Wednesday, February 19, 2014
1st blog post 2014!
We have been discussing genetics and looking at processes such as DNA replication, transcription, and translation. We have learned "how" genes work. Coming up, we will apply what we have learned to examine how populations change over time. Scientifically, this change is called evolution. This topic is controversial, but that is ok. We will look at how populations can change over time, examine how humans have "carried out" natural selection, and look at how religion views this concept for conversation.
In your post, you will research how the concepts of genetics and population change have been used in today's society. For example, a researcher several years ago discovered a new salamander species in north Georgia. The salamander that was discovered had different traits compared to the other species in the area. How might that salamander (the one that was discovered) affect the other salamander populations? Hunters, fishermen, and farmers carry out concepts of natural selection and population change all the time. Another example could be researching how religious views these concepts.
Your post should be a grammatically correct paragraph or two explaining your topic, evidence, and conclusions. Please check the rubric on net classroom. This will count as a 20 point quiz grade. It is due by Midnight the day after we take the test. You will have about 2 weeks to complete the assignment. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Have Fun!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theory of Evolution used in Today's Society
ReplyDeleteThe Theory of Evolution has some incredible ideas that have been accepted by the scientific field of biology. This blog will only be focusing on one principle of the theory that is in constant use in today's society. Artificial Selection is the practice of humans promoting certain traits that have been found useful. This is a practice that is being used largely in agriculture such as horse racing ,beef cattle ,swine, etc. The term that we use is not artificial selection rather we call it AI or artificial insemination. The benefits of artificial insemination vary depending on what you are breeding for example the AI of beef cattle has several benefits including: the ability to use sires of superior genetics without having to spend a fortune on buying the bull, improving production rates in cattle operations, having control over the birth weight for young heifers and shorting the calving season to produce a more uniform crop of calves. The use of AI is the same in every agriculture industry but the specific needs are different for example a horse breeder will not be looking for the same traits as a swine breeder. Though the Theory of Evolution is not accepted by all it is still used in everyday life and the principle of artificial selection is being used in today's society by improving the genetics of livestock.
By: Wyatt Galloway
work cited
Prentice Hall biology book
http://wilkes.ces.ncsu.edu/2012/12/what-are-the-advantages-of-using-artificial-insemination-ai-in-your-livestock-breeding-program/
I think was a very good presentation over the use of artificial selection. This was a very good way to show the uses of AI. I especially like the detail of this blog. the one question i do have is that when you talked about that horse breeders would want different traits that swine breeders, what different traits would they want?
DeleteCharles Darwin knew that all living things on Earth had been evolving for millions of years. Darwin used a fossil record to try and support his Theory of Evolution by showing how living things evolve over time. Darwin didn't believe in his fossil record to start off with because it didn't have much information. Now days scientists have found many more fossils to support the Theory of Evolution, and they have found ways to analyze fossils from a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteScientists just recently found a blood-filled mosquito that they believe is from 46 million years ago. The mosquito was found in Montana and was said to be filled with blood from an Eocene animal. This it the first blood-filled mosquito ever found in a fossil. Scientists note that not all species of female mosquitoes ate blood, so this shows that mosquitoes lived millions of years ago and overtime all species of the females have evolved into insects that now days mostly eat blood to live. The species of female mosquitoes that didn't eat blood died out because of the evolution of the species of female mosquitoes that do eat blood.
Works Cited:
http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=f7
http://westerndigs.org/first-fossil-of-blood-engorged-mosquito-discovered/
Prentice Hall Biology Book
What ways have scientist discovered to analyze fossils? What ways were common to analyze fossils in Darwin,s time? What evidence supports that the mosquitoes that did not eat blood die out?
DeleteCharles Darwin said that living things have been evolving for millions of years, and he also stated that this process is proven in the fossil record. Darwin stated that living species on earth had appeared, lived for a period of time, and then completely went extinct. The study of fossils has been exponential in discovering our past just like in the discovery of thousands of said to be dinosaur fossils. There are some fossils that have been found, that still live today like the cockroach and the horseshoe crab. There are also fossils that went extinct millions of years ago like the mammoth that resembles the present day elephant.
