Blog Feed

Create a Post

How Did The Human Eye Evolve?

Posted by Jennifer Albright in Science and Society - Best on

Human Eye
Human Eye

The most commonly used argument against Darwinism and for Intelligent Design is the human eye and it’s complexity. How did the human eye evolve? How does this change the strength of the argument of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

There are currently two competing theories as to how life on Earth came about, Darwinism, evolution and natural selection, and Intelligent Design, some great architect creating life. The most promising evidence for Intelligent Design had been the human eye and the argument that the independent pieces (the retina, lens…) had to have come about all at once for organisms to see. However, scientists have a theory as to how the eye evolved, creating a disturbance in the most prominent argument of Intelligent Design.

humane7
Diagram of Evolution of the Human Eye

 Here’s the theory for the evolution of the eye: the original “eye” was a collection of cells on the skin (that curved inward like an eye socket) that helped organisms to “see” light, helping it to “see” if any other organism was in that direction because of the break in the light that the organism saw. Eventually the amount of light that the cells could detect was narrowed to give organisms better direction. And from this the cells became a retina, which helped the organism see even more clearly. Finally, the eye grew a lens that helped the organism to see even more clearly. We can even see these different stages of eye development in living species today.

And so, due to evidence of the evolution of the human eye, Intelligent Design loses its most promising argument. If there had been any disagreements as to whether Intelligent Design was a scientific theory, we now see that by ripping apart it's best argument it leaves us with a new term for creationism.

For more information on the argument against Intelligent Design see:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page05.html

For more information on Evolution pick up Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body- Neil Shuban.

What is the difference between a myth and a theory?

Posted by Rachel Patterson in Science and Society - Best on

 What is the difference between myth and theory?


White_square_with_question_mark

 

            This is the question that has been bothering me for the past month.  If the theory of evolution is so troublesome to the school district, why aren’t greek myths?  Is it not true that both Greek myths and the theory of evolution deal with the theme of how life was created? Could they both not potentially influence student views on creation? What makes them so different?

 

            After much research, I have discovered that a myth can be apart of a theory. Myths are stories that are created as an explanation for why certain things exist.  These tales date back to the early history of people.  A theory can be used to explain why myths exist all over the world.  There is actually a theory known as “The Jesus Myth Theory” that poses the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but a fictional character or mythological archetype created by early Christians.  The idea that Jesus was not real but was a fictitious figure is apart of a larger theory that explains this myth. 

 

            According to Religion Compass, “Myths are prose narratives which, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past.”  Theories serve to explain why these myths are created.  However, myth theories that are taught in school, such as the Greek myth of Zeus, are taught in such a way that makes it obvious that the stories are fictional.


Resources:

Myth & Theory

Jesus Myth Theory

What is Myth?


Questions to Consider:

•What about a theory makes it controversial?

•What other factors separate the theory of myth and the theory of evolution?


White_square_with_question_mark
White_square_with_question_mark

Slides

Posted by Seamus Kirby in Technology - Hull on
My first slide I used aspects of design I learned from presentations zen, such as "One slide, one point", and empty space. 
Q1_tech_slide_V1
My second slide I kept the same images and words, but I made the word bigger, and I made the background black to add more contrast.
Q1_tech_slide_V2

Why Are Humans Smarter Than Chimps if We Have the Same Common Ancestor?

Posted by Kellam Farrell in Science and Society - Best on


what-makes-us-human_1

(Find this image here)

Evolution is a complicated process, but it basically happens like this. When one species separates into two groups and eventually turn into two different species is what is called speciation. As these two groups acquire different traits from each other, they are going through what is called natural selection which they go through in order to adapt so they would be best fit to live in their environment. When these two groups have finally become different species, they have evolved. A perfect example of this is from looking at a certain kind of bird that has two different kinds of traits. One group of this bird lives in the west and is white. The other group of this bird lives in the east and is black. Right now, they are a part of the same species, but since they do not mate with each other and live in different locations, they will eventually become two different species because they will be passing different kinds of traits on to their offspring.

images

(This image gives an explanation to natural selection. Find it here)

This is what happened with humans and chimps. What I want to know is if humans and chimps evolved from the same species, why did humans become so much smarter than chimps? A long time ago, humans and chimpanzees were the same species. Lets call this species A. It is likely that species A had more chimp like traits than human like traits. Nobody knows for sure, but it is probable that the reason why humans have become so much smarter than chimps is because humans have had more changes in traits from species A than chimps have. It is likely that when species A was separated, the group that evolved into chimps did not move to a highly different environment from where they already lived and the group that became humans moved far away and they were required to have bigger brains in order to survive in their new environment.


