Get help now

Skull Comparison Lab Report

  • Pages 3
  • Words 713
  • Views 168
  • dovnload

    Download

    Cite

  • Pages 3
  • Words 713
  • Views 168
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    We were late assigned the undertaking of analyzing, note pickings, comparison, and contrasting three different types of skulls. All three had the same basic make-up, but each had its ain particular characteristics similar to us. The theory that all of us are different in some certain manner by signifier of fluctuation; which set the one apart from the others and made it evidently a different type of being or species. We had been told to find which two groups of skulls were most closely related after a series of experiments. We came to the hypothesis, after discoursing, that groups two and three would be the closest species out of the three because by merely peeking at the three groups, the physical characteristics were really much alike in the two skulls we chose than in the other. Then after even taking a closer expression at them from up near, we found even more grounds that backed up our hypothesis, but didn’t turn out it yet.

    The stuffs we used to back up our hypothesis are as follows:

    • Skulls 1B, 2A, and 3B.
    • A measurement tape for quantitative observations
    • Liquids for seting the skull in when measurement volume
    • A calibrated container for mensurating the liquid obtained while mensurating volume
    • Pen and paper for taking observations.

    Our process was to utilize the measurement tape to mensurate the perimeter of the oculus sockets; the span across the forepart of the dentition, left to compensate grinder; the underside of the forehead ridge to the underside of the braincase; the length of the olfactory organ; and the span between the top of the jaw to the beginning of the skull’s dentitions. We so measured the volume of each encephalon by make fulling the braincase with H2O and pouring the H2O into a calibrated cylinder, step the H2O and record it. When we were done with all of these experiments, we would enter the consequences and figure the differences between each. We would happen the differences by deducting the consequences of 1B, from the consequences of 2A, the consequences of 1B to the consequences of 3B. The consequences of 2A from 3B and 1B, and the consequences of 3B from 2A and 1B. These figures would state us the differences between the quantitative consequences and besides give us a more accurate rating of this lab.

    Besides these quantitative observations we besides took notes on the physical visual aspect and these observations, which gave us our hypothesis besides pointed to the decision that two and three were most closely related largely because of the form of the braincase and the forehead ridge difference.

    The differences between the three types of skulls are really balanced, but we still believe that skulls two and three are the most closely related, if non for the quantitative consequences, for the observations made by common sense and physical observations. Since I am non trained ( yet ) how to find precisely what the species is, but with the engineering today, a trained scientist in the field of biological science could easy state us which were closely related and which weren’t. We ran out of clip before we could enter the volume, but if I could foretell what the volume was, I would state that skull 1B would hold a really little sum because the physical make-up looked like the braincase was the size of a monkey caput. It seemed like the 2nd and 3rd were much more human than the first.

    I conclude that throughout common sense observations, notes, research, and through experiments that the skulls that we had hypothesized are the most closely related. I believe in gradualism and besides believe that these skulls may hold evolved into each other. If this is true, I believe that skull one existed foremost, so two and three. Skull three looks really human to me and skull two is closer to being human than skull 1. My hypothesis, I believe, was proved, over a series of experiments, to be true.

    Since I did bask this experiment I would wish to make more research in the field subsequently in my life. I have learned from it that there is so much work that scientists do and particularly archaeologists that helps us happen the significance of life.

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Skull Comparison Lab Report. (2017, Jul 22). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/skull-comparison-lab-report-essay-research-paper/

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper
    We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy