Evolution Extravaganza

 It is no secret that the prevalence of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes has been increasing over the past few decades. However, diabetes is becoming one of the most rapidly spread diseases in more developed countries such as the United States and even more so than we may have predicted. In fact, an article from the American Diabetes Association (Resource 1) posted in 2000, projects the prevalence of diabetes in the United States in the year 2050. In the year 2000, 11 million individuals suffered from diabetes with a prevalence of 4.0% and based on data derived from the rate of diabetes prevalence increase from the years 1980-1998, an estimate as to the number of individuals and prevalence of diabetes in the United States in the year 2050 was asserted. This projection estimated that approximately 29 million Americans would suffer from diabetes with a prevalence of 7.2% Now, I will note that this estimate was based on information gathered in the years 1980-1998 so it may not seem via...

 We are well aware that speciation occurs naturally across a vast array of populations due to a multitude of factors. However, how long does speciation take to occur from one species becoming two or more distinct species? While the answer to if speciation occurs is solely objective and we can assert this is true, the answer to the question regarding the length of time it takes speciation to occur is far more subjective. This subjectivity of the duration it takes for speciation to transpire is attributed to many aspects and I will explicate one such aspect that emphasizes how subjective speciation is in nature. The aspect I will focus on includes the variables of how populated a given species is, and how different geographical alterations can impact said species. For example, if a speciation based on a massive geographical alteration event such as Pangea and the tectonic plates splitting up creating separate land masses vs a far more rapid and minuscule event such as a volcano erupt...

 Across the animal kingdom there is a vast array of species that exhibit unique aspects of dimorphism in which the male of a given species will often possess external traits that are far more colorful, patterned, etc. than the female. Examples of these incredible displays of dimorphism range from peacock's massive fans full of vibrant colors, to mandrills (a monkey species) and their bright noses. This dimorphism that exists across the animal kingdom is attributed to sexual selection due to Bateman's principle in which female eggs are far more valuable and less plentiful than ejaculates from males. However, a unique example of dimorphism is present in the pipefish species, Microphis deocata as the female actually is the partner who exhibits prominent displays of color and patterns to woo the far more dull male Microphis deocata.  Without further research this unique reversal of roles seems almost as if it is an evolutionary error that arose, but the true answer is quite the op...

Selection is one of the most pertinent and driving factors of evolution that we have discussed thus far in the semester. Pinning down an exact definition or cause of selection is quite difficult as it is so diverse in its actions across every species, but the key aspect of selection is that it typically decreases genetic diversity in a population due to a multitude of factors. This is due to selection in natural populations causing certain genetic aspects to offer organisms a higher fitness and these individuals will likely reproduce and thrive better than their lower fitness counterparts that belong to the same population. However, we do not observe populations genetic variation becoming stagnant in any natural population, even if an organism obtains a highly advantageous relative fitness level due to genetic mutations. Why? Specifically, why does selection not yield a significant decrease in genetic variation in a given population, even if this population maintains a perceived apex l...

 The typical and most prominent theory of evolution is based on the ideas of natural selection. However, in 1968 Dr. Kimura proposed an alternative theory of evolution that differs significantly from the evolution theory based on natural selection. Kimura's theory is known as the neutral theory in which the driving factor for evolution is attributed to random genetic drift. Specifically, this neutral theory of evolution is maintained at the molecular level involving random mutations in DNA that may not contribute to a phenotype specifically, but over a multitude of generations, these neutral mutations may actually become fixed in a population due to genetic drift. This theory clearly deviates from the theory based on natural selection as Kimura's theory focuses on aspects of genetic mutations that are far more difficult to study and far more random than the more accepted theory of evolution based on natural selection. In addition to this, a significant difference is that Kimura...

 Inbreeding is an interesting topic in nature for a multitude of reasons. While I was aware that inbreeding and non-random mating alter the Hardy-Weinberg equations, I was not aware that inbreeding does not actually influence evolution itself. After learning that inbreeding causes an increased number of homozygotes in a given population, I now realize how it directly affects HWE, while not affecting the population's evolutionary path because of non-random mating. I also had always presumed inbreeding hindered nearly every population of organisms that partook in it, but this too I found my reasoning to be errored in. After pondering and researching how inbreeding may actually improve a population, I found an article titled "The Costs and Benefits of Inbreeding" from The Institute of Canine Biology. This article discussed both the benefits and disadvantages that may arise from inbreeding. The most prominent benefits that may actually arise from inbreeding or non-random mati...