The second year of junior high biology is anxious and anxious about the doctrine of natural selectio

The enhancement of pest resistance is achieved through the survival struggle between pests and insecticides, and the increase in pesticide dosage and content is only a selection of pests, and the selection of pest-resistant pests does not change the pest's own resistance. After dozens of generations and hundreds of generations of reproduction, pests with resistance to pesticides become very strong, and those without resistance cannot survive, which is the impact of the natural environment on pests, that is to say, natural selection who survives, that is, the theory of natural selection.

Darwin's theory of evolution refers to the process in which the fittest survive and the unfit are eliminated in the struggle for survival.

Alas, this statement is not true. Not necessarily enhanced. Because resistance is not determined by this.

b, correct, in line with Darwin's theory of evolution.

cd,,Same as a

The increase in the dose and content of pesticides used, and the increase in pest resistance, are only seen in chronological order, and there is no causal relationship between the two. The reason why it can be seen is because of B, that is, the pests that are resistant to the pests survived. The increase in pesticide doses allowed pests resistant to large doses of pesticides to survive and multiply, so we saw increased pest resistance.

A is wrong, because Darwin's view is natural selection, and some doctors and scientists will also say this, but it does not conform to the evolutionary view of natural selection.

Increased resistance refers to an increase in the proportion of individuals who are resistant to drugs.

Using Darwin's evolutionary view, first of all, mutations in genes are widespread, i.e., resistant to hungry pests and non-resistant pests. Natural selection (in this case, increased pesticide use) allows resistant pests to survive, i.e., the resistance of the surviving pests is inherently present, but natural selection makes this characteristic apparent, not the resistance.

It refers to the enhancement of the resistance of individual pests, so do not choose a, the increase in pesticide dose and content is only to select pests, and select pests with resistance, and can not change the pest's own resistance.

It is true that an increase in the dose and content of pesticides used does not also increase the resistance of pests, which refers to an increase in the proportion of individuals who are resistant.

Seems reasonable. Actually, it is not reasonable, and the explanation of the nature of biological evolution is not reasonable.

The doctrine of natural selection:--Biological evolution is because individuals with favorable variation have more chances to survive and leave offspring, which leads to the gradual accumulation and strengthening of favorable variation. This sentence tells us that variation exists on its own, and nature plays a role in selection.

Select the advantageous ones and eliminate the unfavorable variants.

Use in and waste out" -- the traits and organs of living things evolve when they are used, and they degenerate when they are not used.

In fact, the above doctrine of natural selection is in conflict with the "use it and waste it" view. For example:

The giraffe's neck is long because it is used——— which is"Use in"；

Some individuals of giraffes have mutated to become longer or shorter necks. The food with long necks is abundant, more adaptable to the environment, and belongs to favorable variation, and individuals with favorable variation have more chances of surviving and leaving offspring, which leads to the gradual accumulation and strengthening of favorable variation. - It is"The Doctrine of Natural Selection"。

And you think that the theory of natural selection explains the "use" in "use in and waste retreat", but "waste and retreat" cannot explain it so well.

Personally, I don't think it's perfect to "use". The human eye is always used, but the eyes are not getting brighter and brighter, but cloudy. Used but not evolved.

About the mole's eyes, the upstairs colleague said it very well.

The direction of biological evolution is always in the direction of the most energy-saving direction, and the eyes are useless to moles but they still consume matter and energy, which is naturally not conducive to survival. Unfavorable variants are eliminated.

There are some mutants without eyes among moles, and they use less energy to survive and are more adaptable to the environment. These variants are favorable variants, and individuals with favorable variants have more chances of surviving and leaving offspring, resulting in the gradual accumulation and strengthening of favorable variants. - Explained by the "doctrine of natural selection".

Both degradation and evolution are means for organisms to adapt to their environment, and it can be said that degradation is also a kind of evolution. You tell me?

When it comes to evolutionary issues, consider the theory of biological evolution.

According to the current theory of biological evolution, both use-in and acquired inheritance are wrong.

Of course, modern evolutionary theory is not perfect, and everything is moving forward in development.

The so-called "abolition" is sometimes described as an "economy", and this so-called "economy" is reflected in the metabolism and utilization of cellular energy, individuals, populations, communities and even ecosystems.

Since there is an "economy", it is necessary to weigh the value of "evolution" and "degradation". Although the original situation seems to "not affect survival", these useless parts consume energy, DNA->mRNA-> proteins and other aspects of information transmission. Here it seems to be a matter of admiration for the "economic mind" of nature, who does not "spend" for no reason to maintain any useless parts.

He is also sometimes like a master of management, most concerned with maintaining a balance between various systems, organs, etc.

In addition, we also see in nature parts that seem useless but still exist, which I understand to be evolving, or that have no other purpose for which they exist have not been discovered.

I've thought about similar questions before, and here are some of my thoughts.

One of the evolutionary errors --- natural selection.

There is some truth in your idea, but from the facts, moles in nature are without glasses, and it can be seen that without glasses is conducive to survival. However, this is true in cases where the presence or absence of pre-existing traits does not affect survival, such as human wisdom teeth, which have proven to be of little use but still exist.

The meaning of the inclusion of the use is really only a part of the theory of biological evolution, and the explanation of the abolition is not in line with the reality.

For example, the human appendix does not mean that it has degenerated without using it, it is also a very important immune organ, especially in infancy.

Well, I think it makes sense.

Personally, I think that the theory of natural selection is better and more beneficial, but whether it is used or not, not whether the function is beneficial or not. For example, if a person is bedridden for a long time, he will not be able to walk, because the leg muscles have not been used for a long time, and the leg muscles will not be exercised"Retirement";And the mole you mentioned too.

