Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

Questions for biology, Darwin/genetic variation topics.?

Hi. I was hoping all of you could help me with some biology questions.

1. Which two important factors was Darwin unable to explain without the understanding of heredity?

2. The number of times that an allele occurs in a gene pool compared with the # of times other alleles occur is called the _____ of the allele

3. 3 fields that collaborate today that explain evolution

4. When does behavioral isolation occur?

5. Complete chat to show speciation in galapagos finches: Founders arrive ----> -------> --------> -------> ----->Continued evolution

Thanks alot for the help :)

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    1) The source of new variation is definitely one thing they’re looking for. The other might be the way by which variation was inherited – (Do the characteristics of the parents blend? If so, did such blending lower the total variation?)

    2) Frequency

    3) Genetics, paleontology, systematics (also evolutionary biology, population ecology, community ecology, behavioral ecology, comparative physiology and molecular biology)

    4) Behavioral isolation means genetic isolation achieved through behavioral means. So it would apply to an incipient species that doesn’t interbreed with its parent species because of different courtship rituals, for instance. It occurs when the incipient species is geographically close enough to its parent so that the two would otherwise be able to interbreed. Reasons could include differing female mate preferences, and differing breeding times or locations.

    5) Founders arrive; population grows leading to increased competition; different populations begin specializing on different food sources and establish different ecological niches; populations in different niches become behaviorally isolated; populations adapt further to respective ecological niches and become different species; meanwhile at some point emigrants fly to new islands and the process repeats; geographic isolation of birds on different islands adds to any behavioral isolation and allows birds on different islands to adapt to local environmental conditions and become separate species.

  • 1 decade ago

    I hope that you realize that you are being indoctrinated soviet style into a certain world view. That world view is false and the science behind it is flawed. It is just because it is the "official science" of the

    industrial complex that it is held in such high regard. Think about 10 years ago. If you (and there were plenty -Ron Paul would be one of them-) were to try to explain that the lending and borrowing practices were fundamentally flawed, you would be completely black listed from any media, you and your economics would not be presented in any education, and you would be cast off as some fringe crazy who is completely wrong. And for proof, just look at the amount of people, money, and power that opposes you. That is how it is with this Darwinian evolution. Darwin was a dork. (scientifically speaking)

    He observed a variation of finches and concluded that the bird and the plant were related. He wrote, "It is a truly wonderful FACT that all plants and all animals throughout all time and space should be related." Now, did he really use his awe inspiring hard scientific methods to come to this conclusion or was this the result of a philosopher with a predetermined conclusion looking for any and only evidence to support it. I think the latter is a pretty acurate description.

    What you are seeing is called "bait and switch". They show you some minor variations and then say, see we proved the entire concept of what we expect you to believe. That concept would involve a totally Nature beginning for life, and a totally natural evolution from the first life to you. That is like saying, I can prove that if I flip 5 heads in a row you should believe that I can flip 300 heads in a row. Or, (with the beginning of life) if I can jump 1 foot in the air, I proved that if I jump long enough I can jump to the moon. The 2 are different sets of things and one cannot be proof for the other. It is a fact that there are way over 250 varieties of dogs in the world. They are all dogs, they all came from a dog and they all are producing dogs. This is not proof that the dog is related to a banana. Line up a chihauhau, a great dane, a rotwieller, and a banana in a row and ask any 5 year old "which one is not like the other?" He will get it right 100% of the time!!!! Darwin could not even get that one right! As an animal is breed further away from the originally created kind of animal, it experiences a loss of over all function. There are certain traits that can be amplified but at a loss of others and a loss of equilibrium between the delicate interrealtionship of the different systems of the animal. The wolf is deep in variation ability. It is closer to the original and can be bred into a lot of variation with a lot of leeway for range of variation. The chihauhau is near the limit of variation ability. The chihauha cannot be continued in the direction of variation it has previously enjoyed. It cannot just keep creating ever larger ranges of variation. So, this variaiton is not due to random mutations creating a limitless possibilities of variaitons and creations. It is due to a mixing and matching and swapping and turning on and off supplied genes. That is all the evidence shows us. It does not provide any validity for a theory on a natural beginning of life. That is still purely religious no matter which theory you imbrace. This variation does not provide any proof that one basic kind of animal changed into another basic kind of animal. For that you would have to rely on the other types of evidence but these are purely either conjecture, frauds, or gross oversimplifications. Lining up fossils to go from a dinosaur to a humming bird is conjecture and gross oversimplification that involved some frauds along the way. That is the truth. / Comparing legs of an animal to show a relationship is conjecture. If both animals were meant to walk they would probably share a similar body design. It seems to work pretty well. So, this homogy gives no more credence to evolution than it does to creation. Similarly, comparing DNA is the same. If 2 different kinds of animals share some of the same body plans and building materials they will share some of the same building instructions. Im pretty sure that the DNA to code for hair on us and hair on a different creature is close to the same. Also, coding for a heart in 2 different kinds of animals probably shares some of the same code. We share 50% of our DNA with a banana, this only proves that it takes 50% of the same information to build 2 different creatures out of similar material and constructing them at the most basic level of life in the same way takes some shared plans.