Sources:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-us-human


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/natselect.html

Changes_Hunt_Hull_Slide_Kat_Tech

Posted by Katherine Hunt in Technology - Hull on
​Based on what I learned in class and now that I have presented there are minor changes that were made on my part. The color blue where it says " The love within is portrayed in different ways" was changed to the color yellow , since the background is black. This made it easier for the color to be seen and my personal quote to be read. Also, playing around with where the words where was another change because of the fact that on my first slide it seemed like there was a lot of empty space, which attracted people more to that space than to the words on the actual slide. Last, the fact that the words had effects to them made it seem unprofessional. 
Hunt Hull slide(Kat) tech 1029
Hunt Hull slide(Kat) tech 1029_2

my awesome slide.

Posted by Aidan Rios in Technology - Hull on
Well, i really wouldn't change nothing about my slide cause i think that my slide is the best slide in this whole entire universe/world/cosmos. so i think that my slide is perfectly fine just the way it is. It as taste it as awesomeness. like what else can you ask for in a slide? so, my slide is just fine the way its is and i would change nothing about it.
Rioshullslidetech1029.001
Rioshullslidetech1029.001

Tails, Monkeys have them why don't humans?

Posted by John Derry in Science and Society - Best on
​ Well there is a simple answer to this question, but my fellow classmate David Buckholtz said it best, "Evolution. Duhh!" Monkeys and humans go hand and hand. At least it does to Darwin and the people who agree with his theory. But if they are so closely related where is the tail??? Monkeys throughout history have always had a tail. It has become very handy to survive in their environment. And come on, who wouldn't want a tail?


(This picture was provided by University of Maryland) 
So, this brings up the question why do humans or homosapeins not have a tail? Was it the work of the dreaded evolution? Or was it another source. I was given a very good clue about the answer to this question from a good source. "Well it's not like humans never had tails didn't they have umbilical cords?" said Mr. Best, one of the many science teachers at Science Leadership Academy.
The umbilical is a vital part of human life. It has three very distinct functions. According to ehow,"The umbilical cord has three functions for the developing fetus: it supplies oxygen, it delivers nutrients, and it helps to withdraw blood rich in carbon dioxide and depleted in nutrients." The nutrients come from the mother. So, once the umbilical cord fall off where do the nutrients come from???


(This picture was provided by google images, if you can not see the picture, just click on the link please and thank you.)

Well the everybody needs a certain nutrients to grow, so many people get them from outside sources such as McDonald's or even from a neighborhood drug store. But is this a good enough reason for us not to have tails? So, since monkeys can't go to Mcdonalds they need their tails. But wait a monekys' tail does not work in the same action as an umbilical. So the question still hangs. If monkeys get a tail, why do humans not?
(This picture was provided by Simians to Sapeins to Sidhas)

So, after concluding information a new question came to mind did man evolve from monkeys or apes? Obviously from looking at this diagram man evolved from an ape. Apes never had tails. So, it would make since neither would man. So, the question has been answered. But on the positive we have learned much about umbilical cords. So, in theory man and ape have had tails. But some may say it was just an umbilical cord. 

Sources:


http://www.umm.edu/pediatrics/residents/journal-club/Cochrane%2520Review%2520of%2520Topical%2520Cord%2520Care%2520for%2520CAT%2520PGY-2.pdf
http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/babyronald_1_1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2006/05/mcdonalds_gives.html&usg=__RcbU9ll9ooT0D3uuznySTicZ6X4=&h=362&w=462&sz=29&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=y-p1aY2OwUrzRM:&tbnh=137&tbnw=175&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmcdonalds%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26qscrl%3D1%26biw%3D1163%26bih%3D572%26tbs%3Disch:10,147&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=429&ei=yjvdTM3sKoK0lQeW5Yn-DA&oei=yjvdTM3sKoK0lQeW5Yn-DA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0&tx=110&ty=98&biw=1163&bih=572

Why Only Five Tastes?

