risk of cardiovascular disease

mechanism of filtration

higher muscle mass=higher creatinine levels

filtration rate

raised result for african americans, women and elderly

raised by 21%

higher risk

Why is AIC-based preferred with prediction if AIC performs best with small sample sizes? For predictions of an ecosystem/population, the sample sizes usually can get fairly large. BIC is recommended for larger sample sizes, but is best for determining the most important variables to explain a measured response. I guess where I am confused is, what if prediction is the goal, but with a large sample size? How do you decide which criteria to follow?

This is a concept that is very difficult with science! Because who's decision is it to determine what percent error or degree of error signifies statistically significant results? We all know it's practically impossible to get 100% correct results with no error, but with many things, the error ranges can be anything. With new studies, how is it that they determine a reasonable percent error?

I, personally, have always loved this scale! I feel like comparing the species richness, differentiation/ uniqueness and the geographic diversity makes a well rounded way to measure aspects of an ecosystem/population. I realized this actually was not taught to a lot of people growing up and this could really aide in our ecosystem evaluations.

This is so astonishing to me that, although there is still the lack of respect for our Earth's biodiversity and health, the trade of wildlife comes in as having an economic impact just under narcotics and firearms. With being a country that is so fire arm dependent, I think this one comparison of economic impact shows just how big of an issue this is. What are ways we could work on preventing this? I feel like they have tried incentives and fines, but clearly that just is not enough.

I wonder if the illegal trade of wildlife has decreased during COVID-19? I am sure that their regulations have changed and gotten more strict for packages and trade coming from other countries, so could COVID have had an indirect impact? I was also wondering, if illegal trade still goes on (which it does), how are they able to accurately estimate how prevalent it is?

Is it possible to restore an ecosystem if the resource base has been eroded over human practices? I see that this can be from a number of sources, but by introducing, for example, deer, elephants and rhinos into the forest zone that they typically did not inhabit, so would this permanently change the ecosystem? It is crazy how just human practices like shifting can actually shift the whole biodiversity and interactions within an ecosystem. I wonder where the line is drawn that dictates if it is too late to reverse such intense consequences of human practices?

This is so interesting and something that I did not realize was done! Being able reconstruct images of historically accurate vegetation patterns could dramatically aide in conservation strategies and practices. If we can understand how an area's old ecosystem was able to sustain itself and function, it gives a clear end goals for conservation efforts. With a goal like that, they can try to reconstruct those old patterns and are likely to have more sustainable outcomes. It is something so incredible that I did not even realize was done!

I feel that, although this may be extreme, if people knew that there would be such a serious consequence for a conservation practice, it would more likely be more respected and enforced. For example, with poaching and companies clear cutting areas, if companies were found to be doing this or if an individual was found poaching, they would not be stuck with just a fine and loopholes to get away with it. We had talked about how companies will decide if it is beneficial to just pay the fines and go forward with disrupting the ecosystems, so if there was not a fine, but rather a serious punishment, individuals would be very much less likely to engage in the practices. Is this too extreme, probably, but it might just be what is needed for the short term to keep individuals to respect guidelines and laws. It is that line of deciding when is human life more important than oour global health/conservation, so a punishment of this manner would likely not even be passed. It is definitely important to understand how this punishment has been used for conservation strategies in the past and how it could have further applications. Pushing that line might be what is inevitably needed in order to stop/slow the global meltdown we are seeing.

Is it really overshadowed though? As stated in the next sentence, human actions are one of the main reasons why conservation exercises are needed. In this class even, we all acknowledge and stress the impact humans have had on biodiversity and ecosystems, so it honestly is hard for me to understand how this opening statement is true?

This is so heartbreaking!! 350 million hectares is just a shocking amount of the tropics to be severely degraded. With humans having been industrialized for a relatively short period of time (when looking at time as a whole), the amount of damage done is truly disgusting and horrendous. Since it is stated that regeneration seems to be the only remaining conservation option for many regions, this should be a much bigger focus in the world of biology. It should be much more stressed and individuals even here at PSU studying biology/other sciences need to spread the word and educate others whenever possible. Ignorance is all around us and the only way to spread any hope of any conservation becoming widespread is to spread knowledge whenever possible. It is so devastating the damage we are all responsible for.

I wonder how it is possible to "intensify agricultural production" without expanding the croplands? Wouldn't increased production have to be a result of more crops? This could possibly be through the use of GMOs because otherwise, I am struggling to see how these two ideas could work. In order to increase production there would need to be more of the crops, but without expanding the area used- it just seems like a very difficult plan to execute.