    So, education is not indoctrination. There is plenty of material out there from many respected Ph.D's in all fields that reject Darwininan evolution. You should (if you have not) go look up this stuff. Instead of 4 years of the exact same teachings, you should enrich it with some information from people who opp

    Source(s): The bible, Jesus Saves. For God is longsuffering not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. Men hate the light because their deeds are evil. God sent His only begotten son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
  • jech
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    in case you evaluate the style, then you definately are only finding on the type between the utmost and lowest score of each organism. (maximum score - lowest score = selection) An outlier can replace the style dramatically. known deviation tells you the traditional distance that each organism varies remote from the advise. So in case you get a extreme known deviation then it shows that the dimensions of the organisms varies generally. it incredibly is a greater centred and precise degree of dispersion; it incredibly is calculated utilising the capacity for this reason it incredibly is way less tormented by using outliers. wish this facilitates :)

  • 1 decade ago

    Cirbryn's answer is excellent.

    I'll only comment on question #1. Cirbryn's answer is exactly correct. Darwin saw variation and inheritance as matters of simple *observation*. (They form two out of the three core observations of natural selection ... the third being *competition* ... the fact that more individuals are born than can possibly survive.) Darwin did not know the *mechanisms* of variation or inheritance ... but it didn't have to. For purposes of outlining the logic of his theory, all he needed to do is point out that variation and inheritance seem to be easily *observable* characteristics of living things.

    I should also point out the amazing contrast between the first two answers. Cirbryn's perfect to-the-point answer, in contrast with yet another amazingly *unhelpful* answer from a Creationist.

    What jim761076 shows quite clearly, is that Creationism contributes *NOTHING* to science ... except for noise ... and deceit.

    By deceit, I'm referring to jim's repeated use of that Darwin "quote." To do this once could just be attributed to the fact that jim hasn't actually *read* Darwin, or if he has, he doesn't understand him. But since I have called him on this very quote before, but jim continues to use it, goes beyond misunderstanding, and rises to deliberate DECEIT.

    Jim writes:

    >> He [Darwin] observed a variation of finches and concluded that the bird and the plant were related. He wrote, "It is a truly wonderful FACT that all plants and all animals throughout all time and space should be related." <<

    Here's what Darwin actually wrote:

    "It is a truly wonderful fact the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from familiarity that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other in group subordinate to group, in the manner which we everywhere behold namely, varieties of the same species most closely related together, species of the same genus less closely and unequally related together, forming sections and sub-genera, species of distinct genera much less closely related, and genera related in different degrees, forming sub-families, families, orders, sub-classes, and classes."

    See the difference? It's not just the length but the *MEANING* of Darwin's words when jim omits the words "related to each other *in group subordinate to group*"? Darwin is not saying (in these words) that animals and plants are related *to each other* ... but that there is an inter-relationship between *GROUPS* and that this fact is as true in the animal kingdom as it is in the plant kingdom.

    Darwin isn't leaping to the conclusion about finches and plants based on some tenuous observation of finches.

    Darwin is pointing to the *GROUPINGS* of *ALL* living things. Starting from variety to species to genus to families, orders, classes, etc. we see *relationship*. That is an observable *FACT* ... ground finches are clearly *related* (although a different species) to cactus finches ... finches are clearly *related* to sparrows (they are both birds) ... birds are clearly *related* to reptiles and mammals (they have a spinal cord and other characteristics common to the vertebrates) ... vertebrates are clearly *related* to invertebrates (they are both animals) ... and animals are clearly *related* to plants (they are multicellular prokaryotes), etc. That we are able to build these ever expanding *GROUPINGS* that do not break down (no vertebrates are non prokaryotes) is a *truly wonderful fact* that deserves examination.

    In other words, that *relationship* is not Darwin's *conclusion* that he draws from finches ... but a *PREMISE* that Darwin is taking as a given in the construction his argument.

    That jim claims that Darwin is leaping to the *conclusion* of relationship between finches and plants based on nothing but casual observation of a "variation" of finches on the Galapagos is just flat-out *DECEIT*.

    That jim calls the man buried next to Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey a "dork", just illustrates beautifully the complete and utter *contempt* for science that Creationism leads to.

    Source(s): Origin of Species, Chapter 4: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/t... ... search for "truly wonderful"
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    sophisticated matter. query at google and yahoo. just that may help!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.