ReplyDeleteThe horseshoe crabs fossil records date all the way back to 425 million years ago,and are still living in the Indian, Atlantic, and also the Pacific Ocean. The comparison that comes up when discussing horseshoe crabs is that it resembles a prehistoric crab. The cockroach is also another fossil that was discovered 350 million years ago during the Carboniferous period, that still exists today. The mammoth was a animal resembling the present day elephant that was said to go extinct during the ice age. There has been findings in Siberia and Alaska of the mammoth frozen in the soil. The differences of these three creatures is their ability to adapt to conditions in order to survive and eventually evolve.
http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-Library/Invertebrates/Horseshoe-Crab.aspx
http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php
http://www.animalplanet.com/extinct-animals/extinct-mammals.htm
Prentice Hall Biology Book
Do fossils have a chemical that keeps them restored for so long? Are there animals today that don't have a fossil record or doesn't have a fossil record resembling it? Are there fossils that don't resemble anything living today on earth? Roughly how many fossils are there preserved today?
DeleteEvery person when they are born have instincts that drive us in every day life this is the starting point for a persons morals. instincts in a human developed eons ago to aid humans in our survival and reproduction. one instinct we see that in humans is "kin selection" which says that we should care for our closest relatives this is a main instinct in humans because it increases the likelihood of survival and reproduction and in turn increases the likelihood of your genes being passed down to future generations. Another instinct involved in our morals is Care for our mates, as humans grow up and decide to reproduce humans acquire attachments to their mates which is a huge advantage in raising their offspring. the last instinct that is seen in humans morals is sympathy, like many other animals Humans are very social creatures we require other human interactions to remain sane and we are attuned to emotions and behaviors of fellow humans. sympathy is a huge factor in a humans morals for the fact that we acknowledge how other humans are feeling emotional and react to them according. Sympathy is one of the least used instincts in other populations and species as many animals will take advantage of weaker animals. As the Human population evolves we develop some sort of unspoken laws or rules that we follow in everyday life some Ex. of this can be how humans don't go around punching random people and we don't do that because our instincts and morals tell us not where as we might not have had these "unspoken laws" millions of years ago. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/evolmoral.html
ReplyDeleteEven though you bring up a nice point of humans being moral, what really defines the action between animals and humans as instinctive and "moral"? I believe that when saying a main instinct seen in humans is "kin selection" that that is not only the case only for humans. For example: when mother bears protect their young. This categorizes in the definition of "kin selection" and humans act the same way with their young. Mothers always tell their children that they would take a bullet for them. Now on to your point of caring for our mates. Life long mates and coring of said mates have been shown in many wide species of animals including Gibbons, swans, black vultures, French angel fish, wolves, albatrosses, termites, prairie voles, turtle doves, schistosoma mansoni worm. And on to your last point of sympathy. I believe that sympathy is just disregarded by animals as a form of inefficiency. as shown in the examples above animals show the ability to care for other things and for their mates however sympathy is more of an emotion that clouds rational behavior by humans. Emotions such as love, anger, and sadness can make humans do things such as irrational behavior by doing something illegal in the name of love or harming oneself because of sadness. Animals understand the value of life and don't let emotions that I believe they can fell cloud their judgment. Here is a quote to kind of think about, "In the late 1800s, William James proposed that human behavior is determined largely by instinct, and that people have even more instinctual urges than less complex animals". Thanks
Deletesources: http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/337/Instinct.html
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/11-animals-that-mate-for-life
I believe what you took from my post is that i was saying that only humans have these instinct, and that is not the case 'm simply saying that these instincts(which many other animals have) contribute to a humans morals and how our morals have evolved from these instincts, and the quote you provided only furthers my point that our "instinctual urges" define our morals and "us" as human beings.