!!! relates to my previous comment, but this is SO important!! Yet another correlation between human pollution and global warming compounding to have severe impacts on many organisms

This is so insane!! We always tend to focus our conservation efforts on the mainlands, rainforests, etc, but there needs to be a larger focus on our marine and freshwater ecosystems! They make up a majority of our earth and there is so must vast area and species that have been yet to be discovered. With polluting and poisoning the wildlife found in these areas, it will create a large butterfly effect of issues. And with having so little information on marine life/biodiversity currently, I wonder how this will impact our later discoveries and how we will be able to backtrack any extinctions/mutations? The fact that brominated flame retardants were able to make its way all the way to whales feeding hundreds of feet beneath the surface is just so disturbing and disgusting. There absolutely needs to be more awareness and change.

We really really need more people in these fields!! There should be a much larger knowledge of these fields in public school programs. In schools, there is a large focus on medical applications of science and they tend to associate conservation professions as something boring and mundane. There needs to be so much more education on this topic!! Only 15% of known species in the US being studied in sufficient detail is insane for such a wealthy, first world country. Government funding and support is something that our generation can stress and make happen.

It is so disturbing that funding is an issue with a program so crucial to the earth and our own survival. There is so much funding in politics, sports and development- there should not even be a question of conservation efforts getting the same funding. We are a first world country and should be one of the top countries when it comes to funding of conservation efforts. Our populations priorities are so disturbing and really have to change. Education is the only way this will happen, but I doubt it will happen soon enough.

It is truly sad that our country will dump so much money into infrastructure and politics but not conservation and ecosystem management. I know everything has a cost, but with so many billionaires and overall wealthy people in this country, conservation efforts should be one of the lead measures to consider. Putting a price tag on our ecosystems is just so disturbing. Without our biodiversity and ecosystems, money, politics and every other issue is completely irrelevant.

With how developed the US already is, we should really stress the need to use what we already have and stop destroying natural habitats. It can take decades, even centuries, to restore ecosystems but it is so quick for humans to destroy them. These ecosystems are so fragile to human impact. Our damage has already been done, so several conservation efforts should be to protect the biodiverse ecosystems we currently have in order to prevent further destruction.

I feel that these facts alone show that the government needs to be more involved in these efforts. There needs to be more manpower in order to properly survey, manage and research these issues so that recovery planning can be taken more seriously and maintain "good" biological data.

They should make this process less difficult as, without conservation and preservation of biodiversity, there is no need for any economics or politics. If we don't have an earth that is able to sustain life, then these ignorant issues have no importance. There really should be less politics involved when it comes to conservation efforts. If it is so easy to clear land for infrastructure, why is it so difficult to maintain and preserve biodiversity? People are truly very selfish and there needs to be more education to stress the importance of these conservation efforts.

I am very glad that this exemption process is complicated and therefore makes it rarely used by federal agencies and private citizens! With most conservation efforts, they should really make it more complicated to bypass because, the harder it is to get around, the more likely people are to find alternatives to whatever project is occuring.

We often generally associate China with having overwhelming pollution compared to the US- I wonder if these vertebrates are more impacted by pollution in the US due to the large habitat destruction? With their habitat being lost at such a large rate, these populations are left with few places to go and might end up in waste disposal sites that are heavily polluted. A lot of these threats seem to suggest that there is a direct correlation between that. Habitat loss could very easily lead to pollution being more of a threat and having more alien species present would bring a larger opportunity to disease exposure. It shows how much of a feedback loop there is between these threats.

83% is an insanely large amount of marine animals being associated with accidental mortality!! This is something that I feel is so overlooked. The marine animals are often forgotten about since they are not land mammals that are easily able to be seen and surveyed, but it is clear that they need much more of our conservation attention and overall protection.

This is interesting as most people tend to associate birds with being disease ridden and, according to this data, amphibians are much more threatened by disease than birds. For most of these factors, birds tend to be much more threatened, I wonder why that is? Is it because birds are more migratory and therefore exposed to more threats?

These statistics are very impressive for how much just introducing a mascot can increase knowledge of endangered species and conservation efforts. It is sad that it takes something so commercial to spread awareness, but that being said, most of the general population is not educated on the environment and biology. That is something that I can get stuck in with being a biology major and from a family of biologists. I just find it disturbing how so many people don't care about populations or the environment unless it directly affects them or is a "cute" mascot. But that is the reality of our current population and something we should be more open to, given these statistics

This is truly disgusting to me that we have to compare conservation efforts to maintain biodiversity to food and technology brands. It should truly be enough that this is the earth we all inhabit and that it is crucial to sustain life and biodiversity. Having to put it on the same advertising level as man made products is just truly disturbing. Keeping populations and ecosystems intact should not be something we have to "sell" to the human population.

How is it possible to protects such large areas of land? It is clearly very needed, but the number of people and conservation efforts needed to make this possible must be substantial! I would be very interested to see how these efforts are made possible on such a large scale.

This is a massive increase for only 4 years!! It's amazing that they were able to increase the protected areas by 3.4% in that short amount of time. I know that this area is substantially full of endemic species, but I feel like most places worldwide need more protected areas than are currently set up. With rapid global warming and populations not having enough time to adapt and evolve to the changing environments, we need to protect as many species and populations as possible

I feel like this is definitely a no brainer- without our biodiversity and protection of populations, it would be impossible to sustain human life, or any life. People don't realize that by prioritizing themselves over other organisms on the planet, they are harming the earth and themselves. Without the ability to protect biodiversity, we are subjecting ourselves to famine, loss of life and overall rapid deterioration of our earth.

Seems like this area for the Last of the Wild happens to be where it is less developed (unsurprisingly)

The other maps are much more sparse and not such dense chunks of land. It is interesting how the Megadiverse countries tend to stick to themselves. In Northern America, it seems as if it almost is primarily just the United States. Could this be due to the varying extreme climates that occur in Canada and Mexico?

Endemic Bird Areas are also seen a lot on the coasts and islands, I wonder if this is due to lack of biodiversity and destruction of habitat/nutritional needs not being able to be replenished/repaired?

It is an interesting observation if you notice that most of these biodiversity hotspots are on the coasts of many land masses.

I think it is very overlooked how important aquatic biodiversity and conservation is. There is so much of the ocean that we do not know, so taking that into account, the species we do know have been devestated by pollutants caused by humans, waste products and results of travel/transport machinery. It is probably mostly ignored because of that "out of sight, out of mind" mentality. It is easier to measure and look at biodiversity of land organisms, but the oceans and freshwater systems make up a majority of our earth. Especially with global warming, it is an area that needs more attention. Without the organisms that are vital to known biodiversity, we could be polluting and killing a large majority of our planet and not realize the damage until it is too late. (similarly to where we are currently at with many endangered species and our current global climate crisis)

I didn't know the definition of this word, so I thought I would post it here just in case anyone was in the same boat!

"(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity"

This fact shows that we need more people to go into taxonomy and conservation/research efforts. It is a field of biology that is so under stressed and really needs to be more well known! I didn't realize prior to this class how little is known about so many taxa and extinctions and it is something that should be more publicized to the general public. The lack of education on these issues and fields of studies is so crazy!!

I don't have an elaborate comment on this, but that is just so insane how just among birds, there is one extinction per year. How is this not more widely known and how is the importance not more stressed? The ignorance and lack of education on these issues is so astonishing. We really need more wide education efforts in our population to slow these rates of extinction before it is too late- if it isn't too late already.

Bees are so much more important that people realize! Honey bees provide 80% of the pollination worldwide and a single bee colony can pollinate up to 300 million flowers a day, according to GreenPeace. This one statement from the article is something so important: " Scientists know that bees are dying from a variety of factors—pesticides, drought, habitat destruction, nutrition deficit, air pollution, global warming and more. Many of these causes are interrelated. The bottom line is that we know humans are largely responsible for the two most prominent causes: pesticides and habitat loss."

It is so incredibly sad how much humans are so self absorbed that they don't realize how they are impacting other species and populations. As selfish as we are, many don't realize how much these extinction impact our own fitness and overall sustainability/nutrition.

This article is definitely worth a read as it states so many important factors, risks and impacts of our bee population and risk of extinction.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/sustainable-agriculture/save-the-bees/

I personally find it very sad that we always have to relate benefits of biodiversity and overall conservation efforts to things that will relate to humanity. It is as if all of the other species and populations do not matter as much as us, when in reality, killing off our biodiversity and ecosystems and ruining our climate will eventually result in extinction of homo sapiens as well. I found several articles about the 6th mass extinction becoming inevitable, simply due to humans. The rest of the mass extinctions relate to volcano expulsions or asteroid collisions with earth, and it is stated that this 6th extinction crisis is simply due to us. The current extinction rate in June of 2020 was over 100 times greater than the natural rate. It is just crazy how there is not more news or focus on this crisis. I'll link the last article I looked at, but there are several primary publications as well regarding this topic.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52881831

I wonder why it is that on the moist western side of the mountain range has fewer but larger fires. Could it possibly be that, due to the moist environment it takes more energy to start a fire, so when one does ignite, it will be more large and furious. Just something I think is interesting to speculate about- and I am sure there are actually answers already out there regarding this!

