Class Notes (836,271)
Canada (509,735)
BIOB51H3 (185)
Lecture 4

BIOB51 Lecture 4 Notes.docx

7 Pages
Unlock Document

Biological Sciences
Kriste O' Neil

BIOB51 Lecture 4 Notes Slide 57: How does similarity of characteristics provide evidence for Darwinian evolution? For descent with modification. Slide 60: Similar location, similar embryonic origin but different function. Slide 61: If organisms were perfectly adapted and placed perfectly in the environment that they’re in, why do they show these similarities? Slide 66: Descended from ancestors that didn’t necessarily live in the dark, they’ve just been able to exploit whatever resources are in the cave and become adapted to cave living. Vestigial structures: how evolution creates this, not created by selection acting against a particular structure. If selection was acting to reduce or remove a particular structure, you might not see any evidence of it at all. Also shows us that as species change, have adapted more to their particular environments by using the energy from one function for a more advantageous one making it thrive in its environment (possibly) and these adaptations get passed on. Because it wasn’t directly selected against, it’s still there and because it’s not selected for, it’s become really reduced. Slide 67: You can see different structures becoming more important, more adaptive, and more common and these other structures that are less advantageous becoming reduced. Energy shifted from developing structures that aren’t necessarily aiding the individual to survive and reproduce going towards different structures that are actually adaptations. Slide 68: Whales have a non-functional pelvis that’s really tiny. Slide 69: If we look back at the fossil record of extinct species that we think are ancestors to whales, we see this pattern of a reduction. Slide 70: Fetuses of different animals look similar because lots of animals have really similar embryonic precursors to the same structures that act in different ways/forms. Slide 72: These are all vertebrates, which binds them together in a phylogenetic perspective. All vertebrates shared a common ancestor so they all share a certain amount of similarity in their development. They all have a similar spinal development. Most vertebrates have limbs. They all share similar limbic development. They’re all amnions. They all have an amnion sac that they develop within. The similarity in development. They don’t develop like fish eggs. They’re not laid out in the open but within an egg. Within that egg is an amniotic sac and that’s what the organism develops off of. Slide 73: We see in all vertebrates, embryos develop in slight tails even in humans. We see a lot of similarities even in things that disappear as embryos develop. Pharyngeal pouches are very important at the very beginning of the embryo and they kind of create the space for different hemispheres of the brain to form for our bilateral symmetry across our body and across the bodies of all vertebrates. So even these things that end up disappearing as we develop are really similar across vertebrates. Slide 74: Alternative codes are possible. Maybe they can work better and make fewer errors. Since humans have a similar genetic code, those viruses can not only attack birds but they can attack us too so they [viruses] can use the same impact methodology. Slide 75: This is the idea that mistakes give you insight into common origin. Textbook example: Two students in a class. The male student is cheating off of the female student. If they both get the answer right, we don’t really know if there was cheating going on. If they both get the same answers wrong, that’s way more evidence for cheating than if they both get the same answers right. Slide 76: A genetic flaw that exists within human chromosome 17. Duplication mutation part is problematic because it results in unequal crossing over. So when the chromosomes line up and cross over certain genetic material, what happens is… Slide 77: Because what orients the lineups right is like really similar patterns on each chromosome but if you have similar patterns that are really close together, you can get an improper lineup. This results in unequal crossing over. So you’ll have some chromosome arms with way more information and some arms with way less information. Then there’s a misalignment in meiosis and you can get chromosomes that lack info and chromosomes that have too much info going to gametes. These specific lacks and specific gains and info (too much/too little) result in phenotype: peripheral nerve disease. Problematic for humans. Without our modern day treatments, individuals with peripheral nerve disease will probably have died without reproducing. Slide 78: The same duplication, the same problem can be found in our closest relatives. So they’re found in both chimpanzees and bonobos. This is evidence that we have this common mistake. What makes the most sense is that our common ancestor acquired this mistake and it’s been passed down to us. Slide 79: Similar Molecular homology with similar species origins. Slide 80: Even though the structures may change form, when you look at it, they’ve got similar embryonic precursors, similar locations in the body and potentially similar formal structures even though there may be variation and maybe variation in function. Slide 81: Your adaptations are based on what your ancestors had to work with. They’re not based on something totally new and different that you just acquired. Slide 86: We can check through historical collections of these shells to check for differences over time. So if we look through the historical record, people who have collected these shells around the 1870s, we can get a measure of distribution of traits of these shells (spire height and shell thickness). Do we have any evidence that natural selection has favoured adaptations in the shells to avoid predation? Slide 87: Experiment: Tethered two shells to a common line in a bunch of different places. The experimenter tethered those (shells) in an area that had yet to be invaded by the crabs (no crabs). Then she got further into the area where the crabs invaded so there was some crab presence but not a lot and tethered another set of shells. Finally, she tethered the last set of shells in an area where there were abundant crabs. Difference in the predator would provide different strength of selection. She used shells that were on the edges of the distribution to test these things so she thought maybe having a thicker shell might be adaptive, might reduce predation from crabs so if the shell’s too thick and the crabs can’t crack it, they leave you alone. So she took the thinnest and thickest shell (respectively) she could find to see if there was natural selection on shell thickness. Slide 88: Her results: No crab area: Thinner shells and thicker shells do exactly the same and at 16 days, 100% of the snails were alive. Shell thickness didn’t matter. High survival in both groups. Slide 89: Her results (cont.): Different survivorship in the
More Less

Related notes for BIOB51H3

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.