a group of organisms is usually accompanied by taxonomic key, which taxonomists design to help identify specimens belonging to the group in question. In this case taxonomy is an important purpose in biology as it serves in identifying of specimen which is useful in knowledge. Which can also be based either on characters that reflect actual evolutionary relationships or on characters that are simply convenient and knowing evolutionary relationships among organisms which is important for all types of biological investigations.

In response to Cody Bartusiak, I agree with you that biology and taxonomy does go hand in hand also that both are dependent on each other. As an example, at each step, species are divided into two groups on the basis of the presence, absence, or degree of development of some characters. This comes in as saying that they need each other's information to evolve as you said in your last sentence as to be more accurate.

Damian Gitter Topic 3 Response and Reply:

Discuss how you think the science of biology would function without taxonomy. Could it function at all?

No, biology without taxonomy wouldn't "work" because it would have nothing to prove, nothing to find, nothing to solve, nothing to study. By definition, taxonomy names and categorizes all living things on earth putting everything in their own class. The definition of biology is: the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields. Already by the definition we can tell that biology wouldn't be able to study living organisms without taxonomy because it wouldn't even know where to start, it would be stopped. Taxonomy allows biology to progress, to study and to learn about everything around us without it biology wounds exist, wouldn't work.

In response to Cody Bartusiak, I completely agree with him because like he said, taxonomy and science go hand to hand and none of them would be possible without the other. None of them could make any progress if the other one didn't exist. To make progress in both fields they need each others information, knowledge to progress and to be more accurate.

Tomer Bitton response:

Taxonomy is the system of classifying living organisms and their relationships. A classified list of living organisms is essential to the science of biology. Without taxonomy, biologists would take ages to conduct their studies and so forth. Biology is the study of living organisms but without their classifiction, studying living organism would be nearly impossible. The amount of chaos and disorganization in Biology would be horrendous, to say the least.

Tomer Bitton reply to Damian Gitter:

I like the statement "Already by the definition we can tell that biology wouldn't be able to study living organisms without taxonomy because it wouldn't even know where to start, it would be stopped". There would be no biology; if we can't at least classify living organisms, then how do you expect we study them? Taxonomy creates a base of comparison for biologists to use for when studying similar animals so they can correlate data with previously recorded data.

Jonathan McGale response:

Taxonomy is a type of organization system that is very important for science to evolve as quickly as possible. It is basically a way to classify some elements in group and categories. It is very useful in science for the classification of the different projects that are made by the scientifics. I don’t think it would be possible for the science of biology to advance and evolve without some organization and classification. The projects would be all disorganized soi t would be a lot harder for the scientific to be organized in their test. Maybe it could be possible, but the science would evolve a lot slower than it do with taxomony.

Jonathan McGale's reply to Damian Gitter:

I agree with Damian Gitter when he said that the science of biology would work without taxomony because it would not have anything to prove because there would not be any classification. Science of biology is classified in many different categories. It would be too much disorganized to progress and continue to evolve. So, taxonomy is essential for the science of biology.

Laura Santos Response:

Can science of biology function without taxonomy ? I believe it can because before Linnaeus came to save the day with his discovery at some point the show must have gone on and it did prior to Linnaeus even being alive. I feel like taxonomy provides organization and the ability to classify every animal to a broad range of kingdoms down to a very specific species. Which in the long term enable the scientist or anyone in general to properly observe the animals and contribute to the findings. Yet life without the taxonomy I think that , I don't want to say that it wouldn't make a difference because of course its impact was very , impactful, but I do think that scientist would just only lack the universal language that the taxonomy provides. We would just have several information from all around the world in different languages with different meanings. So will it be disorganized yes but I do still believe that it will be able to function at all because at some point we did.

Laura Santos Response to Haley Vaughn:

I do agree with you Haley that biology would be at a stand still and I really liked how you compared it to A light Bulb without a light because that is true I do believe that although taxonomy provided us with great advances I think that without it , it wouldn't really affect that much if we lived without it we just wouldn't be able advance as much because we would be stuck trying to translate and organize notes with other scientist who may have discovered something that we have yet to discovered.

