Once you understand the content in the tutorial, you will begin this assignment by opening a new Visual Studio project that has all the libraries set up correctly (which you learned how to do in a previous module). The goal of this assignment is to write commented modern OpenGL code to create a 3D pyramid. Your pyramid should use the indices and the Vertex Array Object, with each vertex on the pyramid being assigned a color of your choice. Employ the Model View Projection matrix to display the pyramid in a perspective angle. Specifically, you must address the following rubric criteria: Create code to address the required functionality. The work you complete in OpenGL must meet the required functionality and visual representation that are outlined for this particular topic. Achieving this result may require multiple attempts or the application of programming strategies, but that is okay! Working in iterations is an important part of any coding project. You may also wish to refer back to relevant sections of this week’s tutorial for further guidance or review. Apply logic and proper syntax to code. Source code should be free of logical or syntax errors that prevent the application from running as expected. You will be given credit for code that is well on its way to meeting specifications or solving the problem. Apply commenting and formatting standards to facilitate understanding of the code. All code should be well commented. This is a practiced art that requires clarity and concision. Your comments should explain the purpose of lines or sections of the code and may also include the method you used to achieve a specific task in the code. Be sure to document any sections of code that are producing errors or incorrect results. Also, all code should be organized to meet formatting standards.

Unit II Assignment—Genetics WorksheetGregor Mendel’s Experiments, Theories, and Findings 1. Mendel observed that pea plants had traits, such as color, that were either “one or the other,” never something in between. In your own words, discuss the correlation between Mendel’s factors, what they might be, and why pea plant traits come in one form or another—e.g., gray or dark red—rather than blended. Your response must be at least 75 words in length. (Type your response in the blank area below; it will expand as needed.) 2. Let’s imagine that we are studying only one trait, that of green- or yellow-colored seeds. Mendel bred his peas until they either produced seeds of one color or the other. These purebred plants he called the p generation (“p” for parental generation). He then cross bred green plants with yellow ones and discovered that all the offspring were yellow-colored. Mendel called the offspring of the purebred plants the F1 generation. In your own words, explain why all the offspring in the F1 generation were yellow instead of half being yellow and half green, or some other mix of the colors. Hint: Remember that Mendel coined the terms dominant and recessive. Your response must be at least 75 words in length. (Type your response in the blank area below; it will expand as needed.) Punnett Squares Reginald Punnett was a British geneticist who developed the Punnett square to explain how the chromosomes of parents cross and produce offspring. In order to solve genetics problems using a Punnett square, it is necessary to a) understand the associated vocabulary and b) understand some of the rules for solving the problems. Before you continue with the problems below, review the meaning of the terms allele, dominant, recessive, homozygous, heterozygous, genotype and phenotype. You should also review the Punnett Square Basics video linked in the unit lesson. In this first problem (question #3), the key and genotype of the parents will be done for you as an example. For problems #4 and #5, you will fill in those details based on the information in the question. Remember, when asked for the genotypic ratio, it may be expressed as 25%(GG):50%(Gg):25%(gg), for example. Or, you may write it more succinctly as 1GG:2Gg:1gg. Either way will be correct. The phenotypic ratio will use descriptive terms, for example, 3(Green):1(clear), 2(Green):2(clear), or whatever it may be depending on the results of your cross. 3. In corn plants, the allele for green kernels (G) is dominant over clear kernels (g). Cross a homozygous dominant plant with a homozygous recessive plant. Fill in the Punnett square below and give the ratios for each question beneath the Punnett Square. Key: G = green kernels, g = clear kernels Genotype of parents:_GG_x_gg_ Parent #1 Parent #2 What is the genotypic ratio of the offspring in Question 3? What is the phenotypic ratio of the offspring in Question 3? 4. Yellow seeds are dominant over green seeds in pea plants. Cross a heterozygous (yellow seeded) plant with a green seeded plant. Key: __________ Genotype of parents:__________ x __________ Parent #1 Parent #2 What is the genotypic ratio of the offspring in Question 4? What is the phenotypic ratio of the offspring in Question 4? 5. Now cross two of the heterozygous F1 offspring from question #2. Parent #1 Parent #2 What is the genotypic ratio of the offspring in Question 5? What is the phenotypic ratio of the offspring in Question 5? 