Posted by Desiree Mack in Science and Society - Best on
Taste_buds
Taste_buds

Desireé Mack

Science and Society

                                     Why Only Five Tastes?

 I have all way wondered why Humans have the ability to taste so many things, to what limit can we taste things, and how many taste buds we have. I knew it had to do with making sure our food is not poison but I want to know more. Humans have taste buds to make a choice on what to ingest so we need our taste buds to sample the food to decide what to put in our mouths and what to ingest. When you look at your tongue you see lots of little pink bumps, and in those little pink bumps you have your taste buds. All taste buds are on the outer edges of your tongue. All taste buds can taste multiple flavors because inside them you have multiple cells to pick up the flavor. 

There are five main tastes, one for sweet, sour, savory, bitter, and salty. Animals have evolved to taste sugar to find carbohydrates for energy and a safe source for calories. Animals have evolved to taste savory things to be able to pick up the taste of protein. There are over 25 different types of bitter taste buds to pick out the things that might be toxic to eat and allows us to have enough sensitivity to taste something beneficial in the long run.  We have evolved to taste sour to protect us from eating things to sour that would throw our bodies out of whack and helps us figure out the ripeness of our food for nutritional value. Salt is very important to our biological task our bodies don’t store salt so it is very important that we find foods with salt.


I Now Pronounce You Chimp & Larry

Posted by Davonte Martin in Science and Society - Best on
Screen shot 2010-11-12 at 2.14.47 AM
Screen shot 2010-11-12 at 2.14.47 AM
Image By:Da Vonte Martin

Scientific evidence has merely proven that humans share a common ancestor with Apes. Yes, that means we have some of the same DNA in fact DNA evidence proves that we share more than 98% of the same DNA.Though we share the same DNA there is an "unknown" ancestor whom takes the credit for connecting the human and ape species.With that being said most people would think that humans are able to mate with apes because the common DNA links them as the "same" species. Humans and apes share some of the same physical features like:

  • Walking up right

  • Thumbs

  • Ability to grasp with all five fingers

  • Similar skull structure

  • Round Ears

Sadly, humans can not reproduce with the monkey specie because that other 2% which makes the ape and human race are the chromosomes. Monkey's have 48 (24 pairs) chromosomes whereas the human body makes up of 46 (23 pairs). In order for any species to reproduce, both subjects need to have their 23 pairs of chromosomes because every chromosome carries DNA which corresponds to the opposite sex which enables them to have children.Though humans and monkeys cannot reproduce now , that doesn't mean that they have then. According to well-known Science Correspondent Richard Ingham, "The youngest chromosome in the human genome is the X, which helps determine gender. On average, X is around 1.2 million years more recent than the 22 non-sex chromosomes, the scientists found.". This means that the X-Chromosome in humans and apes are as recent as the first recorded humans only about seven-million years ago. So not only did humans and apes have sexual intercourse , but they were able to reproduce.Your maybe wondering "I thought humans and apes didn't have equal chromosomes to mate?". That's absolutely right , however more scientific evidence leads to the theory that during the interbreeding of the "unknown" ancestor and apes , two of the chromosomes look as if they had fused together.

Screen shot 2010-11-12 at 3.06.49 AM
Screen shot 2010-11-12 at 3.06.49 AM
​http://www.synapses.co.uk/genetics/chromos.html
"​Thus something unusual must have happened on the way to speciation: an initial split between human and chimp, followed by interbreeding..." says Richard Ingham.This means that mating between was at one point possible.At one point before the fusion of chromosomes, humans and apes were like opposite genders rather than opposite species. 

Citations:
  • Ingham, Richard. "Early humans had sex with chimps ." News in Science (2006): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1641443.htm>.
  • Ape, . "Apes." How Stuff Works. How Stuff Works, 16 May 2008. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/ape-info.htm>.
  • Marks, Jonathan. "What It Really Means To Be 99% Chimpanzee ."Department of Anthropology (1999): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm>
  • MacAandrew, Alec. "Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes ." Department of Anthropology n. pag. Web. 11 Nov 2010. <http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm>.
  • Rodriguez, Monica. "Ask a Geneticist." Tech Museum:Stanford School of Medicine (2007): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229>.
  • Pbs, Science. "Evolution Frequently Asked Questions." PBS Science (2010): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html>.

Why do men have nipples?