Kimberly Canas Response:

Science Biology wouldn't function without taxonomy because it plays a very important roll in that of the fact that it helps to classify most things in the biological world. It would be difficult to work without taxonomy in the science of biology because without it, it would be difficult for biologist and other researchers to help oraganize and differentiate the different types of species and things in the biological world. I think it would make it really difficult to keep the science worlds organize in that of the different types of species and other things involved, it would make everything more hard to understand and make research to keep advancing further in research of science life. Without taxonomy in the science of biology, it will make it very difficult to be able to keep and differentiate species and things, and just make it really hard to make it understandable and further explain things due to the fact of not having taxonomy; the classification of science life.

Kimberly response to Mat Hobdon:

I agree with Matt because we both agree that science biology wouldn't function without taxonomy because it wouldn't classify things that we have now or even scientist wouldn't go beyond to classify animals or plants because it would come under to one kingdom. Without taxonomy we would be lost because it's what catigorize everything in the world and we probably wouldn't study the life of biology.

Barb Wisinski reply and response: 

I do not believe that biology could exist without taxonomy, at least not the way they exist today. Since taxonomy is a classification system of living beings I believe it would directly affect our understanding of biology, without it we would not be able to understand evolution and the events that led to the creation of new species. We would be able to group certain animals without taxonomy but not in such detail as we do today. With out taxonomy we would not be able to make advances in the would of biology. I believe biology would function but not nearly at the level it does today. 

I'm response to Serdar, I agree with your view point especially that biology would be at a stand point. I think biology would exist but at the same basic point it existed during the creation of taxonomy. We would still be curious about the world around us but not be able to classify it in the way we do present day.      

Cynara Scheuer response:      

Would the world be able to function without the tool of taxonomy? I believe it would not be able to function because if we found a new species, we wouldn't be able to classify it or understand which class it belongs to. For example, if scientist found a new species in the ocean they would not know what type of animal it is or which class belongs to. Without this knowledge, scientist will be calling the species a different name then what they actually are.      

Cynara Scheuer replys to Jonathan McGale:      

I agree what Johnathon says because with any species we wouldnt know what to call them or be able to do research on them. Without any data, there wont be knowledge on the species.      

Valerie Speer Response and Reply:

Taxonomy and Biology work WITH each other in order to produce the science we study today.  Without taxonomy, biology would not have the luxory of being able to support the structure and origin of its study.  Just like taxonomy, biology has several fields of study with more in detailed sub-categories.  It is important to know that without taxonomy we would not be able to properly classify new discoveries of organisms, plants and whatever else we might come into contact with. 

I completely agree with Cynara because we need to understand and classify which class the new speicies would belong to.  Knowing the difference between a mammal or a fish is a HUGE factor when learning how to classify certain animals and species.  A dolphin being a mammal and shark being fish shows they may look alike, but are very different. 

Topic 2: Edit

Using what you read in the e-reader, discuss the role of ethics in the study of animals.

Andrew Halloran (your professor) adds:

Do you think the Koko study was/is ethical or scientific?

Valerie Speer Reply and Response to Topic 2:

For us human's ethics is what defines our actions as right or wrong. We like to believe that we live by a code of ethics and that code of ethics varies depending on what culture, religion, environment, or family you are raised around. However, when it comes to animals some people like to believe that animals ALWAYS know when they're right or wrong, and I find that to be completely false. I'll use my dog as an example, the only time she know's when she's done something wrong is if we yell at her or lock her in her cage. Without that negative reinforcement she would perhaps keep on repeating that same action over and over again. Same goes for positive reinforcement, if she does something right (such as a trick) she knows she is going to get a treat so she'll do it only when we present the treat. The ethics of animals all depends on the types of conditioning and environment they are exposed to.

I agree with Jonathan M when he talks about the feelings and emotions of animals and how we must respect them. Animal testing can come to certain degree's (not talking about cosmetic) but more or less the area's of conditioning, such as Pavlov's study with the dog's saliva. Although there were not much ethics in that case, he basically conditioned the dogs to drool when they knew they were about to be fed. Overall, the role of ethics in humans and dogs are very different.

