2. The knuckler phenotype was the best at capturing food because of the fact that they could pick up many corks at a time.
3. The population did evolve, at least according to our data. There was a large change in allele frequency, for example 52% of the alleles in the gene pool were "A" in the beginning, however by the end only 28% were "A".
4. The random part of this lab was who the people chose to "mate" with. A knuckler could have mated with either a pincher or a stumper, and that depended completely on the students. The way food was spread was also random. A non-random part of this lab is where all the species started and the area of food.
5. If the food was larger or smaller, then the results would have been drastically different because different phenotypes would have a hard time picking up the food, for example, if the food was smaller, then the stumpers would have struggled to pick up food.
6. If incomplete dominance did not exist between the species, then I assume the results would have been different, due to the fact that there would either have been more pinchers or more stumpers.
7. The relationship between natural selection and evolution is that natural selection kills off the weak phenotypes and so evolution can make a species stronger and survive longer.
8. Some people had strategies to picking up food. Some groups or individuals went to the spots where there was most food, whereas some took scraps. The way the individuals behaved definitely changed the outcomes of the lab. Some people were aggressive whereas some stayed on the outlines.
9. In evolution, the entire species evolves to survive in a certain environment and natural selection helps this because it kills off the weaker phenotypes so only the strong ones mate and make the species better.
10. What would have happened if there was less food?
No comments:
Post a Comment