Prompt 3.1

Much like others have mentioned, the idea of "fitness" in the world of science seems to conjure up thoughts of ripped bodies and enduring stamina. However, under the scope of evolution, fitness carries a bit of a different meaning. In concise terms, I would define it as the ability of an organism to reproduce AND survive. An organism would have good fitness if they are able to reproduce many offspring that are able to survive. This would mean that there were be a higher chance that the genetic traits of the organism could be passed on to the next generation. Thus, poor fitness would be lacking either of those parts. If an organism is able to have many offspring and almost none of them survive, or if the organism has offspring survive but it's a low number, then there would be low fitness as there isn't a high chance that the organism would be able to pass on their traits.

To measure fitness, an experiment would need to be done that focuses on a singular trait so that it could be gauged as to how this trait and its renditions impacts the organisms ability to reproduce and survive. This fitness can be changed due to environment. If the organism and its genetic material remain the same, but the environment changes to become a polar opposite climate, then the fitness of the organism might change due to favorability of its traits in that new environment. For example, if you were trying to find the fitness of a flower, and you chose its ability to retain water, then that fitness might change if you switch from a dry climate to a wet climate. The flower might be more likely to die if it has the trait that causes high amounts of water retention due to a dry climate, but the flower is now in a wet climate that causes it to become overwatered instead. Thus it would have a low fitness as it would likely be unable to survive or produce many offspring. 

So if I was running an experiment and I hypothesized that X flowers in Kansas would have greater fitness the less sensitive to water they were, then I would test out X flowers with different water sensitivities and see which populations were able to survive and reproduce more. If I was correct, then X flowers with less water sensitivity would be seen to have a higher population. 

Comments

  1. Madison NFebruary 17, 2021 at 4:11 PM

    So in a battle of fitness, who do you think would win: the organism with 100 offspring where only 10 survive, or the organism with only 12 offspring where 10 survive? I realize this isn't entirely an evolution question anymore (we're getting into lifestyle patterns lmaooo), but it's what I thought of when I read your post. You define fitness as "and organism...able to reproduce many offspring that [then in turn] are able to survive". Which sounds right. But I wondered what would happen in the end number were equal. Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prompt 2.1

Image
 What I prediction I chose to base my example around was species changing through time (microevolution). The example I chose was the evolution of MRSA. I think this example is interesting as it bears a similarity as to why researchers are anticipating COVID-19 to evolve. MRSA can be a good example of microevolution as one dominant strain, healthcare associated MRSA (HA-MRSA) type ST239, has been evolving locally at hospitals and reaching global proportions as it gains antibiotic resistance. Now, why specifically is it this strain that is important? The reason why this strain is integral is in part due to its environment. Hospitals often are able to have access to higher-end treatments, such as antibiotics. The frequent usage of antibiotics, especially in cases of over-prescription or unfinished treatment, gives bacteria an opportunity to adapt. As a result, HA-MRSA is able to evolve at a rapid pace due to an increased exposure to antibiotics than it would encounter in most environm...
Read more

Intro

 My name is Joanne, and I am from Salina, KS. I have moved around quite a bit within Kansas, but that is the place of my current residence. I am really passionate about Psychology. Psychology really attracted me because there are aspects of it that can apply as a social science and as a "hard science" such as biology or chemistry. Psychology was a field that was interesting to me since I found myself between those two subject matters when I was trying to decide what my major should be. As someone who wants to go into the healthcare field, I think important to balance those two perspective as the scientific side of things can be sometimes more emphasized that the more relational aspects when it comes to being a doctor. I am currently in a neuroscience lab that studies the interaction of environmental conditioning on addiction, and the research has really opened my as to how much that lifestyles we were raised in can play a factor in our brains.  I think evolution/biology is fa...
Read more

Prompt 4.2

I definitely didn't realize how many moving parts and misunderstandings that I had about evolution. I suppose I shouldn't have counted on the wisdom of high school and introductory biology classes to define fitness or natural selection correctly, but to each their own. I feel like even talking about basic things like fact vs theory or realizing that not all natural selections lead to evolution caused me to realize that this class is going to teach me a lot more than I realized.  Going back to the first blog post, as I mentioned, I think that realizing that not all natural selection has to lead to evolution was different. I think I get a bit hazy with the terms in general, but once we were given a visual, such as we did with fitness, I understood what is trying to be said more.  I am definitely still struggling with the R Studio, but I think with more practice it will come more naturally. Once someone explains it to me, I feel a bit dumb because quite often the solution is simp...
Read more