Matt Hobden response to topic 2:

When studying animals some people chose whether to think animals have feelings or to think they have a mind of their own. For instance, judging by a monkeys most people would have to agree that they are like humans in many ways especially taking into fact they can do human like things such as walk on two feet or act a certain way. However, in the role of ethics do some people think, does it even go farther than that? Some people chose to perform tests in order to get results so that they can have the satisfaction of knowing whether they were right or not. So when it comes to the role of ethics when studying animals the real question is, is it really the right thing to do?

Barb Wisinski reply and response:

Ethics is a greatly discussed topic not only in the area of science but generally in everyday life. It is not firmly written anywhere what is ethical and what is not, we can only use our own judgement. That is why it becomes such a greatly disputed subject when referring to ethics in the study of animals. Since most of the time we have the upper hand while studying animals it is important to be aware of the decisions we make when trying to discover or test new ideas on them. Ethics plays a key role in the study of animals because it helps us decipher right from wrong, the only problem with this is that we all have a different perspectives on what is ethically correct. 

In response to Matt, the one part that I don't agree upon with you is on the aspect of some people having an innate quality of ethics toward animal studies. Also, trying to possibly answer your question, I believe that in many degrees we are not aware of what can be ethically correct when studying animals. We, as humans, make mistakes and sometimes it is not until a later time that we realize what we are doing is not ethically correct. Of coarse, I am not talking about the obvious beating, torture,starving, etc. of animals. I am rather referring to studies that don't have immediate effects on animals.  

Serdar Altunkaya's Response:  

It is interesting to see the role of ethics when it comes to the study of animals. When it comes to testing new medicine, rats are frequently used for testing, which is generally considered acceptable to human society because most humans have a phobia with rats. However, if another animal were used for testing, such as dogs, most people would mind because many people like dogs, as they are considered man's best friend. Ethics help us define what's right from wrong, so why would society not care if rats were used for testing, and dogs were used for that same purpose? Ethics depend also on where you come from and what environment you were raised in. For example, in China, they eat dog for meals, while to me, that seems rather disturbing.  

Ethics is not only important in the role of science, but it is also important in everyday life. Ethics help shape our perception of society based on our own morals. In response to Jonathan McGale, all animals can feel emotions just like humans can. While I am for using animals to test for new medicine, I am against harming animals during an experiment, even if the experiment is testing for new medicine, no matter what type of animal it is.  

Tomer Bitton response & reply:  

The experiment on Koko (to me) was 100% ethical. Unfortunately, the results didn't support the fact that Koko could speak our language, but the animal was not mistreated in any way. Ethics play a huge role in animal experiments - the mistreatment of animals during experimentation is not only hurting the animal but it affects the accuracy of the results of the experiment as well. For example, if you are trying to determine the effects of a certain drug on a rat running through a maze and you use malnourished rats, then your results won't be as accurate as using healthy ones. Imagine the rats were humans - would you rather use healthy humans or malnourished ones?  

I agree with Serdar Altunkaya's observation that for us humans certain animals are ok to test on while others are off limits. To me, that is a complete break of ethics! You can't say that mistreatment of animals during scientific experimentation is bad but it's ok on some animals. It's either wrong for every animal or right for every animal.  

Jonathan McGale response:  

I think that the ethics in the study of animals comes with the respect of them. We have to remember that animals can feel pain and emotions too. We need to use moral principles, it is not correct to hurt or kill an animal while doing test on it. It is important to be respectful with the animals tested. Also, it is important to always keep the results true even if there are not the results the scientific expected. It is only a matter of moral principals, scientific need to make sure they are ethically correct.  

Jonathan McGale reply to Barb Wisinski  

I agree with Barb Wisinski when he said that it wasn’t clearly written what is ethical or not and I also think it is all about moral principals. The scientifics need to think about it and decide what is good to do and what is not. For example, hurting an animal is not correct. The scientific need to take care of their animals. I also agree on the idea that everybody is different and does not think the same way, so there can be different opinions about what is ethically correct.

