Hunger Games Final analysis

1. In this lab we studied the effects of natural selection in a classroom environment where we were all birds fighting for survival.

2. The phenotype that was the best at collecting food was the pinchers because it was easier to pick up corks by pinching them. In comparison to the stumpies which had to pick corks up with their wrists, the pinchers were more efficient and better at collecting the corks.

3. The population did evolve as the little "a" surpassed the big "A" allele. It started off as a 50, 5O difference but after the second generation it became 33% little "a" and 67% big "A". The population evolved from an equal amount of stumpies, pinchers, and knucklers, to just knucklers and pinchers, with the stumpies on having 1, or 2 repersentatives. The knucklers were the dominant race having a "Aa" allele combination, but in the end, the pinchers still ended up collecting the most food. 

4. The variables in this lab that were random was the placement of the food, and the placement of the birds. If you were closer to the food and had less people around you, you got more food. This is an example of genetic drift. What was also random was the amount of corks needed for offspring which varied from 5 to 12. What was not random was how the offspring was created. We used coins to determine what children we concieved but you could choose any partner you wanted whether it was a stumpy and you were a pincher or vice versa. 

5. If the food was bigger or smaller the results would be the same because our results were based on allele frequency. No matter what the foods size was the knucklers had the best allele combination and therefore would have been the dominant variation no matter what. However, a variable would be how easy it would be to collect food. For the stumpys it would be easier if the food was bigger but if it was smaller, it would be more difficult. Like the galappogas finches, the populations would have to evolve to fit the food size. 

6. If there was no incomplete dominance, there would be no knuckles at all, and therefore, the variation that was the majority of the population would disappear. Incomplete dominance proved to be crucial to the lab because they had a higher chance of being made, and therefore dominated the population.

7. Evolution occurs because natural selection helps weed out the weak genetics and only allow those with the genetics needed to survive reproduce. By only allowing the ones with the genetics to survive to reproduce, the population becomes the variation that has the best genetics and therefore a species evolves.

8. Some strategies people evolved to survive better was to stay away from people and choose the corks that were not in the huge clumps, or to grab multiple corks at a time. In nature, animals do anything they can to survive and reproduce. On an emphasis on ANYTHING, it made sense in the lab if people went overboard. People were tackled and dove to the floor in order to secure the most food. People pushed people out of the way in order to ensure they got the amount of food needed to survive.

9. In this lab, what evolved was the beaks. Since the beaks are a phenotype or physical trait, I can state natural selection acts on the phenotype.

10. If there were no stumpys, and only had "aa" as pinchers and "AA" as knucklers and no incomplete dominance who would make up the most of the population, or would it be equal?

This is the graph of allele frequency. 

Unit 8 Reflection

Unit 8 was all about the constant change in our environment. Constant change refers to the change in organisms to fit their surroundings or evolution. Evolution is key because without evolution species go extinct. Species rely on genetic variation either in the form of a recessive gene, or a mutation to evolve. The species with the superior genetics necessary to survive get to pass down their genes to the next generations. Over a long period in time the species with the better genes become the population and therefore evolution occurs. Darwin documented these changes in his observations of natural selection. The galapagos finches were an example of evolution because they were all the same type of finch before they ended up in different islands. These finches evolved to suit their new environment and soon became so different they could not mate again with the finches on the other islands.

The thing with animals is if they can not support themselves, they do not get to reproduce and their inferior genetics does not get passed on, however in humans, even if you can not support yourself or your children, you often are able to reproduce. Is it fair to the children you are creating to be raised in poverty and not have a chance to change their social standing? The example I'm coming back to is in India, the walk to the beach is often littered with children begging for money, they come back home to an alcoholic father that beats them and a mother that is pregnant not by her wish or consent. Is it fair to the children to be born and not cared for? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to go to school and be someone instead of begging on the streets? Not just in India, though that is where my example is from, is the idea that people that can not care for their children give birth to them and are not able or do not wish to raise them and is it fair to the child to be raised in neglect?

If that does not involve evolution or natural selection, what about the Nazis idea of an Aryan complex? Having blond hair and blue eyes does not mean genetically you have a higher chance of survival, but it meant you were better, or superior. In another example, apartheid in Africa shows the stigma of looks being the judgement of superiority. Native Africans were completely segregated from the Caucasians in apartheid run Africa and they were not allowed to reproduce with each other for the fear of having mixed blood. If you had blue eyes and blond hair and gave birth to a child with brown eyes and brown hair, your child was not as good as someone with blond hair and blue eyes. In 2017, we look at this in disgust. We say, how on Earth did we think this is a good idea? But we still do it, not with humans but with our animal companions. Who are we as humans to manipulate other species to our benefit? Is it morally accepted to manipulate chickens and animals to eat, and then say judging humans by their appearance is wrong? It is interesting to see peoples point of view change when they enter animals in the question. Are animals not living breathing organisms?

This unit raises a lot of questions on morality, just like the previous unit on Ecology (http://vedabioblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/unit-7-reflection.html). But it also is not just about understanding the idea of evolution, its understanding we are the objects of evolution just as the food we eat is a object of evolution. Evolution is all around us and we can track it by looking at fossil remains and more. We are evolution, your dog is evolution, everything is an example of evolution. If you look back far enough, we all evolved from nothing.

http://www.angelfire.com/cellophanetales/evolution.html : An example of the importance of understanding evolution.

https://www.papermasters.com/origins-of-man.html

Above is an example of evolution in humans and below is an example of natural selection and how organisms that are suited to their changing environment survive and become the population. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/121935927@N06/13578828153