Posted by Christopher Cassise in Science and Society - Best on
Rough draft better

Chris Cassise

Why do men have nipples?. It’s the kind of question that doesn’t need to be answered but should be interesting to find out why they are there. It’s understandable for women to have nipples because it is the distributor for the breast milk to feed a newborn baby but a man, what does he need it for? According to Darwin’s theory on natural selection, it is theorized that men shouldn’t have nipples because during natural selection, the undesirable traits in the male/female body gradually lose their parts they don’t need over time. This would make sense as to why men have nipples; the process must not go through natural selection obviously since there must be a significant reason for it being there. A great example was the appendix, which now a useless part of our bodies was a part of the digestive track making it significant component. [1]

Men have nipples because it follows part of a female template since both sexes have similar tissue and body parts. Since this is confirmed that we share parts, it isn’t hard to understand why men just have nipples. When breasts grow abnormally on men it is called gynecomastia, which is the enlargement of breasts. So the question is simple surprisingly, Men and women follow the same template and nipples are just created no matter what sex you are and the chromosomes figure out if they will be functioning or non functioning in the process of knowing if they are going to be a man or woman. Its the effect of genes, in which the Y chromosome and hormone testosterone that changes the embryo. The idea of shared genetic basis of two traits is known as genetic correlation. Genetic correlation is “the proportion of variance that two traits share due to genetic causes.”[3] The evolutionary default is for males and females to share characters through genetic correlations.[4] Testosterone promotes the growth of the penis and testicles in men and since nipples are there before this process begins, they inhabit. Some genetic scientists have noted through this article that if nipples were harmful for the male body, they would have disappeared over time.

Source:

[1] http://www.buzzle.com/articles/appendix-function.html

[2]http://menshealth.about.com/od/conditions/a/Nipples_Men.htm

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_correlation

[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-men-have-nipples

How did diseases come about through evolution; And how are they evolving currently?

Posted by Brandon Williams in Science and Society - Best on
Diseases came about throughout evolution largely from the results of microorganisms; these microorganisms are specifically called microbes. Microbes are microorganisms that cause disease or fermentation. At a point in time microbes were contained to certain locations, meaning that at a point of time they didn’t spread very much. When humans begin making the climb toward civilizations, by making long trips, creating long distance trade, and also exploring different geographic sections of the world. Microbes begin attacking them, so it’s safe to say, that through cultural expansion diseases have evolved. It is said that the spread of microbes modernly increased through the European Industrialization and colonization.



406762ac.2
406762ac.2

This lead to the antibiotic era, this was an era when antibiotics begin to develop. In this era at a point in time, antibiotics begin to be misused and overused. At that time they didn’t know that antibiotics were only effective against bacterial infections. So this did more harm than good, because by people overusing antibiotics, microbes  became smarter making immune to them. Not only did microbes become resistant they started creating strains that were more harmful. The the Antibiotic Era also led to the misuse and overuse of antibiotics used to treat very harmful infections, like the common cold, and influenza (flu). The overuse of antibiotics helped these infections and diseases become antibody resistant which is what scientist and doctors are dealing with currently. 

disease
disease

In modern society our way of dealing with these issues are by using vaccination, or by trying to cure them straight out. But by giving vaccinations for infections like diphtheria, chicken pox, polio, tetanus, and measles, we may be helping in the current situation, but at the same time producing strains of antibody resistant microbes. In theory this may be detrimental to our generations in the years to come. As far as scientist and doctors trying to cure diseases right from the start, there have been some issues following this as well. For example when scientist and doctors tried to stop the spread of malaria with using modern antimalarial medicine, the parasites that malaria contained, revolted against it, because it became immune to the medicine, but it also created more dangerous strands of parasites. This led to mutation of genes, which birthed even more harmful diseases such as Sickle Cell Anemia, Thalassaemias, Duffy Antigens, G6PD, and HLA and interleukin-4. Allow this is an example of just one example, this is an issue that follows the process of curing the most prominent diseases know to man, such as HIV/AIDS, and cancer. Bacteria is just becoming to smart...

 

In conclusion to put it simply as humans evolved with nature, so did microorganisms, and parasites. Which are still evolving as I write this blog. The real question is how will the evolution of smarter and more efficient humans lead to better engineering of preventive medicines?


