1. For the first trail, when y oucressed the B's and b's the result is always the same, you will always get Bb. If you make a punett square for this then you see that the results also come out as Bb. Thus the punet square is reliable for this part.
2. During the next part one of the bags contained a B and a b. For the second bag there was only a B and a B. When making a punet square out of this information you will get a 50% liability of the trait for each one.
3. For this 3rd step i got 3 different outcomes, Bb, bb, and BB. Using the punet square we predicted that we would get Bb 50%, bb 25%, and BB 25%.However once doing the experiment we got a larger precentage of bb rather than Bb as predicted. This prove sthe more complex your experiment then the less reliable the punett square becomes.
4. I only used 10 trials but during experiments like these it is more reliable and accurate if you use much more trials (prehaps over 100). Thus more statistics will be proved rather than 'luck of the draw'.
5. Looking at the model there is a higher chance and probability of pulling out a certain marble. However with a punnet square you have a completely accurate probablity if you keep it relitively simple. Whereas with models as i said before you need to be careful with 'luck of the draw.' So i think punnet squares are definetly more reliable.
Interesting thoughts and phrase "luck of the draw". Pretty much that is how genetics works. Either you have a trait or you don't it depends on how they combine to form a zygote.
ReplyDeleteGood job overall.