Brittany Grant reply and response :

The role of ethics as it relates to animals is human-animal relationship and how animals are ought to be treated. An important ethical and political issue is the use of animals in research, teaching and testing. When the needs of animals and humans come into conflict, which takes precendence ? Today there's a wide spectrum of views on this subject, ranging from those concerns with animal rights to those who view animals only as a resource to be exploited. All these viewpoints has contributed to the development of all ethical principles of the use of animals. From the dawn of time, when the first human killed and animal for food, there's been competition with animals for basic resources and likewise over the ages, humans have contemplated their relationship with animals.

Response to Barb Wisinski, I agree with you on ethics being a very board discussion to talk about. As it relates to having our own ethics thoughts on the study of animals, I dont think that would have been possible without the theories that was used to discover these animals, we choose to have our own thoughts on them even though we're told facts about them But I do agree with the decision making on what people do as it relates to testing new discovers on animals. Ethically knowing what is wrong from right will always be an opinion on us humans.

jonathon Sofianos response topic 2:

i think ethics come into play big time during the study of animals because there is a line that you cannot cross and it is the ethics that have been placed inside you from birth and only you can stop you from yourself from crossing that line and beinfo unethical. Animals have feelings and they know exactly what's going on around them and it is inhumane to treat them only as science experiments they things, creatures that have feelings, a brain and a heart. We should treat them as such.

jonathon Sofianos response to Jonathan McGale:

i agree with you Jonathan, many scientist torture animals until they get the right results. They need to realize that the animals that they are testing on has feelings and thoughts and should realize that what they are doing is wrong.

Damian Gitter response and reply to topic 2:

Using what you read in the e-reader, discuss the role of ethics in the study of animals.

According to the ebook ethics is: the study of standars of right and wrong. I believe thats this is questionable and can affect the persons judgment of believeing what is right and what is wrong depending on their personality and life background. Science uses animals most of the times to do research on a species or to test medication that could in the future be used on human beings. In some cases these animals suffer though out this analisis and sompeople dont actually realize this is wrong beccause they dont see that the animals are suffering. This is not because the person experimenting with the animals is a bad person that just want to see them suffer, he might just not know that what he is sdoing is wrong based on his background and judgment . Ethics in animal science is important because we are using animals and we cant just forget that they have feelings in order to test our ideas and beliefs .

Reponse to Jonathon S:

I agree with what he said becasue growing up every human being develops it personality and this imaginary line is placed separating what is right and what is wrong only for this person. Experimenting with animals the wrong way, by making them suffer, is wrong based on my own personal line and they should be treated well because they have feelings aswell.

Matt Hobden response to Johnathan:

I completely agree with your statement of giving the animals respect. Harming any type of animal for any type of experiment so that humans can learn more about them is unnecessary. There are definitely other ways to get answers rather than performing tests on different types of animals.

Kimberly Canas Response:

Ethics is the study of standards of right and wrong that part of science and philosophy dealing with moral, conduct, and judgment. Unlike human's animals don't know what is the right and wrong. Animals just like humans have feeling and emotions as well. Animals that are being experimented by people are often getting kill and are getting hurt and there should be certain level where animals aren't getting hurt because why make an animal feel pain when they have the same sense of feeling as a human being. Us like humans are born and taught what is right and wrong and animals don't have someone to teach them those elements and that is why there should be elements of respect animals and not judge them by "its just an animal, it won't feel anything".

Kimberly Canas Response to Jonathan M:

I totally agree with Jonathan M, because animals have that instinct of feelings and emotions. I believe that there should be some limits on how to treat an animal because it isn't fair to kill or hurt something that is living and has the sense of feeling pain during in expierment or without it. Animals can't talk but they sure do feel whats going through their body and whats hurting them.

Christian Gil Response:  

I believe that it is entirely up to the place animals are raised to learn certain things. I mean that is one reason why you can distinguish so well between wild animals and domesticated animals. They are raised differently because of the environment and situation. Wild animals are raised in that hunting mentality and survival mentality. Especially wolves they are raised in a pack mentality but you get domesticated and they forget all about it. They no longer have to worry about being fed or such. They just have to worry about being able to use the bathroom in the right place. If you also watch Discovery Channel or Nat Geo you can see the mother animal always picking their babies up or moving them around in order to teach them boundaries and discipline.  