Sources:

www.unmpress.com/more/0826330657.pdf

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/darwinian-medicine-understanding-disease-in-terms-of-evolution/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454304575081613327728110.html

http://www.cdc.gov/MALARIA/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1224522/?tool=pmcentrez


 

 

The Addictive Personality.

Posted by Aidan Jamison-Frank in Science and Society - Best on

It has long been asked if there is such thing as an Addictive Personality. As you’ve grown up perhaps you’ve noticed some of your friends have become dependent on substances like caffeine or nicotine. But is this just a personality trait, or something more? Research has shown that it could be rooted in one’s DNA. According to research done at the University of Utah, an ‘addiction gene’ wouldn’t mean that someone is bound to become addicted, but rather “it may be harder for people with certain genes to quit once they start.”  

In recent studies, and Alcoholic gene, DRD2, “was present in more than two-thirds of 35 deceased alcoholics, whereas it appeared only in one-fifth of 35 deceased non-alcoholics.” This confirms that if a parent is an alcoholic, it is more likely for their children to be alcoholics as well.  According to Web MD, the genetic trait is considered a deficiency. It seems to have no contributing factor to our species survival. Additionally no scientist has presented a strong theory on why the gene developed in the first place, beside it being a random genetic mutation.

 In the same way that the 'Fat Gene' shouldn't be a scapegoat for obesity, the 'Addiction Gene' shouldn't allow the addicted to use this as an excuse for their condition. There is, of course, no cure for our own genes. The only thing that can be done is to avoid easily abused substances in the first place.

Samuel Kabangai- William C. Longstreth

Posted by Samuel Kabangai in American History - Laufenberg on
Samuel Kabangai

Hi, for our history and english project, we had to pick a building in our neighborhood that is named after some and do research on the person and the building.
I like this project a lot and through this project i got to really know new information about my neighborhood that I will always remember.
I researched the elementary school i went to, William C. Longstreth School that is right down the street from my house.I was amazed on the information that i found out about my neighborhood and information i found out about the Longstreth family. I can proudly say that, through this project I know a little bit about my neighborhood that many people that have lived here longer than me don't know, and i will be proud and happy to tell them what I have learned. I hope this project that I have done marks the first step of my goal.

Evolution of Venomous Snakes

Posted by Bria Wimberly in Science and Society - Best on
            There are many types of venomous animals like the lizards, scorpions, even snake_mainthe male duckbilled platypus. But my main focus for this blog are snakes. There are more than 2,200 species of poisonous and venomous snakes in the world. Snakes lost both arms and legs due to grassy and subterranean habitats, but evolution has handed snakes the ultimate weapon: venom. How did they evolve into venom-injecting beast and how is venom still evolving into society today?
            Snakes emerged during the Cretaceous period from lizards, but Dr Bryan Grieg Fry at the University of Melbourne believes, "that almost all snakes share a common, venomous, ancestor". Venomous snakes have similar classes of protein in their venom, suggesting that in the vast difference of habitats, snake’s venom derived from a common origin.

Venom itself also evolved, its toxins and rattlesnake_02tfkproteins being reborn from other proteins in tissues throughout the snake’s body. snake-venom toxins were derived originally from proteins in the brain, eye, lung, heart, liver, muscle, mammary gland, ovary and testis. By tweaking the proteins from other body tissues, snakes developed a way to create more specific and highly potent toxins.

Venom is still evolving today in medicine, having a beneficial effect on the body. For example, some poisons reduce blood pressure so quickly that the victim dies. But by changing and reproducing some components in venom, scientists can make a drug that reduces blood pressure.


Further Questions:
What other types of medicine can venom be substituted in?
Did venomous and poisonous snakes also evolved from the same ancestor?
Which venom is the most potent?

Links:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/whats-your-poison-527683.html
http://www.fathom.com/course/10701017/session2.html
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/snakes/snake4.htm
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/venanimals/ven_about.html
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-03/evolution%E2%80%99s-most-effective-killer-snake-venom
http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/evolution-of-snake-venom.html

Have humans managed to accelerate the evolution of a species?

Posted by Alexandra McGrorty in Science and Society - Best on
The process of evolution or natural selection takes years naturally, and is carefully fine-tuned and passed down throughout generations. However, humans try to replicate evolutionary process to document how it occurs. They also tend to invade and intrude on the habitats of other species, which can cause organisms to adapt more quickly to survive sudden changes brought on by humanity. Have humans managed to accelerate the evolution of a species?