6. Consider the resulting ratio of crossing the two heterozygous pea plants in question #5.We will use this ratio in a short activity exploring probability. Keep in mind that crossing two individuals that are heterozygous for a certain trait is similar to flipping two coins. Each coin has two sides (we might think of each side as an “allele”) and the chances of flipping heads/heads, heads/tails or tails/tails should be similar to the ratio we see when crossing two heterozygotes. For this simple activity, you will need two coins (pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, or a mix of any of those). Alternatively, you may google a coin-flipper simulator that will allow you to flip two coins at once. You will also need a piece of scratch paper and a pen or pencil. Directions: Flip the two coins simultaneously at least 50 times. For each flip of the pair of coins, you will record the results on a piece of scratch paper. You might set up a table like the one below to record your results. Once you have flipped the coins at least 50 times, enter the number of heads/heads, heads/tails and tails/tails in Table 1 below. Now determine the ratio for your results. You will do this by dividing the number for each result by the total number of flips, and then multiply by 100. (Example: If the number of heads/heads is 9 then 9/50 = .18, .18x100 = 18%), Repeat this mathematical procedure for heads/tails and tails/tails) Table 1 Heads/heads (hh) Head/tails (ht) Tails/tails (tt) Ratio (hh:ht:tt) Compare the resulting ratio from the question #5 cross of two heterozygous parents to the ratio from the coin flipping exercise. Are there similarities? If so, what are they? What might be done to make the ratio from the coin flipping exercise become more similar to the ratio from question #5? (Hint: Consider that more data equals better accuracy.) Cancer Risk Factors 6. This question deals with cancer and risk factors. Begin by going to the website http://www.cancer.org/ Click “Cancer A-Z” in the upper left corner. The page that comes up will provide links to information on breast cancer, colon and rectal cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and skin cancer. Review the information for each these cancers. Next, write an essay that discusses your own risk factors for each type of cancer and steps you might take to decrease those risk factors. Be sure to address all five types of cancer. You do not have to disclose any actual personal information if you do not wish to do so. You may create a fictional character and discuss his or her risk factors instead. Be sure to address all five types of cancer. Your response must be at least 300 words in length. (Type your response below)

You have a modern lens through which the world is viewed. This can influence how you look at and interpret data, particularly in archaeology where researchers are often trying to piece together what an ancient person’s life might have been like. Scientists from Europe during the Victorian era might interpret artifacts found during an excavation in a different light than modern European scientists even though both are trying hard to be objective and learn more about the ancient world. This has a lot to do with advances in technology, but it is also due to differences in culture and worldview. Scientists raised in different cultures might also see the same artifacts in a different light.Scientists throughout time have asked questions such as “Where did we come from?” and “How did my ancestors live?” These are difficult questions to answer, particularly for anything that happened before there was a written record. Even when ancient cultures had writing it is hard to know if everything written down is accurate or that the modern interpretation of what was written is correct. The farther back in time you go, the less accurate ancient activities and behaviors become due to a lack of data. Sometimes people and objects were preserved intentionally such as with mummies in Egyptian tombs. But more often, people and objects were not intentionally preserved, and it is only by luck, due to where they were laid to rest, that they survived and were found by researchers.One famous and well researched modern discovery is Ötzi the iceman who was found on the border between Italy and Austria in 1991. Initially people thought he was a modern victim, but soon realized that instead, he had been lying in the ice for thousands of years. His remains are now kept at the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology. Do an internet search on Ötzi to learn more about him. The museum’s site is a good source of information with sections on the discovery itself, milestones in past research, and descriptions of current research on the iceman. However, he is not the only ancient discovery. You can explore others here:The Perfect CorpseMummies 101If the discovery of Ötzi had taken place in 1891 rather than 1991, the way his remains were handled and the research that could be done would have been very different. Identify and describe one modern analysis/technique that has been performed to learn more about Ötzi that could not have been done in the 1800s.It stands to reason that researchers in 2091 will have more technologies at their disposal to research a discovery like Ötzi. Should research on his remains be limited today so that he can be preserved and studied in the future? Provide one pro and one con of conducting research now rather than waiting. Discuss one benefit and one negative of putting research off until a much later date.Advances in biotechnology have revolutionized the study of ancient remains. In Ötzi’s case, a genetic study showed that his DNA most closely matched up with people that currently live in Sardinia. One hypothesis for this is that at Ötzi’s time, a group of people with similar DNA spread throughout Europe including Sardinia. Sardinia is somewhat isolated so the DNA of the population living there has changed very little since that time. On mainland Europe, where his remains were found, there was more mixing of populations so there have been changes to the DNA profiles of the people living in that region. Based on the genetic results, do you think Ötzi should be considered Sardinian even though he lived in the Alps? Why or why not?Today you can have your DNA sampled and you can learn more about which genetic groups you are most closely matched to – just like was done with Ötzi. Is this something you would be interested in knowing? Why or why not?