If you put a mole with and without eyes in the same environment, the survival ability is not necessarily the same.

He who has eyes can at least see and can avoid many adverse factors.

b.Struggle for survival.

The fact that organisms have high reproductive potential and few offspring that can survive is due to the fact that the survival and passage of various organisms on the earth are restricted by the surrounding environmental conditions. Darwin defined the complex relationship between living things and the environment as a struggle for survival, including the struggle between living things and inorganic natural conditions, which refer to the natural factors such as water, humidity, temperature, light, and air.

After fertilization, only a few develop into adults, due to the struggle for survival, which includes the struggle between living beings and between living things and the inorganic environment. The embryonic development stage of frogs is in the water, not in the mother's body, so it is greatly affected by the environment, and the struggle for survival is fierce, so the survival rate is very low.

dThe fertilized egg dies if it does not adapt to the environment.

The answer is: d.

A, B, and C are all behaviors of individual organisms, and only item D deals with the relationship between organisms and other organisms and organisms and their environment, so the theory of natural selection can correctly explain the diversity and adaptability of organisms.

Option b is the most suitable.

Relatively speaking, living things survive the fittest because of natural selection. Different environments have different ways of adapting organisms, so the same organism will evolve into multiple branches, that is, multiple species, through natural selection in different environments, resulting in biodiversity. And due to natural selection, species that cannot adapt to the environment will gradually die out, and new species that adapt to the environment will gradually emerge, which explains the adaptation of organisms.

Heredity and variation, reproduction and growth, origin, none of the causes are due to natural selection.

Variation is random and has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection, on the other hand, will lead to the survival of the fittest in mutated individuals, but there is no causal relationship with mutation.

Heredity is the combined expression of the genome from the parents, again without a causal relationship with natural selection.

If you still don't understand, please feel free to ask.

The answer is: d.

A, B, and C are all behaviors of individual organisms, and only item D deals with the relationship between organisms and other organisms and organisms and their environment, so the theory of natural selection can correctly explain the diversity and adaptability of organisms.

Natural selection refers to the phenomenon in which organisms survive the fittest and the unfit are eliminated in the struggle for survival.

The main contents of the doctrine of natural energy selection: overbreeding, the struggle for survival, survival of the fittest, heredity and variation.

Natural selection is based on (heredity and variation), the motivation is (the struggle for survival), the result is (survival of the fittest), and the premise is (overbreeding).

The core idea of the theory of natural energy selection: the environment plays a selective role in the survival of organisms (detailed explanation: the environment in which organisms live plays a selective role in the survival of a certain organism with various variations, and those with strong adaptability and high fecundity survive, and those who do not adapt to the environment are eliminated).

The template for explaining the phenomenon with the theory of natural energy selection: a certain organism first has various variations (variation), and then under the selection of the living environment (survival struggle), the fittest (survival survival) with a certain variation adapted to the current environment have more opportunities to survive and leave offspring (heredity), so that more and more individuals with such adaptive variation in the organism have such adaptive variation.

Example: Use the theory of natural selection to explain why long-term use of pesticides will increase the resistance of pests

There are weak and strong resistant individuals in the pests, and pesticides have been selected for the survival of pests, and the individuals with strong resistance have more opportunities to survive and leave offspring, so that there are more and more resistant individuals in the pests.

In this example, the natural environment refers to the environment containing pesticides, and the main role in the selection of pests is (pesticides), and the result of selection is (individuals with strong resistance to pesticides survive, and individuals with weak resistance are eliminated).

The content is summarized in the textbook and teaching experience.

After the environment changed, the pests survived with resistant pests, the pests without pesticide died, and the small pests born from resistant pests also had resistance, so slowly the whole pest was "more resistant". In other words, the environment "with pesticides" "selects" the pest to be resistant (and chooses to keep it alive). This is natural selection.

Nature here is an environment where pesticides are present.

The option here is to leave behind resistant pests.

The presence of pesticides will poison some pests that are not resistant to pesticides, but individual pests will produce genetic mutations that will produce drug resistance, so that insects without genetic mutations will be poisoned and insects with genetic mutations will survive. And the offspring produced are also bugs with mutated genes, so the long-term use of pesticides results in the survival of bugs with drug resistance genes.

It's the equivalent of pesticides that help bugs make a choice: bugs that leave resistance genes behind.

Pesticides are natural selection, which acts on the phenotype of organisms (survival of resistance, death of none), so that the number of resistant organisms gradually increases, so that the gene frequency of resistance genes increases, and then the evolution of organisms.

Note that evolution only occurs when the gene frequencies of an organism population change. You can't go wrong with that.

Because the pests themselves will mutate, and the long-term use of pesticides will make those individuals who can mutate and resist insects survive, and the others will die, and gradually, those individuals who adapt to pesticides will increase! So when it comes to increased insect resistance, this is natural selection! Nature can refer to the environment, and choice is to pick those individuals who adapt to the environment!

Could this be that there is something wrong with your understanding of nature? The "nature" here is that humans have been using pesticides for a long time, but the resistance of pests to drugs is gradually increasing, which contains the meaning of evolution.

For these bugs, well...

Pesticides should be natural conditions.

Those with poor drug resistance will lose the opportunity to reproduce, and those with increased drug resistance will have a chance to live, which should be the choice.

I'm not sure.

The theory of natural selection can scientifically explain the causes of biological evolution and the formation of biological adaptability and diversity, which should be the strength of the theory of natural selection, false The theory of natural selection holds that the individual is the basic unit of biological evolution, while the modern theory of biological evolution holds that the population is the unit of biological evolutionIt is also impossible to give a scientific explanation of the nature of heredity and variation in living things, and how natural selection works on heritable variation