 In some instances, humans have been known to purposely speed certain controlled processes up enough for them to document them. One of the more famous examples of this was the experiments carried out by Richard Lenski, who has, since 1988, been conducting a long-term evolution experiment using the E.coli bacterium as his subject. However, certain things (e.g. climate change) are accelerated by accident, with alarming and potentially harmful results. 

An example of this accidental acceleration was discussed in a UK Telegraph article titled "Human fishing and hunting accelerating evolution of species". By over harvesting some fish species at their most mature age and level of development, humans are causing certain fish species to change their sizes, and this is at a much more rapid rate than would happen naturally. Dr. Chris Darimont, a post-doctoral researcher in environmental studies at the University of California was quoted as saying "The pace of changes we're seeing supercedes by a long shot what we've observed in natural systems, and even in systems that have been rapidly modified by humans in other way. As predators, humans are a dominant evolutionary force."

overfishing-thousands-of-pounds-of-jack-mackerel-noaa-images

In his book "The Botany of Desire", Michael Pollan discusses the Semper Augustus (a rare and prized tulip) and Dutch "tulipmania" of the 17th century. This was a brief but intense tulip obsession in Amsterdam. It was one of the first instances of humans using natural selection to purposely change the appearance of an organism. A blight had been observed changing the colors of tulip petals, and soon a multicolored tulip became a coveted item. Farmers were introducing this blight to their tulips, which would ultimately kill the crop, but made the flowers beautiful and desired. Tulips were sold for outrageous amounts of money and a full-out craze ensued, until the market for the prized flower collapsed a few years later. 

Semper_Augustus_Tulip_17th_

Mankind has accelerated change in other species and organisms. While they may not have induced complete evolutionary change, they have certainly accelerated the rate of natural selection. This has been done both purposefully, with the intent and purpose of changing features or adding or eliminating different traits, such as with the tulips, or other examples, like dog breeding. This has also been done accidentally, for example some released or escaped pets caused an explosion of Burmese pythons in Florida, which changed biological diversity and natural evolution.  Possibly, sometime in the future, mankind will be able to accelerate actual evolution in its quest to understand nature and have concrete theories.

Ashley Weekes Q1

Posted by Ashley Weekes in Advanced Art - Hull on
In art class we were assigned an art project in which we had to create something using recycled materials. We were given several examples to guide us into the project and help with brainstorming. When I was beginning to brainstorm for this project, my original idea was to create a lamp shade using old detergent containers. I was going to melt down the containers for the mend together maybe even tint them a bit to get a different color for the light shade. My goal for this project was to ultimately create something that I would be able to use over and over again, something that would be easy to make again for family or friends.

Ultimately, that idea became difficult to create. There were so many other aspects to the project that would of taken awhile longer to make. The electronic part of it, attaching a light bulb with a harnest for the light to hang from was becoming to be difficult so I decided to brainstorm for another project. I lost a lot of artistic value in the project I originally brainstormed for, the replacement project  I came up with was less artistic. Due to timing and such I had to come up with a replacement project and since I put so much thought into my original project that most of my timing was lost for the replacement project.

The idea for my new project came from my recent birthday. I received a lot of balloons for birthday and I figured its very often we receive balloons for holidays and we don't know what to do with them so we throw them away. I figured I could reuse them, probably not in the most artistic way, but I decided to use them as book covers.

I started by deflating the balloons and cutting around the edges. The after I had the balloon opened half way, I placed a book on the deflated balloon a sized it out to match borders of the book, so it fit it neatly. I'm still trying to figure out more creative ways to use recycled art. I've found some cool interesting things online and my peers have also been doing cool and exciting things with recycled art.

Balloon Book Covers - Pictures

DSC00250

DSC00252DSC00251DSC00253

Bottle Caps Poster

Art Poster

For my bottle caps poster I thought it would be nice to look at the aquatic life's perspective of bottle caps being thrown in the ocean and how it's directly influencing them. The design of the poster was to convey sight that sort of shocking or gross to get people's attention. The wording plays a huge part in the message of this poster. The problem being that people "throw" their bottle caps tells the reader to throw the bottle caps in a place where it won't cause harm to the aquatic life in the ocean.
Art Poster
Art Poster