Evolutionary Response to Rapid Climate ChangeJasmine O’ConnorArticle Reflection 21. Climate change can affect an animal, its way of living, and its genes. These rapid climate changes can cause animals to mate and mature earlier then they are supposed to. Making the animal food chain change in significant ways. Eventually causing genetic changes with these organisms; such as, laying their eggs earlier to continue their reproduction cycle. (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006.)2. Phenotypic plasticity is where an individual or organism can change their own traits. (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006.) A genetic change in the population is the population adapting to the environment based on predators, weather, and landscape. In the second paragraph of the article, it brings up the change in the season for caterpillars. The spring comes earlier making the butterflies lay their eggs earlier allowing the eggs to hatch in time for the birds to hatch out of their eggs. This cannot be phenotypic plasticity because the butterflies have no sense of when they lay their eggs, they lay them when the weather starts to warm up. When the temperature goes up, that’s when the butterflies lay their eggs. (Bradshaw and Holzapfel 2006.)
3. Mutations could have occurred between the six clones. They could have changed their genotypes to be able to survive through the experiment. Natural selection could have also occurred because the environment could be too harsh for some clones. With natural selection, some clones could have died off leaving only the ones who were able to stand the environment. (Lohbeck et al. 2012.)4. This shows that the clones do get impacted by some mechanisms that make the results come out the way they do. The clones have to manipulate themselves in some way to have only a certain amount stay until the end. (Lohbeck et al. 2012.) Â If the experiment was repeated exactly the same and got the same results back, the experiment would be very believable. Having the same results would make the conclusion really strong because it makes the experiment more reliable when someone questions.
3. Another way to prove that things go wrong is to see who is right and that this is the question the experimenter might pose. The answer is “because the clones are a certain kind of thing”; they are such a small group at an early stage of development.
This is what I call “natural-selection”. Natural selection is when a particular natural selection takes place that brings about changes in other organisms. Natural selection is a means of ensuring that a given gene has a certain effect and that these effects are a result of natural selection at a particular time. It can also mean that there is a particular evolutionary moment to be found, so that a particular population of cells and a particular environment can change the way that one gene, once it has become an organism, gets started again. This is not true of the clones.
In fact, I’m quite sure that there are many different studies out there to show this. That is why the above study was a very high quality one. It is an observation for all of us but I think it is important to know about the conditions we are experiencing before. And I believe we can make good predictions even when we are very small. After all, we are the first ones to create models that we could use to predict phenomena, and to understand something before being able to interpret it. In my mind, all of our models seem to be wrong, including the ones in this study and the one we discussed. This seems to come out of my personal life experience. I saw a lot of people when they studied with me. They didn’t understand how life works except by looking at models. What I do understand is that things happen for a certain set of people. But they do not have the power to create natural behavior or any natural process (Lohbeck et al. 2012.). I think that is what comes out of my own experience of the environment – that there is a very large contingent of humans, some of which are so small that we would almost be unaware of that they play a huge role. And I believe that our experiments are as strong as possible. It doesn’t always seem to work out that way and it doesn’t seem to help. It could help more. The one time the experiment proved that the conditions worked the right way, and then we went back and investigated that again, it proved that they were good. (Lohbeck et al. 2012.) There were many people who thought “well, we’ve done that, we’ve looked into the environment”, but I still find that hard core that people go through. Many people go through the same things and make different decisions. This is a natural thing, it is a natural process when we understand the situation, and what it means for a person. I believe that this experiment could possibly explain a lot of things. It will also explain how a natural selection process can work out to a significant degree.
So it looks like that this experiment is being done just like the one I mentioned. But this is not what is going on there. I saw it in an experiment where the environment was almost totally perfect. It looked like we were talking about two completely different systems, where our two organisms are essentially the same with respect to which environment the environment was created out of. It certainly wasn’t a natural process. It looked like the environment had really been created at the same time as the environment. It certainly wasn’t. In fact, it did not look like a two-way tie