DeleteThe theory of evolution i very interesting when it comes to birds and even more with parrots. When Charles Darwin first saw the Galapagos Islands he described them as 10 islands. He speculated that birds, resembling starlings, came to the Galapagos Islands by wind. Evolution took over and different groups developed different diets.
ReplyDeleteBeaks changed as the birds developed different tastes for fruits, seeds, or insects picked from the ground or cacti. Long, pointed beaks made some of them more fit for picking seeds out of cactus fruits. Shorter, stouter beaks served best for eating seeds found on the ground.
The fact that you talk about birds is very interesting. You talked about how the beaks changed, but how did the body shape, size, and color change? You also talked about how there were ten islands. What island was the most populated island with birds? and why?
DeleteTheory of Evolution in animals today
ReplyDeleteThe theory of evolution has many different ideas to it. The distribution of breeding success is very different for males and females in deer. Males with large antlers have the most success when breeding so therefore deer that have small antlers will most likely die off and the genes and traits from the large antlered deer will be passed on to the offspring. Now this means when males fight, the deer with the largest body/rack will probably come out on top. If most of the small antlered genes haven't disappeared by mating, when the deer fight the small antlered gene will either completely disappear or all but disappear. Even though when the deer is young it has a small rack, the older it gets the rack will get bigger.
When new diseases come along and knock out a significant part of the population, the deer that survive will become immune to this disease and create offspring that will be immune. If one deer has a big body and produces offspring the offspring might get a big body. When this generation reproduces they will have offspring that have big bodies, and so on, and so on. If interbreeding occurred (the mating between relatives) the offspring would lack fitness so the entire process might start over.
Work cited
-http://rumdeer.biology.ed.ac.uk/evolution-and-genetics
Hey Joseph what would happen if large antlered deer had the recessive trait for smaller antlers. Would that not result with smaller antlered deer? Also what would happen if the smaller deer fighting the bigger one by luck or skill beat the bigger deer? Lastly what if the only deer to survive the diseases were male or female. In short I liked your post vary good job Joe
DeleteI find this topic very interesting, and I find deer fascinating. You said that the deer with smaller racks would die off. Why would the deer with smaller racks die off because they cannot mate? You also mentioned that the distribution of breeding success is very different in male and female deer. How is it different?
DeleteThe Russian (or Soviet) geneticist Dmitry Belyaev was another great scientist who worked with the evolution of animals and mostly focused on their behavioral mannerisms. Dmitry was working for a fur company at the time of his experiments, but he mostly focused on his own work of trying to domestic the foxes. He started his experiment with 30 male foxes and 100 female foxes. The foxes he was using were already somewhat domesticated because they had come from a fox farm from another place in Russia. Belyaev observed these foxes for some time and determined whether the foxes had the trait of being curious and non hostile. He determined the trait of curiosity by putting a glove in the cages of the foxes and if they attacked the glove they were determined not to be used in the experiment. If the fox was curious and non hostile towards the glove, Belyaev considered the fox as tame and was included in his experiment. After determining which foxes were “tame” he took the foxes and mated the.
ReplyDeletePhysical changes in the foxes where astounding. After several generations the fox pups showed more open to things such as human interactions. The time period at which the foxes where open for interaction was noticeably longer than their undomesticated cousins. At an older age the foxes literally started to look like dogs. Their fur colors had began to change and even started to have star shapes on their face. Other physical characteristics include things such as floppy ears and differences in the tail. That’s all I got.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEOjlsUd7j8
work cited-https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/issue.aspx?id=813&y=0&no&content=true&page=3&css=print
Weather affects how we live our lives, and also affects how plants and animals carry out their daily lives. Most organisms deal with environmental pressures by changing traits through phenotypic plasticity. Phenotypic plasticity can be defined as the ability of an organism to change its phenotype in response to the environment. However, some organisms change through genetic adaptions in response to climate change. Some seasonal traits will change through this adaption. For example the pink salmon population in Alaska. Researchers breed genetic markers into the salmon to track early and late migration patterns. Ryan Kovach studied pink salmon migration and spawning in Alaska. He noticed in 2010 the pink salmon migrated for spawning two weeks earlier than they did 40 years ago. Researchers also noticed early spawning in other salmon breeds. The genetic changes evolved quickly over one to two generations. This showing that salmon can adapt quickly ahead of climate change. The studies also showed the salmon populations maintained stable over the past 40 years. Proving that the genetic adaption helped keep the population rate the same.