Christian Gil Response to Kimberly Canas: I think in a sense Kimberly is correct. Animals may not know right and wrong but they also do. They don't understand the right and wrong as we humans perceive right and wrong. There right and wrong may be completely different. I agree that animals however due have a level of emotions that we humans choose to ignore. However as for right and wrong animals I think do in some way know what's the right thing and the wrong thing however when you look at animals stranded in caged you would think they know it's wrong but I believe it's because they re so easily conditioned they think it's the right thing.  

Marcus Stimphont’s reply and response:

Koko’s study was not ethical. One of the main characteristics of being ethical is honesty. According to section 1.2 in the Scientific Literacy 100 iBook, Truthfulness is a fundamental ethic in science. Throughout the KoKo study ethics was thrown out the window when Francine Patterson was subjectively interpreting what Koko was saying. Patterson also used the interpretation as data. In my opinion, the KoKo study proves the importance of being ethical.

I agree with Barb Wisinski’s statement regarding the importance of researchers being aware of their decisions when trying to discover or test new ideas. Ethics effects both the study of animals and everyday life. Not being ethical can effect Animal Kingdom research as well as everyday life decisions therefore it is important to concentrate on making the right decisions.

Laura Santos Response:  

In today's society one can assume that most stuff are done in the name of science, which can be a very shady mindset since the ethical lines can be very blurred depending on your prior beliefs and your upbringing. Being ethical is defined as having moral principles that dictates your actions or attitude towards something. Now I believe that the koko study was more leaning towards the ethical side rather than it being a scientific finding. Considering that people take the time to condition their pets to know when it's time to eat, I wouldn't say that my neighbor Juan is a scientist now because he got his dog to eat at a certain time they've just taken up the skill of creating habit and just become habitual to the fact that hey if I come by this bowl when he walks by there's usually food there. Even though the act of conditioning is a social science term I feel like just with that association alone sort of steers the act as a ethical situation and not a scientific action. So yes the Koko study is ethical because of the lack of finding that the experiment produced they they just thought koko hand symbols that for us have meeting which ultimately leaves us the final say as to what Koko is signing us just like the keynote presentation said when the audience got the opportunity to ask any conclusion that you could have come to would have been at the mercy of what the translator decided to translate and how she decided to interpret taking into consideration what koko had learned and/or practiced that particular day, which were all contributing factors to the answers the translator told to the public

Laura Santos Response to Brittany Grant:

 I Completely agree with you Brittany , it's always been a battle between Animals and humans. Humans always demanding dominance toward the animals and always testing everything out on animals, always studying their ways and claiming to do so and justify their actions towards animals in the name of science and expanding the common knowledge that we have of them which is why I mentioned that the ethical lines regarding animals and the act of studying them and testing them is somewhat blurred.  

Cynara Scheuer response:

For the study of animals, ethics has been different for each animals that is getting tested on. For example, when the ocean is getting study there is a code of ethic that is being followed. The code of ethic that is being followed is how you interact with the environment you are in and treat it correctly. If this code of ethic isn't followed,the ocean can be in great danger or the animals that are living in the area will be affected differently. Having ethcis can help scientist know how to do their research in different environments with the animals that live in that environment.

Cynara Scheuer replies to Christian Gil:

I totally agree on what you are saying since domestic and wild animals are living completely different lives. They will act different when they are getting tested on for a scientist doing a research on them.

Cody Bartusiak's response:

I believe ethics plays a huge part in the study of animals. Although Koko's study was mostly ethical because they did nothing to harm her in any mental or physical way, there are a lot of studies where they don't treat the subject well. I understand that sometimes the only way to gather data for scietifc reasons is to try and test it out on animals, but that doesnt mean that it is ethical. Since ethics is what society defines as "right" or "wrong" most studies on animals are unethical. This is due to the fact that the animals don't have a choice as to whether or not they want to be part of the study. However, in order to research some areas of science, ethics must be broken.

