1 / 24

Famous Bad Decisions

Famous Bad Decisions. 1886 - Sors Hariezon. 1933-Joe Shuster & Jerry Siegel. 1955-Sam Phillips. 1862 - Ambrose Burnside. 1876 - George Custer. 1929 – Trofim Lysenko. Head of Soviet Ministry of Agriculture Strong advocate of Lamarckian Evolution (acquired characteristics)

holt
Download Presentation

Famous Bad Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Famous Bad Decisions

  2. 1886 -SorsHariezon

  3. 1933-Joe Shuster & Jerry Siegel

  4. 1955-Sam Phillips

  5. 1862 - Ambrose Burnside

  6. 1876 - George Custer

  7. 1929 – Trofim Lysenko • Head of Soviet Ministry of Agriculture • Strong advocate of Lamarckian Evolution (acquired characteristics) • Attempted to vernalize wheat by freezing prior to germination

  8. DifferentialReproduction • The driving force behind evolution • Populations shift because not all members of the population have the same fitness • Nature provides selective pressures that determine who reproduces most

  9. SelectivePressure • Nature “selects” for various phenotypes based upon whether or not the features of the organism increase its differential reproduction

  10. Modes of Natural Selection • Stabilizing: Favors average phenotypes • Directional: one phenotypic extreme favored • Disruptive: Both extreme phenotypes are favored

  11. Directional Selection & Industrial Melanism (Kettlewell Moth Experiment)

  12. Transitioning Phenotypes

  13. Stabilizing Selection

  14. Stabilizing Selection

  15. Disruptive Selection

  16. Disruptive Selection

  17. Endler’s Trinidadian Guppy Analysis

  18. Trinidadian Guppy Analysis • Purpose: To see how the selective pressures of coloration and predation affect the phenotypic distribution in a population • Hypotheses to Be Tested: • Bright coloration leads to preferential mating, causing the population to shift towards bright. • Bright coloration leads to increased predation, leading to a phenotypic shift towards drab

  19. Procedure • To access simulation, google “Sex and the Single Guppy” • There are nine (9) combinations of predator and prey to test. • Each simulation should be run for 100 weeks. Stop manually at this point • BEFORE looking at analysis of results, record the phenotypic results, pop. size and # of Generations

More Related