Match the terms to their descriptors. NOTE: If you want to change your selection, you'll need to delete the one you already chose. After you delete it, the lis of choices will pop back up and you can make a different choice. Two species evolve in different directions from a common starting point Divergent evolution Two species independently evolve similar structures Homologous structures Traits that look similar but were not inherited from a common Convergent evolution ancestor Analogous structures Traits that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor

Match the terms to their descriptors. NOTE: If you want to change your selection, you'll need to delete the one you already chose. After you delete it, the lis of choices will pop back up and you can make a different choice. Two species evolve in different directions from a common starting point Divergent evolution Two species independently evolve similar structures Homologous structures Traits that look similar but were not inherited from a common Convergent evolution ancestor Analogous structures Traits that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor

Name: ### Instructional Activity: Matching Evolutionary TermsThis exercise
Uploaded: 2024-03-20T06:42:55.000Z
Channel: Bartleby
Description: ### Instructional Activity: Matching Evolutionary TermsThis exercise requires you to match terms related to evolutionary biology with their appropriate descriptors. Please follow the set guidelines:1. **Instructions:** - Read each statement descri

Human Heredity: Principles and Issues (MindTap Course List)

11th Edition

ISBN:9781305251052

Author:Michael Cummings

Publisher:Michael Cummings

Chapter10: From Proteins To Phenotypes

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 23QP

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

INTERPRET DATA Which of the primates in Figure 18-18 is the most distantly related to humans? Explain your answer. Figure 18-18 Differences in DNA nucleotide sequences as evidence of evolutionary relationships Comparing the same gene in different organisms provides a window into evolution. Here the differences in the non-protein-coding region of the -globin gene are compared between humans and other primates. Evolutionary biologists are rapidly expanding such studies from comparing one or several genes to comparing entire genomes.
Is gene transfer a form of eugenics? Is it advantageous to use gene transfer to eliminate some genetic disorders? Can this and other technology be used to influence the evolution of our species? Should there be guidelines for the use of genetic technology to control its application to human evolution? Who should create and enforce these guidelines?
Improving the nutritional value of food has long been one of the goals in agricultural genetics. Crossing different strains of plants and animals followed by generations of artificial selection have yielded some successes, including the development of high-protein maize. The use of gene transfer biotechnology has led to other advances, including the creation of nutritionally enhanced rice to combat vitamin A deficiency and blindness. Researchers are now turning their attention to the nutritional enhancement of animals that are used as food. Scientists are now turning their attention to using gene transfer technology to nutritionally enhance animal foods. Recently, biotechnology was used to produce a sheep with increased amounts of an omega-3 essential fatty acid that plays an important role in the development of the nervous system and, in adults, reduces the risk of coronary artery disease. Once a small number of transgenic animals have been produced, they can be bred by conventional methods to establish a source of nutritionally enhanced meat and milk. The use of biotechnology is presenting consumers with many new choices, which will become more common in the future. Increasingly, we will all have to educate ourselves about the pros and cons of such decisions. How would you explain your decision to eat nutritionally enhanced meat from animals modified by biotechnology?
Improving the nutritional value of food has long been one of the goals in agricultural genetics. Crossing different strains of plants and animals followed by generations of artificial selection have yielded some successes, including the development of high-protein maize. The use of gene transfer biotechnology has led to other advances, including the creation of nutritionally enhanced rice to combat vitamin A deficiency and blindness. Researchers are now turning their attention to the nutritional enhancement of animals that are used as food. Scientists are now turning their attention to using gene transfer technology to nutritionally enhance animal foods. Recently, biotechnology was used to produce a sheep with increased amounts of an omega-3 essential fatty acid that plays an important role in the development of the nervous system and, in adults, reduces the risk of coronary artery disease. Once a small number of transgenic animals have been produced, they can be bred by conventional methods to establish a source of nutritionally enhanced meat and milk. The use of biotechnology is presenting consumers with many new choices, which will become more common in the future. Increasingly, we will all have to educate ourselves about the pros and cons of such decisions. On the other hand, how would you explain your preference for meat from animals without higher levels of beneficial fatty acids?