Cody Bartusiak's response to Damian Gitter:

I agree with Damian becuase its not ethical to treat animals the ways that they have been treated for sience. To do a test and see if it has positive or negative effect isn't fair to the animals because they could be in pain and they scientist wouldn't know how bad the pain is. I also agree with the fact that some things have to be tested out in order to get results and help further the scientific method.

Topic 1: Edit

If you watch an episode of Star Trek, you'll find aliens from other worlds that resemble the animal kingdom on Earth (giant reptiles, hominids, large insects). Is this scientifically valid? If alien life existed on another planet, would it be similar to animal life on Earth? Why or why not?

Matt Hobden response:

Taking into account that alien life did exist on another planet, animal life would consist of a completely different type of animal species. Any other planet would have different climates, food, and water therefore resulting in different life. Their food would have different nutrients which are components in foods that an organism uses to survive and grow. Animals on earth have accustomed themselves to specific foods in the food chain which give them their shape and size. As expected a different planet would consist of a different food chain due to the atmosphere resulting in a completely different form of animal.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response:

If alien life hypothetically existed on another planet, society as a whole could not say for sure that those aliens would resemble any living mammals on the Earth. While we may have an idea of what aliens look like based on what we have seen in the media, those images are just an imagery of what alien life COULD look like. To use some examples, "ET" and "Roger" (American Dad) are some people's view of what aliens from another world could look like. However, the world that aliens come from and the Earth may be similar in a lot of ways, but may also be different, which could directly correlate what an alien from another world would look like. 

Jorge Polanco's response:

Star Trek as other movies that show how might aliens look, just are a product of human imagination. These assumptions are not based in the scientific method, are just thoughts from extremely creative minds. The resemblance between these figures and the animals on earth are simply a very well formulated coincidence, because if it were true we might already know how aliens look like.

The similarity between aliens and earth’s animals could be possible, but honestly assuming they look similar or not is just making an uneducated guess. Thinking outside the box, animals and aliens might be similar, we don’t know if out there in space is another planet earth in which “aliens” “might” be thinking same way we do.

Matt Hobden reply to Jorge Polanco: 

completely agree with your statement Jorge about how aliens might look from a humans imagination however, bear in mind that any other animal outside of earth could have distinct looking features such as an overly large head or 1 to many eyes. We will never really know until we discover it. But what we do know is that there is no other planet that is completely identical to earth though maybe somewhere out there, there is one similar containing a different animal like ours just not interchangeable to ours? Serdar Altunkaya's Response: While it may be very possible that aliens are on the Earth as we speak, it is impossible to know for sure. We can speculate that aliens on other planets may be similar to creatures on Earth based on what we see in the media, but nobody can say for certain. For example, there could be an alien who looks exactly like "ET" with similar traits; however, there could also be one who looks totally different. You can also use "Roger", the alien from "American Dad". Aliens could look just like these two guys, but could also look totally different and may also communicate in a totally different manner. 

Jonathan McGale' response: 

I think that the aliens that we see on those Television shows are only made by the imagination of the movie producers. There are an uneducated guess made by people that are not qualified to guess and test the hypothesis. I don not think that an aliens would look like something that exist on Earth because the aliens would have evolved in a different climat, with different food, temperature, air conception, vegetations, animals, and others. On the other planet, all is different from the Earth, so the aliens will be different too.

Jonathan McGale's reply to Jorge Polanco:

I agree with Jorge when he said that he tough that those aliens seen on the television are the results of the human imagination and that in is not proven that it would look like that. It Could look like that but it could also look completly different because of the differences of the two planets, I also agree with the facts that he thinks that those people who create the aliens seen on television are making a uneducated guess.

Serdar Altunkaya's Response to Jonathan McGale: 

Jonathan, I absolutely agree with you that the movie and television producers depict what THEY feel like aliens look like without taking the general population's viewpoint on the subject. However, I wouldn't necessarily call it an uneducated guess. There are so many different depictions of aliens on television or in movies that one of those depictions may prove accurate. For example, the Men in Black trilogy has had many alien creatures in those movies, so one of those depictions may be right, even though there is a strong possibility that all those depictions are totally wrong to a certain extent. However, I do agree with you that a different climate, different food, temperature, air conception, etc. can alter the appearance of an alien. 

Jonathon Sofianos response:

Although personally I think that the aliens and everything around the aliens would resemble humans and the earth's animal and plant life, it is all depemdent on how the plants, animals and humans were made. If they each had the same cell pattern and organism then who's to say they would resemble the things we have on earth? But it's very unlikely that the other planets in other galexies have the same molecular set up as the animals we have here.

Laura Santos Response:

Assuming that aliens are a thing I would like to believe that the reason why they resemble the animal kingdom on earth is because someone is questioning what if the animals here on earth gain consciousness and become on top of the food chain and knocking us down with no way to subdue them. In any event I feel that this can be scientifically valid because going back to dsl 100 ebook starting from the big bang on another planet evolution may have taken an unexpected turn or may have not gotten as far as we did and just never got to the caveman part of the evolution. If alien life existed on another planet I do believe that it can be similar to animal life on earth. Instead of human beings getting the opportunity to grasp the concept of life and just evolve and mature and adapt to the environment maybe that torch may have been handed to the animals on that particular planet.

Laura Santos's Reply to Jonathan McGale:

I completely agree with you Jonathan which is what I was saying that basically the fact that in movies the aliens look like animals its because the producers are basically trying to make an alternative reality in which the animals of the earth instead of us were on top of the food chain. You are right these are uneducated guess and for the most part their imagination is runned by the amount of money they may profit by making a certain scene like it is.

Kimberly Canas Response:

Believing that aliens may exist. I don't think that they can resemble the animal kingdom on earth because due to the lack of evidence we have on aliens other then movies. Alien race could even be exact opposite of animals and could even look like human life. the possibilities could be their but I do not think they look like our animal kingdom because their is only two race on earth which is human and animal life; due to two races on earth I don't think its possible that aliens can form or look like animals on earth.

Kimberly Canas response to Matt Hobden response: I agree witth Matt Hobden differment species of animal eat different foods and have different elects in food that make animals look like or different and other planets; there food can different from earth food and making aliens looks different.

Christian Gil Response:

I believe there may be some validity to alien creatures somewhere out in the universe resembling life on earth but also I strongly believe that depending on certain circumstances they won't. Life one art developed due to how the environment around it was shaped. The oxygen levels, the carbon levels, all these things are what shaped life on our planet. Now if a planet somewhere out there, maybe like some of the ones Nasa has spotted have a relatively similar oxygen level and so forth than it is possible they could develop similar creatures however we also believe that their are certain things for life, for all we know on other planets those animals developed differently because they don't need the things we need to survive.

Christian Gil Response to Jonathan McGale': I agree. What we imagine aliens looking like is only based on what WE are. We don't know if they need certain things to live. We only shape them like what we know because it is what we know. But the real answer is simple, we don't know. Maybe alien life doesn't need oxygen, or eyes, or ears. But we don't know because we evolved a certain way because of the environment we were developed in.

Barb Wisinski response and reply: 

Star Trek's representation of alien creatures with similarities to living beings in our animal kingdom is scientifically invalid. I believe this because our animals are most likely subjected to different environmental pressures (along with a different history of environmental pressures) than those of the creatures from alien planets in Star Trek. If alien life did exist on another planet, it most likely would not be similar to animal life on Earth because of the sheer amount of coincidence necessary to provide the exact same environmental factors to create similar a similar fork of life. 

In response to Matt, I agree with his point of view. The only detail I don't agree with in his response is that I do not believe life on another planet would be classified as an "animal". It is possible, but I believe life will be found in a different type of form due to the vast array of external variants present in space.   

Cynara Scheuer response: 

The question above is scientifically invalid because any living factor is different from each other since they are living on different planets. If there were alien life forms on different planets, they would be completely different from each other. The reason why is because they will be adjusting to their oxygen levels, the ecosystems on the planet that they are living on, and the other major factors that make sure life forms can survive. 

Cynara Scheuer replies to Kimberly Canas response: 

I agree what you said because we don't have enough information on alien life forms themselves besides what movies betray them to be. It would help to have more information so we do know if they are just like us or just like animals. 

Damian Gitter Response and Reply: 

Star Trek is a sci-fi series that was written by using the imagination of its writers. This cant actually confirm that aliens do actually exist or even if they could live on Earth just like we do. I believe that this is scientifically invalid because since aliens, if the arrive on Earth, they will resemble their own way on life in their planets. Since every planet is different with different gravity, temperature and even different gasses we cant not really tell if their life could be similiar to the animal life here on Earth. I believe it won't because they would be different that any human/living organism here on Earth due to their planet conditions and way of living.  

I agree with Jonathan McGale's response because since Star Trek is fictional and the producers, writers don't have any evidence if aliens do exist or if they even can live under our conditions here on earth. Like he said, I believe that life on Earth and on other plants are different due to the conditions and that would not likely allow alien life on Earth like we see on the television show. 

Valerie Speer's Response and Reply:  

Due to the environment and condition's on earth being completely different from the conditions in space, the argument that Aliens would resemble animals that exist on earth, would be completely invalid. The creatures in Star Trek were sketched fully from imagination with some help inspired by the current animal life here on earth, however this would nearly be impossible. Earth and Space have two different atmosphere's which make it impossible for us humans to survive up there without special suit's and air supply, so how would it be that animals that live in the same environment as us here on earth would survive up there? They wouldn't!! If the animal's here somehow adapted to life in space and were then called "Aliens", their whole physical appearance would change as well..  

I completely agree with Jonathan's first response where he brought up the figment of imagination the producers used to create the creatures in star trek. I also agree with the point he makes about our environments being different and how that would affect the physical outcome of these creatures. It is important that he brought up the climate, temperature, food, and vegetation because all of those factors are major contributors in an animal/humans development.  

Marcus Stimphont's Response and Reply:  

Much like other fictional series, Star Trek has created a Sci-fi franchise based on what aliens could possibly look like. Whether aliens resemble the exact same image depicted on Star Trek or other television shows is unknown. Dating back hundreds of years ago, animals have constantly evolved and adapted to their surroundings to survive. Animals on earth rely on oxygen, food, water and among other things to survive in their environment. Aliens rely on other on forms of survival and have adapted to their specific environment to survive. Between the evolving animals experience on earth and the adaptions aliens face on their planet, it is unlikely for alien life to be similar to animal earth on earth. 

I agree with both Jonathan McGale and Valerie's response. They both are on the same page as me. Earth has different living conditions than other planets. Jonathan pointed out that Earth has different temperature, vegatations and Valerie noted the atmosphere difference on earth as well as space. These key components create a strong argument for why alien life on other planets is different from anima life on earth.  

Cody Bartusiak's Response and Reply:  

There are many factors that make this not scientifically valid. The likely hood that there are other living forms that look like anything we have on earth is very small. Although there are planets that have been discovered with similar characteristics to Earth, there is a small chance that their species have evolved exactly the same to where they look similar to what we have on earth. There are many obstacles that evolution had to get over and those obstacles are what have shaped what everything looks like on earth today. For any other plant to have those exact same or even similar occurrences would be near impossible. Although they might not look the same, I believe that there's life somewhere in the universe even if it's not similar to what is here on Earth whether it be much smaller and not evolved or evolved in completely different ways.  

I complete agree with Barb Wisinski. If there is to be life on other planets, there is no way that they look anywhere close to the same as life on earth. There are just too many evolutionary changes that shape different forms of life to be suitable for their environment.

jonathon Sofianos responose to barb:

although I respect your idea I do believe that there would be some similarities between humans and aliens. And I'm not talking about skin or face wise I'm just strictly speaking about the body, how there will be a male and female version and they would both have 2 arms and 2 legs. They would also have a center control part of their body like we have the brain.  

Latest activityEdit

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.