It is astonishing to see how much of the land shown has been devastated by fires. The burning pattern is very interesting as well. I always imagined that wildfires would be more straight shot, going in a linear fashion. Seeing that it goes almost in curves and jumps from surface to surface, it is just truly interesting how this happens. I wonder if certain areas have more moisture content or less available oxygen, and that is why it is either less damaged or left unmarked. Studying this field must be so interesting!

This has always been one of my favorite quotes from The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. It is so easy in our day and age to imagine the smaller organisms as less complex, less sophisticated than homo sapiens. In reality, we are all complex organisms, some smaller organisms even much more complex than us. Some smaller organisms are yet to be discovered, and there is no telling how complex and fascinating they are. Having this idea in place that we are all dependent on each other, unique and complex is something that would truly aid the fight to conserve our global biodiversity and climate. As, when we accept that we are more than our own species, that we rely on more than ourselves to survive- only then will people have hope of seeing the vast importance behind preserving the health of our planet and fellow organisms.

This isn't an active link anymore, by the way :(

It is interesting how, although lowland biotic attrition and spatial gaps are negative upon biodiversity, there is not a high rate for estimated extinction. With over a century of time having a 3.2 degree Celsius upward shift, it is surprising to me that there are not higher rates of this. It just does show how resilient and robust species have become. Trying to adapt and overcome global warming is something they should not have to rapidly do, but it seems that these selected species have done fairly well given the potentially lethal situation.

Looking at this graph, it is interesting to see how the global mean temperature was fairly stanble until the 1930-1940s. This is right around when world war two was taking place. It seems that there possibly might be some correlation with the rapid production of fire arms and other military products and the impact on the global temperature. It seems almost that, as our production of goods and technology increases, so does our global impact. You would think that as our knowledge and technology progress that we would be able to use some of it to maintain the health of our planet, but it seems that it is not something important to our society. Prior to the world wars, our global temperature was fairly stable, so it almost is as if, once humankind became increasingly unstable, so did our climate. With things being fairly stable now, why is it that our climate isn't as well? It makes sense that in times of crisis, non-immediate issues take a back seat, but climate change clearly should be a main priority right now. But, as can be seen here, things only continue to worsen as our globe is heating at a rapid rate.

It is astonishing that we have made so much damage in such a short amount of time. People still fail to accept that climate change and global warming is "real", even when there are clear facts to show how terrible everything has, and will become. The fact that if things were to cease immediately- something that is unrealistic- that there would still be a total increase in global temperature by 2.5 degrees Celsius. The momentum that has been put in place can not simply stop, even if by some miracle, our contribution did. I simply can not begin to understand how people see this as political and not a real issue, when the very earth we all inhabit is rapidly deteriorating before us. Because of us. It is something so disheartening. If the facts are there and research is constantly being done, how is it that we will every have hope of conveying this message to everyone? It is as if the world politics and our own mindless comfort has become more important than sustaining life. The only lives we care about are our own, and yet fail to realize that by neglecting our earth, we are neglecting ourselves.

What does that specifically entail, "a period of unusual stability"? It just is interesting to me that they use this wording. The wording almost is a bit sad, as the undertone is that, as humans, we are expected to make this planet worse. To constantly worsen the global climate. Shouldn't it be expected that we maintain stability? I feel as though this wording shows how humankind has normalized the unnatural deterioration of our earth and the climate. It is something truly sad and profound. It is something that should not be accepted and not be considered usual. It just simply should not be "unusual" to expect ourselves to maintain that stability of our earth's climate. It should simply be a standard to do so.

I was interested in how this fungi impacts the environment it inhabits and found this article! It does so many things, such as mitigating water stress, increases the salt tolerance of fruit crops, increases plant growth and nutrient intake, and even enhances expression of certain genes that contribute to increased drought tolerance! (to name just a few) Losing these fungi seems like it has such a large impact that I would have never guessed. Losing one fungi can have such a large impact on an environment and is something that should be much more talked about!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/arbuscular-mycorrhizal-fungi

This reminds me of microorganisms called extremophiles. Is it possible that these higher salt concentrations make this specific environment a more ideal environment for new microorganisms to thrive? I am sure that this would greatly impact the ecosystem and survival of several organisms. This could even be how new diseases and viruses come to be. I would love to research this more! It is so fascinating how much everything in life is deeply connected without us realizing. It shows that even the smallest change, that may seem insignificant to us, can cause a huge butterfly effect.

