IB Biology Lab Report The Effects of Mutations on Various Types of Birds Data Collection and Processing Sean Wada

Tables Collected Types

Representing the Data from Various of

Generations

Generation 1 Performance
Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +- 0.001 m) 5.03 4.17 3.30 4.166666667 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

70 85 112 89

flew into the right wall flew upwards and crashed flew upwards and crashed

Generation 2 Performance
Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 4.14 4.54 4.63 4.436666667 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

70 70 70 70

flew into right wall flew into right wall flew into right wall

Generation 3 Performance
Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 4.17 4.39 4.46 4.34 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

70 70 90 76.66666667

flies up and crashes left flies up and crashes left flew straight

Generation 4 Performance
Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 4.98 4.30 4.81 4.696666667 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

75 80 110 88.33333333

flies up and crashes right flies up and crashes right crashed into the left wall

Generation 5 Performance
Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 4.19 5.18 5.75 5.04 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

80 85 75 80

went right hit the wall hit the ceiling straight went right and hit the wall

Generation 6 Performance
Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 5.13 5.14 5.09 5.12 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

80 80 99 86.33333333

hit the right wall hit the right wall left, no hit

Generation 7 Performance (Died Out)

Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 4.59 4.05 4.12 4.253333333 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

70 86 76 77.33333333

hit the right wall hit the right wall hit the right wall

Generation 8 Performance (Died Out)

Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 4.14 4.19 4.05 4.126666667 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

80 80 80 80

it went to the right and up it went to the right and up it went to the right and up

Generation 9 Performance
Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 5.48 6.00 5.14 5.54 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

100 100 100 100

hit the left wall hit the left wall hit the left wall

Generation 10 Performance (Died Out)

Trial Horizontal Displacement (in m +0.001 m) 4.59 4.35 4.42 4.453333333 Angle ( in degrees + - 5 degrees) Qualitative Data

1 2 3 Average:

70 110 100 93.33333333

hit the right wall hit the left wall flew left

Tables Showing the Measurements of the Wings For Each Generation Distance (in cm +- 0.1 cm)
Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 15 Length Width Wing 2 Distance to Length Width the closest end 3 15 2

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 4

Wing 2 Length Width

15

15

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 4

Wing 2 Length Width

13

15

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 4

Wing 2 Length Width

13

15

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 4

Wing 2 Length Width

13

15

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 4

Wing 2 Length Width

13

15

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end Length Width Distance to the closest end

Wing 2 Length Width

Wing 1 3 13 3 4

Wing 2 15 5

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 4

Wing 2 Length Width

13

19

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 3

Wing 2 Length Width

13

15

Wing 1 Distance to the closest end 3 Length Width Distance to the closest end 3

Wing 2 Length Width

13

19

Conclusion and Evaluation

From the results above, I concluded that generation 9 has a larger chance of surviving in the future since it flew a longer distance while the other generations flew less. At the beginning off the experiment, I predicted that a bird with a slightly longer wing length than its other wing

would be the luckiest out of all the generations in case if one wing gets tired, that specific type of bird could use its longer wing for flight as a result. Unfortunately, it crashed after a few meters, but I assumed it could survive as a result of flying longer distances. With this, there would be a few advantages of flying longer distances, such as finding a new habitat in case its gets cold and finding new sources of food. This would be a great example of natural selection and the generation 9 bird would become the parent of the next generation. However, there were a few errors present in this experiment. One would be the starting position, and we werent too sure if it was the right height for the bird to be launched from. Second, would be the wing form. Again, we couldnt make up our minds whether to use straws or chopsticks. This experiment could have been more effective if I used both straws and chopsticks as different types of wing structures. Finally, the last error would be the type of the rubber band. Our group opted to use a thicker type, but didnt consider the advantages of a thinner one. This could have effected the overall speed of the paper bird, and it is still unknown whether a thinner rubber band would have been more effective. As for improvements, if there were straws available along with the chopsticks as wings, we couldve analysed measurements more effectively, as we could compare the differences between using two different types of wings. Possibly, the weight of the two forms might have affected the overall distance of the paper birds. However, I do believe using a thicker rubber band was a mistake, and since thinner rubber bands are less elastic, I would have opted to use them instead.