ReplyDeleteCitied. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/07/03/rspb.2012.1158.full
Charles Darwin worked with and studied the Galapagos Tortoises on his journey. Darwin and his crew had eaten some of the turtles before the captain, Robert Fitzroy, noticed a couple had survived and kept them on board as pets. These tortoises facinated Darwin very much so, Darwin and his crew got off the HMS Beagle at each different island and studied and researched these animals. Along with studying the tortoises Darwin also studied birds, tees, and fossils. Darwin studies showed the tortoises to be very different on every island but, took the differences to be nothing more than variation that could arise from a species being transplanted to a different habitat. When he left he took a baby one as a pet and studied it as it grew up and developed.
ReplyDeletehttp://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=b6
http://creation.com/galapagos-tortoises
You say that Darwin saw many differences in the tortoise shells from island to island. What were some particular differences that he saw? Do you know of any specific reasons why the shells are different? Your post also says that Darwin took a baby tortoise with him when he left the islands. What did he discover when he watched the tortoise grow and develop over time?
DeleteDolphins have not always had fins and lived under water. Dolphins actually used to have four legs and fur. The dolphins’ ancestor, the Mesonix, appeared on earth approximately 95 million years ago. This animal lived on land, but went to the water to feed. The Mesonix had front and hind legs. During the next 30 million years, the Mesonix started becoming adapted to life in the water. The animal’s front legs began turning into pectoral fins. The bones in the fins of dolphins today are left from its life on land. The back legs started disappearing. The dolphins today have vestigial back legs in the structure of rod-shaped pelvic bones. Hairless skin is more hydrodynamic for water, so the Mesonix began to lose its hair. After millions of years, the animal’s body began to adapt to life in the water. Its nostrils began to move to the top of its head. The Mesonix eventually lost the ability to live on land at all. Now, dolphins live completely underwater.
ReplyDeletehttp://understanddolphins.tripod.com/dolphinevolution.html
Evolution of cats
ReplyDeleteThere are 37 different species in the family Felidae. One cat species appears pretty similar to another. They look like big cats, midsize cats and small cats. It is very hard to distinguish a tiger skull from a lion skull. A distinctive feature of all cats are their highly developed predatory skills-fast and dexterous. The ancestor of today's cats was a panther-like creature that split into the big cat families of today, Panthera. The Panthera family includes the following species: lions, leopards, jaguars, tigers, snow leopards, clouded leopards and Bornean clouded leopards. Cats in general are adept at spreading to new areas. Cats are old. The end.
This topic is very interesting. How did cats get to be so small if they once looked like panthers? Where did cats actually originate from?
