1

Ashley Chagnovich
January 28, 2016
Anthropology 1020
Lab Report
Title: Understanding Evolution
Introduction:
Charles Darwin, while studying Theology at Cambridge, acquired an interest in natural
science, showering himself in botany and geology. After he graduated in 1831 he was
asked to join a scientific expedition that would circle the globe. Darwin accepted the
invitation and set sail aboard HMS Beagle on December 17, 1831. This voyage took
nearly five years and played a large role in the change of biological science.
When Darwin set out on this voyage, he believed in the fixity of species, however, his
discoveries would soon make him question his prior convictions. During a stop at the
Galpagos Islands, Darwin noticed that the vegetation and animals, birds specifically,
shared many similar traits with those on the South American mainland. The birds also
varied from island to island. It was at this point in time that Darwin collected 13 varieties
of Galpagos finches, and it was obvious they represented a closely related group. Some
of their physical traits were different, in particular the shape and size of their beaks.
Darwin did not pay close attention to the birds while on his voyage, but some time after
he returned, he realized the finches had all descended from a common mainland ancestor
and had been modified over time due to different island habitats and dietary preferences
(Robert Jurmain, 2013).
As I mentioned before, Darwin was not always interested in the finches that he had
discovered on is journey abroad. He only mentioned the birds once in his diary that he
kept. Two years after his return, he received some feedback from John Gould, a
taxonomist that the finches beaks had several noticeable modifications of form. Darwin
was so curious by this discovery that he was quoted in the second edition of Journal of
Researches saying: Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small,
intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of
birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.
Sadly the more these finches were examined the more confusing things became.
(Nicholas, 2015).
Hypotheses:
The clothespins, chopsticks, and large hair clips would decrease and the binder clips,
tweezers, and chip clips would increase. I also thought that chopsticks and hair clips
would perform the same. I guessed the pointed tweezers would collect more food than the
rounded tweezers. I also believed the small hair clips would collect more food than the
large hair clips. I came to these conclusions based on observing the materials available.
The clothespins, chopsticks and large hair clips would be difficult to manipulate and hold
the food available to me because of the large openings in the sides of the hair clips, the

2
chopsticks not being strong enough to grasp the food resource and the clothespins, having
a rounded bottom, would be difficult to pick small food items off the table. While
observing the tweezers, chip clips and binder clips, I realized all three would be easier to
manipulate and grab the resources available. There were no opening in any of the three
options, they were all three easier to manipulate, too.
Materials:
Sunflower Seeds (representing food)
Dixie Cup (representing stomach)
Clothespins, chopsticks, binder clips, tweezers, chip clips, large hair clips, small
hair clips, and salad tongs, all representing beaks.
Each student was given a beak and a Dixie cup (some students had the same beak) and
sunflower seeds were spread out unevenly in front of each student. There were five
rounds, each 60 seconds long; and each student attempted to use his/her beaks to pick up
as many sunflower seeds as possible and place them in his/her cup. The catch was, you
could only pick one seed up at a time. Because food sources were slim in different parts
of the classroom, students were allowed to migrate around the room, taking food from
other students. Once the 60-second time limit was reached, we all counted the amount of
seeds we had collected. Our Professor then asked us to raise our hand if we had more
than 30, more than 20, but less than 30, and so on until we reached the lowest numbers.
The ones with the lowest amount of seeds were extinct and given new beaks.
Results:
Beaks

Begin

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

Chopstick
s
Clothespin
Large Hair
Clips
Tweezers
Small Hair
Clips
Binder
Clips
Chip Clip
Tongs
Total

5
5

4
5

4
6

2
7

2
7

2
7

5
5

7
5

8
5

10
5

11
5

12
4

34

34

5
1
35

5
1
35

5
1
35

5
1
35

Total
Tongs
Chip Clips
Binder Clips
Ending

Small Hair Clips

Beginning

Tweezers
Large Hair Clips
Clothes Pins
Chopsticks
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

As shown in the graphs above, the tongs remained the same at 1, the chip clips remained
constant with 5. The binder clips decreased from beginning to end, going from 5 to 2. The
small hair clips decreased slightly from the beginning to the end, finishing with 4.
Tweezers increased drastically from 5 to 12. Large hair clips also increased by 2, ending
with a total of 7 by round 5. The clothespins decreased by 3, ending with 2. The
chopsticks decreased as well, from 5 to 2.
Conclusion:
My hypothesis was supported and rejected in multiple ways throughout this experiment. I
originally stated that clothespins, chopsticks, and large hair clips would decrease as each
round went by. I said that binder clips, tweezers, and chip clips would increase. I also said
the tongs would increase (after they were introduced after the 2nd round). The hypothesis
was rejected in the following ways: the large hair clips increased, the binder clips
decreased, the small hair clips did not collect more food than the large hair clips, the
chopsticks did not have the same success as the hair clips. The hypothesis was supported
in the following ways: clothespins and chopstick decreased, tweezers increased, chip
clips increased, tongs stayed consistent. The fact that some of the beaks required better
dexterity than others played a role in the success of some of the beaks. Many students
mentioned their hands hurting, cramping and not being able to manipulate the beak very
well, depending on what it was. Some had an easier time working with the second beak,
and some mentioned having an easier time manipulating their beaks as each round
continued. As each round went on, students were able to see how fast the hypothesis
changed from one round to the next.

4
Discussion:
Evolution by natural selection is the concept of which favorable variation will become
more common in a population. There are four underlying assumptions of natural
selection.
1. Natural Biological Variation
a. Some people are tall, some are short, some have blood type A while others
might have blood type B, etc.
i. There are favorable traits that will help organisms survive
ii. There are unfavorable traits that will hinder survival
iii. There are neutral traits that hold no value to ones survival
2. Inheritance
a. These traits are carried through each generation from parents to off spring.
i. One will look more like their parents than their neighbor
3. Competition
a. This has to do with population; there are more offspring born than can
survive
4. Individuals that have favorable variation are more likely to survive, therefore
leaving more offspring.
a. Differential Reproductive Success
i. Unfavorable variation will decrease in frequency (become less
common) in population
During this in class assignment we were able to visually see just what natural selection
was referring to. Using the objects as beaks, and the seeds as food, we were able to act
out who had the most favorable trait in their beak and who did not. It became obvious
after the second round which beak was the best. This beak (generally the tweezers) was
able to pick up all of the food in their area, and venture to other areas collecting more
food in just 60 seconds. Others struggled to pick up any food in their own area at all. At
the end of each round, the losing beaks would stand in a group and the winning beaks
would stand in a group. The losing beaks would be replaced with the winning beaks;
sometimes gaining, sometimes losing and sometimes staying the same.

Works Cited
Nicholas, F. (2015, April 3). Darwin's Finches Highlight the Unity of all
Life.
Robert Jurmain, L. K. (2013). Human Origins . Mason, Ohio, USA:
Cengage Learning.