What is the difference between micro- and macroevolution? Microevolution describes the evolution of small organisms, such as insects, while macroevolution describes the evolution of large organisms, like people and elephants Microevolution describes the evolution of microscopic entities, such as molecules and proteins, while macroevolution describes the evolution of whole organisms Microevolution describes the evolution of organisms in populations, while macroevolution describes the evolution of species over long periods of time Microevolution describes the evolution of organisms over their lifetimes, while macroevolution describes the evolution of organisms over multiple generations.
In a cladistic analysis, a systematist groups together organisms that share: derived homologous traits. derived homoplastic traits. ancestral homologous traits. ancestral homoplastic traits. all of the above.
To construct a phylogenetic tree by applying the principles of parsimony to molecular sequence data, one would: a. start by making assumptions about variations in the rates atwhich different DNA segments evolve. b. group together organisms that share the largest number ofancestral sequences. c. group together organisms that share derived sequences, matching the groups to those defined by morphologicalcharacters. d. group together organisms that share derived sequences, minimizing the number of hypothesized evolutionarychanges. e. identify derived sequences by studying the embryology of theorganisms.
EVOLUTION LINK Write short paragraphs explaining each of the following statements: (a) Natural selection chooses from among the individuals in a population those most suited to current environmental conditions. It does not guarantee survival under future conditions. (b) Individuals do not evolve, but populations do. (c) The organisms that exist today do so because their ancestors had traits that allowed them and their offspring to thrive. (d) At the molecular level, evolution can take place by the replacement of one nucleotide by another. (e) Evolution is said to have occurred within a population when measurable genetic changes are detected.
EVOLUTION LINK What is the common ground between evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists who have adopted the perspective known as Evo Devo?
Which of the following statements about evolutionary studies is not true? a. Biologists study the products of evolution to understand the processes causing it. b. Biologists design molecular experiments to examine evolutionary processes operating over short time periods. c. Biologists study the inheritance of characteristics that a parent acquired during its lifetime. d. Biologists study variation in homologous structures among related organisms. e. Biologists examine why a huge variety of species may inhabit a small island cluster.
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. What are your thoughts on the collection and use of postarrest DNA profiles?
Can DNA profiling identify the source of a sample with absolute certainty? Because any two human genomes differ at about 3 million sites, no two persons (except identical twins) have the same DNA sequence. Unique identification with DNA profiling is therefore possible if enough sites of variation are examined. However, the systems used today examine only a few sites of variation. Nonetheless, even with todays technology, which uses three to five loci, a match between two DNA patterns can be considered strong evidence that the two samples came from the same source. DNA profiling in criminal cases has been a useful tool in establishing both guilt and innocence. Originally, DNA databases contained only the profiles of convicted felons. Over time, however, law enforcement agencies have expanded the collection and use of DNA profiles, and these new policies are causing controversies, once again illustrating how the availability and use of genetic technology is often ahead of consensus on how and when this technology should be used. One of these new policies is postarrest DNA collection. At this writing, 18 U.S. states as well as the federal government allow the collection of DNA samples after an arrest but before conviction. These profiles become part of the states DNA database, which is often searched for evidence in cold cases. Courts across the country have ruled for and against the use of such samples. In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that the collection of DNA samples from someone who has been arrested but not convicted is unconstitutional and violates an individuals right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The case began when a DNA sample was taken from Alonzo Jay King, Jr., who was arrested in 2009 for assault. In a database search, the DNA profile matched that taken from a 2003 unsolved rape. Based on the results of the database search, the man was sentenced to life in prison. The rape conviction was reversed, and the case was sent back to a lower court. As a result, some 16,000 DNA profiles collected postarrest but preconviction since 2009 cannot be used pending appeal of this decision. Before the court decision, postarrest DNA profiles were used in 65 arrests that resulted in 34 convictions, with an additional 12 cases pending. Supporters of postarrest DNA profiling claim that taking a DNA sample by a cheek swab is noninvasive and no different from taking someones fingerprints. Opponents claim that because DNA samples can be used to determine much more than a DNA profile, they are a threat to privacy, and that because minorities are more likely to be arrested, the practice is discriminatory. Would you object if you were arrested for a minor offense, such as a traffic violation, and ordered to provide a DNA sample?