DeleteEvery animal has evolved from another animal that lived many years ago and is now extinct. Specifically, for example, whales. The very first whales that we know of -Indohyus/Pakicetus- was a land animal with four legs and fur. The skull was elongated with very sharp teeth. Scientists then discovered a new whale–Ambulocetus- that lived a more aquatic lifestyle; most likely near both fresh and salt water. The next whale fossils scientists discovered –Kutchicetus- most likely lived near salt water. This whale’s skull had nostrils that were closer to its eye socket; which leads scientists to believe this is how whales came to have a blowhole which is at the top of their head, between the eyes. The backbone and pelvis of this whale shows that they are closely related to the whales that we know of today. Because these whales began swimming, more changes occurred in the skeleton matching those of living whales today. It suggests later whales -Dorudon - had tailfins and dorsal fins. After this whale, there is a whale –Odontocetes- that resembles much of the dolphin. Although the skull was larger than the dolphins we see today, it had the same body shape and likely ate the same things as dolphins because of their size. Then the whale that we know of today –Mysticetes- had then evolved; it was much larger and it did not have a dorsal fin like the previous whale. It was also much longer and could eat many different foods.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_03
the human population has increased dramatically over the last several decades mostly this is because of the baby boomers and the better medicine which is letting people live longer. according to thomas malthus the human population will increase but be controlled by plagues and other things like plagues, because the food supply could not handle to fast of a population increase. now that we have cleared more land for expansion the population has the food needed for survival but the room has started to run low. with the food area available decreasing it may not be able to support a projected 9.8 billion people in 2050? the human race has evolved form eating raw meat because they learned that it would kill them quicker than if they were to cook it then during the 1800 when sailors would die of scurvy they found out that it was a lack of vitamin c now there are very little cases of scurvy possibly no cases of it. fast forward to modern times some people have learned that living a life of parting will cause a quicker death just like smoking and drinking will; causing some people to stay away from such activity. bringing back the question of available food if there was a shortage people may have to stop eating as much and there would probably be seeing less overweight people if this becomes the case.
ReplyDeletehttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_07
The total land area makes up about 29% of our total area on earth, with all bodies of water taking up the rest with about 71%. Humans have inhabited about 2 to 3% of the land population, and who is to say that we will not be able to inhabit all of that 29% in the coming decades and centuries. As we expand will there not be new discoveries, and an advancement in natural resources and also food in general? Hopefully, the human race will become more advanced in the medical field even more than we already are. The 9.8 billion projected population in 2050 should be able to inhabit at least some of the 29% of the land area on earth, then the overall expansion of the human race.
DeleteThe Theory of Evolution is the idea that organisms change over time to better suit themselves for the environment they inhabit. Bats show signs of evolution in their body structure, for example, their wings. Bats began with wings and they scurried up and down trees to catch insects. This used high amounts of energy as well as exposed the tiny creatures to predators that lurked on the ground. Over time their structure evolved and bats gained a gliding membrane that helped them soar from one tree to another. They gained a characteristic that was efficient and helped them adapt as well as survive. The gliding membrane eventually evolved into the wings that are present on bats today. Even though there was little fossil evidence, because the bats tiny, fragile bone structure wasn't preserved well, there is still some evidence that proves bat ancestors have been around as long as 75 million years ago.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/index.php?page=493.169.177
The Social effects of evolutionary theory are thought to be considerable. The evolutionary theory has changed how some people view their ethics and how the look at life. Hypothetically if most people believed in survival of the fittest there would be more wars over better land food sources and resources. Also hypothetically if everybody believed in evolution and no other religion then there might be less political turbulence in the world. So in the end if everybody believed in evolution and survival of the fittest then it might be good but more than likely hurt the world
ReplyDelete-JT-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_effects_of_evolutionary_theory
DeleteTo refute the belief system behind this post I will first say that all the statements used are assumptions and there is no solid fact. To begin, in a modern society people rely on trade and respectful cooperation with each other to succeed as a species we no longer rely on Neanderthal like methods to get what we need in our modern societies, and the most recent wars were based on ideological beliefs such as World War II and not for resources so the statement, "if most people believed in survival of the fittest there would be more wars over better land, food sources and resources." is untrue because, as previously stated instead of fighting constantly over resources and food we simply trade and barter in a modern society such as ours. Secondly the statement, "if everybody believed in evolution and no other religion then there might be less political turbulence." when making this statement you fail to realize that not only in highly democratic countries religion is excluded from the government, but when it is included many religions aren't fighting over whether evolution is real or not. Although religion is causing political turbulence in other parts of the world it certainly isn't caused by the theory of evolution but other ideological beliefs.
