Henry was studying two populations of the same species of lizards. One population lived on an island and the other lived on the mainland. Both populations were affected by a hurricane that hit the island and the mainland with equal force. A year later, Henry was testing the gene frequency and saw a decrease in genetic variation in the island species, but not in the mainland species. Which best describes a conclusion he might have reached?
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I believe that the island experiences less genetic variation because it was the affect of the survival of the fittest. The lizards that have the weakest genes on the island died and the strong ones survived. Therefore there is less genetic variation on the island because only the strongest survive. The lizards on the main land experience more genetic variation because it is a mix of strong genes and weak genes.
@Ais6745@taramgrant0543664 I'm going to go ahead and give the answer as there is quite a bit of confusion going on here.
What we know:
2 populations, island and mainland
hurricane affects each population equally
1 year after hurricane there is less genetic variation
What I would like to know: population size of mainland and island populations.
@taramgrant0543664 This cannot be about selection. The event was random, hurricane, and we know it affected each population with the same intensity. This is important because it tells us that there are no differences in selection, so no "survival of fittest".
I also want to clear up confusion on "strong" or "weak" genes. There is simply no such thing. What you are thinking of is something like the two alleles of a single gene, and one allele is more beneficial than the other allele. The thing is though, that just because on version of a gene is better at one moment in time or in an environment, it might not be always the case. There is a great example of this with moths and the industrial revolution. There was a population of moths that had to distinct coloration. One was mostly white and the other was mostly dark. These moths land on lichens on trees and the light moths are hard to see. Enter industrial revolution. All the burning of coal covered things in soot. All of a sudden the white type of the moth stood out and the allele for white was now harmful, not helpful.
So, there is really no such thing as "strong genes and weak genes".
Back to our lizards. So, to reiterate, we know that there was no difference in impact or selection due to the hurricane. When this is the case, we have to look for explanations that can explain random changes, changes not due to selection. We have mutation and genetic drift.
Do you guys have any thoughts on if it is mutation or genetic drift?