I know that we had just talked about this idea of species that we never even knew about becoming extinct, but how did they come to this conclusion that at least seven moth species were extinct? Could this be due to fossils? It seems that there has not been enough time to pass to create fossils, so I am very interested how they discovered this?

I wonder how this comes to be? It's so interesting how plants being introduced to an environment is often overlooked when observing invasive species, but they clearly have such a large impact! I am very interested how certain types of fertilized soils by nitrogen fixers are able to favor certain plant species over others.

Meaning in case you didn't know either: "The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms"

I understand that there is some cultural significance to consuming frogs, but with so many farm raised animals available, is it really necessary to harvest one billion frogs a year? That is so many of a population to be harvested just for human consumption. And it is clearly so not necessary and just a luxury for humans at the cost of a whole species.

Look at how big that "pie slice" is for mammals and birds! It is insane that humans are responsible for over a third of mammal deaths/population declines and about a third for birds. I wonder how there is a way to reduce this when the data is clearly all available, but the exploitation still is continuing? It seems that no matter how much data comes out regarding population deaths and endangerment, humans will not stop over exploiting species if there is any sort of economical benefit.

“International trade in turtles, and their parts and products, has been recognized for decades as a severe threat to some turtle species and populations,” said Peter Paul van Dijk, director of the turtle conservation program at Global Wildlife Conservation. “What has not been widely recognized is how the global demand for turtles rotates between countries and continents, vacuuming up one population and species after another, with disastrous results for their survival.” https://turtlesurvival.org/turtles-and-tortoises-are-in-trouble/

This is a quote from an article detailing the trouble turtles and tortoises are in and this point regards the overexploitation of them. It is mentioned that half of all 360 turtle and tortoise species face imminent extinction. That is an astounding number of species facing extinction and seems unreal.

It is very interesting to me is how they mention several countries try to catch and trade turtles, eliminating or endangering several species without even knowing it. Turtle trade should, in my opinion, not be allowed whatsoever, but if it must go on, there clearly needs to be some sort of regulation/communication between countries.

The fact that overexploitation is the most important cause of freshwater turtle extinctions is something that just simply should not be okay and is heartbreaking to see.

It seems so crazy to me that with how much we have created and developed that we still have to exploit biological commodities for basic things like garden items, pets and cosmetics. We have plenty of plants that can be home/garden grown and will not exploit the environment of resources. The number of domesticated pets that have been bred, we simply don't need to take any from the wild to domesticate. And with cosmetics, we have more makeup available than anyone could know what to do with. To use animals for testing and exploit biological commodities for makeup just seems silly. To me it seems like humans just can't be satisfied with what they have and always want something new and more.

I have never thought about this when considering the changes to a landscape over time. People rarely would ever log, clear, or use land in a curved fashion. The straight boundaries are something that seldom occur naturally. I wonder how they outline and track the boundary changes for several large landscapes- in order to see this change?

This reminds me of Dr. O'Donnell's work with the brook trout! Along with tagging the trout, she has to set up multiple places to track their movement as fish don't stay in one spot for very long.

It's sad that this isn't just common sense to the public! Almost nothing is inexhaustible when it comes to environmental resources.

I wonder what the 17 different human activities studied were?

Super important to note that one factor alone might not lead to a noticeable negative outcome, but as a whole impact each other, leading to amplification of the total impact.

How does the "new", secondary forests differing from the old-growth forests impact the ecosystem? (in a measurable amount)

I see it speaks of composition, structure and carbon storage, but I wonder how much these factors differ, how large it impacts the environment, and to what extent?

Don't have any elaboration, but that is an INSANE increase!! Over five times higher in just three centuries?? It's mind boggling how we could stand by and let this happen.

Very sad how much we have seen these incidents increase so drastically in the past few years :(

This is probably do to not having many resources that are profitable to industries. Especially deserts- there isn't land to grow produce and is probably more likely to suffer from trophy hunting.

What do they mean by "semi-natural" forests?

I wonder why that is? I thought that tropical locations had high rates of deforestation? Is it being a "world" tropic different than being tropical?

My dad lives on Plum Island in Newburyport, MA, and I know this is a huge issue! The sand dunes keep breaking down and causing land instability as well as causing destruction of several homes. There are signs everywhere for the sand dunes and wildlife, but since Plum Island is so popular, it it's very rare to see some teens or middle age adults ignoring these guidelines. So sad that people can't help out with sustaining our biodiversity and ecosystems! (Considering the storms, natural disasters and force of the tides are already causing erosion on their own!)

Honestly did not know the definition for "impetus" so here it is! : the force that makes something happen or happen more quickly

So for logging- my family owns a lot of land and we were required to log it by the town in order to manage the density of the forest in order to let new species of trees grow and develop.

I know they are referencing large scale logging, but is it directly targeting the issue of clearing land? Just wondering as it always made me nervous that we had to log some of our land! (It is still very much dense and diverse, just less dense than before). Couldn't help but think of the little squirrels and birds and owls that may have been residing in the trees logged!! :(

Greenpeace does a great job breaking this down by leading products of trade and it's impact on the total deforestation. Breaks it down in a very easy to read, "dumbed down" manner, making it easy for anyone to understand

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/forests/issues/agribusiness/

It's sad how in todays society, everything comes down to money. I was just talking to a friend yesterday that it is insane how we live, die, compete and kill for money that is only given worth because we decided it is worth something. At this point, it is apparently more important than quality of life, sustainability, and conservation of our environment. That simply is not how life is supposed to be.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/world/asia/struggling-with-japans-nuclear-waste-six-years-after-disaster.html

Here's an article about how Japan's ecosystem is still struggling from the largest nuclear disaster in a quarter of a century. They make several points, but I feel it is important for this paper to acknowledge the 220 acres of deforested land! :(

Could this be due to increased tourism and frequency of natural disasters?

I feel this fragmentation occurs from actions of human/technology development. We often don't see the problem, since the habitat is still semi-intact, and this leads to species silently struggling and having a rapid death rate and population decrease.

I remember from BioSci1 that we discussed a concept how in order to keep up with our growing population, we should be eating plants and natural sources instead of other organisms. That would be in order to have sufficient energy levels(plants having the most amount of energy) and to decrease the rate of environmental damage.

How do they come to this determination of the deforestation rate of tropical forests within such a small frame of time?

How is it that they are able to estimate the global amount of breeding birds at one time?

I wasn't sure what a nematode is, but apparently it is a roundworm!

Not super related to conservation and biodiversity, but how is it that they can count all of the stars in our visible universe? It just seems like that would be extremely difficult!

Why is it that the number of individual organisms living at one time is the most important measure of quantity and variety of life? If anything, shouldn't it be more so based off the overall fitness? If an organism has a higher fitness, there will be a higher survival rate and overall more variety due to the evolution through the generations.

it's interesting how our whole species used to be so physical and able to travel such long distances and now we are part of a society that struggles to even exercise. It's just funny to see how things can change so drastically

I know that because of this, some cities have created land bridges for animals to safely cross and not be as impeded by the new developments/roads.

so sad :( there are so many effects to pesticides and toxic waste that many don't consider before nonchalantly using them.

poor salamander babies :(

!!! something that should be much more widely emphasized

I honestly don't understand how this is considered "unknown"?

unintended? It is very intended as humans are clearing land and preventing organisms to thrive that are undesirable to them and their living. It seems very intended to me. It's kind of a no brainer that when one destroys land, they are destroying life on a large scale.

This is something that should be taken into account more before clearing and developing on new land for sure

ew

Good for the pests and microorganisms though! They are just as deserving of life as we are.

how do we not "understand" this? With how much we have developed on once habitable and genetically thriving land, you would think there would be thousands of studies and plenty of research on this topic. Honestly shocking that there isn't.

How about stopping the creation of new cities? We have plenty of infrastructure already present and humans are taking over too much area that was once thriving with genetic diversity and life. Humans are arguably the most selfish species, in my opinion. Many people argue that natural selection is the reason for disappearance of once prevalent species, but humans have destroyed and polluted our world so much. If anything, as terrible as it sounds, humans need a form of natural selection because our population numbers are much too high and unsustainable at the rate we are going. We either need to come up with new ways to sustain what ecosystems are left or we will eventually kill the whole planet, let alone the number of organisms we have already massacred. (sorry for being dramatic, this kind of stuff grinds my gears)

It's interesting and rather shocking that there are not more studies done regarding this. I wonder why that is?

The sad part of this is that several animals can be observed in a panic, trying to cross roads that are now present where their homes were, and often are hit by cars or considered a "threat". Several bears are found in backyards and if they have lost their mate, child, parents, they will be more panicked, agitated, and considered a threat to the new human population. This often leads to sedation/relocation and sometimes euthanization/death. The way humans inhabit once thriving land and turn in into an essential war-zone for the native creatures/organisms is truly heartbreaking.

I know with more developed cities, such as Concord/Boston for example, the temperature increases with areas that have more pavement present. With more urbanization, the reasoning for increased temperatures could be due to this. The sunlight is absorbed by the black/grey asphalt and pavement and has a sort of incubating effect for holding warm temperatures. It can be commonly observed just by feeling how much warmer a spot of pavement is that has been exposed to sun as compared to a spot that was in the shade or is just natural ground. This could definitely be a contributor to global warming. Urbanizing an area also causes ecosystem disturbances by clearing once habitable land for other organisms and replacing it with a hard surface that is unable to sustain life.

This is definitely something very important to keep in mind!!

defined as enthusiasm or passion

This could be due to the fact that females are only able to be fertilized and produce offspring once during a period of time whereas males can go around and fertilize dozens of females at one time. It makes sense that females have to be more choosy than males. They are the ones that have to make a real commitment to producing offspring where males don't have to be as committed. In a metaphorical sense, the seed is important, but the soil and nutrients and conditions it grows in is key to growth. You can plant multiple seeds but that one plant has to have time to grow independently into an organism.

I believe that this is honestly the most accurate idea for most organisms. Every mate has a choice to make regardless of sex. It is especially present with humans since we don't have that dire need for survival due to the medical field and resources we have available.

I understand the point the author is trying to make, but I feel like it's not a fair statement. For his time, he was very accurate and insightful for several ideas that were well beyond his time. He laid so much groundwork for the field of biology and making this statement frequently throughout the article just seems a bit demeaning and close minded.

With the idea of restrictive variation, that makes it seem like it would be more present in a population mostly in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

Since it requires genetic variation, this must be more present in larger populations of a specific species as well as a low inbreeding coefficient.

Very important sentence to emphasize with this model!!

This idea of indirect benefits possibly having higher fitness offspring is definitely very important to all organisms. The ability to contribute to the next generation's gene pool is key to survival and a higher fitness for the species as a whole.

I know there are some male birds that construct "homes" for the female and she essentially chooses which one is the most desirable to her. They even collect things like hay for insulation and different foods/berries. Doesn't sound like a bad way to choose a mate honestly!

This is definitely a very important quality for all organisms, I assume. Territory defense and parental care are key to survival and the ability to contribute to the next generation's gene pool.

what defines a higher-quality male/female versus a lower-quality one? I feel like this is very subjective based on the situation and organism. Maybe too broad of a statement?

I mean, many of us tend to forget that we too are animals that evolved from other organisms. It is foolish to believe that only we have a sense of preference and a bit of vanity when choosing a mate. If some people have standards when it comes to choosing a mate, why wouldn't other organisms? This honestly could be due to the fact that we can't actually understand the "language" that other organisms use to "speak" to each other.

In hedgehogs, the female actually does not ovulate until in the presence of a male! I think it is very interesting as it is more of an opportunistic selection. It also is very efficient because the female is not regularly ovulating as humans and several other organisms do. It would be very interesting to see how that came to be in hedgehogs! It's very practical and efficient on a biological level, although does show random/opportunistic selection.

That's interesting that there is not much studied with the "battles" between narwhals since the 19th century by Darwin. The referenced Gerson and Hickie in 1985 wrote a paper regarding the scarring on male narhwals from battling but there is very limited research on this topic. I feel like many organisms and ideas by Darwin have been more extensively analysed, so I wonder why it is that there is not much research on this topic?

But who would expect someone from the 19th century who made so many groundbreaking discoveries for the world of biology to get everything right? I feel it should be common knowledge for any scientist that no one will get everything right in their area of study.

At least with humans, one of the reasons why some lineages does not have strong sexual selection could be due to cultural and political ideas in that area. For example, things like arranged marriages and a royal monarchy.

Since they are comparing Darwin's definition of sexual selection to Andersson in 1994, that definitely shows how ahead of his time Darwin was

This was definitely a very controversial idea at the time- maybe that is why 12 years after the Origin of Species to release this book?

micro satellite DNA? Sounds mad cool but what is this?

mention this quote

!!!

reference dogs and horses w small remenants of last toe but still slightly there

reference horses w toes and now just a hoof

!!!

!!!

!!! why were they not retained by other snakes if it is retained to complete the scheme of nature

!!! infographic for current beliefs vs darwins at the time

!!!! definitely put in infographic

"figworts" a type of flower

rudimentary organs that have been aborted can be found in variant individuals

south american lungfish

cute ass kiwi birdy

wing of a penguin is likely a reduced organ that was modified for a new function instead of being in a nascent state

if the part is capable of further development, it is called nascent

organs in this condition cannot be produced thru variation or natural selection

examples of rudimentary organs

newly formed or at it's moment of completion

come back to and re-evaluate w diagram of flower/plant

organs that are underdeveloped or useless can help declare the species' origin

= immature, undeveloped or basic form

= useless of unprofitable

male female and hermaphrodite forms of a plant

could talk about present day applications

short faced breed in the recessive phenotype and nearly lost their habitat -natural selection and competition for resources

tumbler pigeons, even ones with different lengths of beaks, are still kept together do to having the same tumbling function

connection to genetics

think over because it important but confusing. Needs further breakdown

!!! organs which are related are cleat indications of true affinity

something to think about more and make sense of because it seems slightly confusing but important

linneaus system

Natural system= plan of the creator

natural system categorization

order of phylogenic tree

reference prodigy diagram

different descendants of the dominant species tend to have the closest competition

incipient species often produce new and dominant species

variate = incipient species

dominant species have most genetic variability

Important to mention in infographic!!

With our current population's ignorance to science, this will likely negatively effect us all in the long run. With measles and other preventable diseases making a comeback, there is no telling how this will change us overall.

!!! I love love love this point! I would love to do research and study the actually processes that let evolution happen. We know that it happens how could it happen on such a large scale level? It is so interesting and I would LOVE to learn more about this and can't wait for new discoveries within this.

How is this a question? To me personally, it is obvious that evolution matters greatly for a functioning ecosystem. Look at how much our world has changed environmentally- from ice age to present day to current global warming. If species and organisms didn't evolve, there would arguably be close to no life on this planet. Evolution is the basis of our survival.

How were these new approaches and methods developed? If we hope to expand upon this in the future, it would be interesting to know how exactly these biological studies came to be (which I am sure we will discuss in this course)

This is such an interesting topic of biology! Understanding how each species has evolved genetically to create new species, new cellular levels, new biological processes- that is such an important thing to explore in our future. Understanding from a genetic level how we evolved to become what we are today would change everything in our world. Although we hypothesize about multi-cellular organisms coming from different things like mitochondria and chloroplasts, if we actually had a solid idea of the exact genetic process behind that, there would open so many doors for evolutionary biology.

This is arguably the most important point in this paper. Although it is important to map our genetic sequences and see how they evolve, without seeing why and how they evolved, it is essentially useless information. To cure different genetic conditions and diseases, it is so important to understand how they came to be in the first place.

It is absolutely crazy how we have been able to start understanding how things as small as viruses and bacteria can evolve. I understand how it is easy to test this with antibiotic resistance, but if we could track the long term evolution of bacteria and single celled organisms, that could lead us to a potential "answer" as to the origin of life.

It is absolutely insane to see how within the past 50 years our means or conviction of different crimes has changed due to being able to identify different sources of DNA. So many people who have been wrongly convicted have been recently released due to our developments in biological identification. It makes you wonder if some people being incarcerated currently will be found innocent in 10 or 20 years due to new developments within biology.

If we continue to use phylogenic trees to get rid of invasive species, wouldn't this negatively effect our whole biodiversity? If there is not the process of natural selection then our world will have much higher carbon emissions and will will be more likely to be effected by global warming in the near future. Although this could be argued about different healthcare approaches and vaccinations to keep people alive, it makes you wonder how far is too far when determining what to "get rid of" in our biological diversity.

This is a very important point within evolutionary biology because, not only do GMOs effect how plants will evolve, it could severely effect several animals and insects that are dependent on those crops. If there is a big switch to genetically modified crops, that could be the next severe change evolutionary that could be documented in history books within the future.

If there is long term selection on the cellular level as to how cancer is prevalent later in life, I wonder how need immunothereapies and treatments in cancer research will effect on on a cellular evolution level? My sister currently works on a treatment for leukemias that alter and insert new antibodies into the blood of an affected patient and then re-transfuse it into the patient. Though it has proven successful, I wonder if this could lead to a possible resistance to cancer in the future with those who undergo this treatment?

With developing better crops, it makes you wonder from an evolution standpoint how much GMOs will/have effected our ecosystem, biodiversity and overall fitness of species worldwide?

Is language necessarily part of evolution? I have always thought of evolution as how we biologically and mentally change, not necessarily how we communicate. If they claim that evolution has to do with our languages and how they develop, have they also studied language and communication evolution among other species?

It's interesting how he said that nothing makes sense in biology expect in light of evolution because, in current times, that is probably the most controversial topic in biology along with the need for vaccinations.