DeleteIt is interesting to observe the result of habit in the peculiar shape and size of the giraffe: this animal, the tallest of the mammals, is known to live in the interior of Africa in places where the soil is nearly always arid and barren, so that it is obliged to browse on the leaves of trees and to make constant efforts to reach them. From this habit long maintained in all its race, it has resulted that the animal's forelegs have become longer than its hind-legs, and that its neck is lengthened to such a degree that the giraffe, without standing up on its hind-legs, attains a height of six meters. The giraffe, by its lofty stature, much elongated neck, fore-legs, head and tongue, has its whole frame beautifully adapted for browsing on the higher branches of trees. It can thus obtain food beyond the reach of the other hoofed animals inhabiting the same country; and this must be a great advantage to it during dearths.... So under nature with the nascent giraffe the individuals which were the highest browsers, and were able during dearth to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved; for they will have roamed over the whole country in search of food.... Those individuals which had some one part or several parts of their bodies rather more elongated than usual, would generally have survived. These will have intercrossed and left offspring, either inheriting the same bodily peculiarities, or with a tendency to vary again in the same manner; whilst the individuals, less favoured in the same respects will have been the most liable to perish.Since the taller, longer-necked, evolving giraffe ancestors were also larger and heavier, they would need more food than the animals they're competing with. Wouldn't this counterbalance their advantage in times of dearth? Would they really have any advantage over smaller members of the same and other species? Moreover, it is absurd to assume that only the leaves on high branches were available to the giraffe during a drought. Had this been the case, then the multitude of browsing and grazing antelope species in Africa would all have gone extinct (or never evolved in the first place). So, even without growing taller, the giraffe ancestor could have competed on even terms for those lower leaves.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm
evolution.berkeley.edu
www.newscientist.com
Do you believe that if giraffes had not evolved to reach the leaves that were higher up that other animals could have evolved to reach the leaves?
DeleteI thought this was a very good presentation! Do you think that if the giraffes neck did not evolve the giraffe would live? If so what would they have eaten?
DeleteEvolution in horses happened in a long span of time. It is very complex and here are the “steps” of how we got to the modern day horse. 55 million years ago, the dog sized animal lived and was named Hyracotherium. It is the oldest horse ancestor. This was the first time we have seen characteristics of horses. Some of the characteristics of the first horse consist of a short face, eye sockets in the middle, and ridges on the molars. These ancestors of the horses, named Orohippus, come 2 years after the dog-sized ones, and they stay around for about 7 million years. These were not as wide spread as the ones before. The next ancestor was Mesohippus, also referred to as the “middle horse”. This “middle horse” got his name because he is in between the eohippus-like horse and our modern day horse. The lived about 37-32 million years ago. These species- miohippus- had numerous fossils. They were the first group of the horse family with much diversity. These lived from 32-25 million years ago. Merychippus actually looked like a modern horse. Many of these fossils were found. The fossils contained information like they had long legs and face, they had high-crowned check teeth, and they had 3 toes. The “grandfather horse” or also known as the philhippus is the latest in the horse family. Had many of the same characteristics of the merychippus horses.
ReplyDeletework cited :http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm
The earliest tiger fossils date back to somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million years ago and in approximately the same geographic distribution as modern tigers had a hundred years ago (when they still maintained a large range) with the possible addition of Beringia. This does not define definitive proof of the age and historical range of the species however, as the fossil record is usually spotty and we must be careful about drawing too many conclusions from its spatial and temporal distributions. Lions, for instance, are found in the fossil record to about 3.5 million years ago, but there is no record either of lions or of an immediate predecessor earlier than this. Nevertheless, there must have been some sort of lion or proto-lion prior to 3.5 million years ago. Either we have yet to find it or it simply left behind no quality fossils. Fortunately, cats have, all in all, a relatively good fossil history and we have enough information to obtain at least a rough sketch of felid phylogeny.
ReplyDeleteIn class you had mentioned one of the earliest forms of a tiger was a Mesonix which actually relates to the dolphin. How does the tiger evolve from the same creature a dolphin evolved from? Your post states that there is no definitive proof of the age and historical range of the species. Do you think that over time scientists will find a way to improve the fossil record of the tiger? Or at least be more certain of the tigers fossil history?
Deletehttp://forevertigers.com/evolution
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete