<p>WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT</p>
<p>oh god…oh well. probably only one point…but 1 point=1% basically… DAMMMMMMMMMMITTTT</p>
<p>velleity I did something similar. I did alga and plants, small fish, larger fish, and large predators such as shark haha</p>
<p>I used the retrovirus.</p>
<p>The lab was like the easiest question!
Chemiosmosis was so easy too.</p>
<p>i used embryology and paleontology, also. atleast i got those right. i was just talking to my friend he said he totally BS’ed the pyramid. </p>
<p>seeweed. tiny fish. small fish. big fish.</p>
<p>Wait what did people use embryology and paleontology for?</p>
<p>Yea I put oxygen concentration and mineral concentration! Lol!</p>
<p>uhhh evidence for evolution? something like that.</p>
<p>I put dissolved oxygen for the physiology one?</p>
<p>for the other things that you could use to determine phylogenic relationships.</p>
<p>i used looking at their the phenotypes and genotypes</p>
<p>Do we have to use those words? I couldn’t think of those at the tip of my tongue. I def learned those though (embryology and paleontology) I put embryonic and fossil comparisons. Same credit? or…?</p>
<p>I couldn’t think of a second one but someone tell me if I’ll at least get some points for this (my friend said it sounds wrong) but it didn’t specify!:</p>
<p>Ok so even though it said its a temperature gradient water tank, I said that in water warmer molecules will warm up colder ones by transfer of kinetic. This will increase the average kinetic energy, or the temperature, in what are assumed to be colder regions of the tank even though the experimenter believes his sections only span a certain range of temperatures.</p>
<p>=/</p>
<p>For that phylogenic relationships part I think I used like two physical appearances like presence of a useful tail and one other thing that I can’t remember. Yeah that first one wasn’t that good :P, but even though I can’t remember my first one it was good.</p>
<p>i said photoplankton, shrimp, large fish, shark, idk</p>
<p>And I used retrovirus (HIV specifically)</p>
<p>i don’t think so. i dont even remember if i used the word paleontology. but if you used fossils youre good.</p>
<p>What response is that for?
It sounds completely irrelevant.</p>
<p>Who are you responding to Position?</p>
<p>YESSS, I used HIV too. Talked about it becoming a retrovirus and then just listed as much stuff about how its different as possible.</p>
<p>I’m responding to you, Terrence.</p>
<p>For my first part about the fish question? or my phylogeny one? Like did you have to use very general things? I’m confused as to what I was supposed to do now.</p>
<p>Would Genetic Drift and Gene Flow have been acceptable for mechanisms of Evolution?</p>
<p>“Ok so even though it said its a temperature gradient water tank, I said that in water warmer molecules will warm up colder ones by transfer of kinetic. This will increase the average kinetic energy, or the temperature, in what are assumed to be colder regions of the tank even though the experimenter believes his sections only span a certain range of temperatures.”</p>
<p>Is this talking about the TWO variables that were not accounted for?</p>
<p>I think any of those general concepts were find dstfan.</p>
<p>@Position:
No that is talking about ONE. I said I couldn’t think of another.</p>