Recent orders
Crayfish- Reading a Paper Expert
Crayfish: Reading a Paper Expert
Q.1
The results of the study indicate that there is a significant relationship between crayfish presence and counts of dragonflies and mosquitoes larvae in March, April, June, and July, but not in May and August (Bucciarelli 126). The interaction for all predator treatments (crayfish, dragonfly, and combination) significantly affected survival relative to larval survival in the absence of predators (Bucciarelli 127). The results of the comparison of mean proportion of surviving mosquito larvae indicated significant differences between all treatments and the control, as well as a significant difference between the dragonfly treatment relative to the combination and crayfish treatments (Bucciarelli 128).
Q.2
Dragonfly nymphs are larvae of the dragonfly insect that are aquatic in nature. They are drab with large eyes, 6 legs, and with small wing buds behind their thorax. Their respiratory system is complicated involving drawing in of water and expelling the same through their hind ends.
Predators include all animals that naturally prey on others or a group of others. For example, a wolf is a predator because it preys on smaller animals for its survival.
Carapace is the shield that covers the head or thorax of an insect.
Chelae is the pinching claws of crustaceans including crabs and other animals with immovable or movable pinching fingers.
Q.3
1. Would the results presented be different if the experiment was not controlled?
2. What would be the effect of having a higher population of dragonfly nymphs in relation to the existence and survival of mosquitoes?
Works Cited
Bucciarelli, Gary M., et al. “Assessing effects of non‐native crayfish on mosquito
survival.” Conservation Biology 33.1 (2019): 122-131.
descartes Once an individual realizes that heshe subsists as a thinking thing
Name
Course Instructor
Course
Date
Descartes
Once an individual realizes that he/she subsists as a thinking thing, one commences the search to unravel more incontrovertible veracities. With regard to the feedback of the research conducted the individual remains positive about the probability of developing a method of definite understanding. The only twist to this method is that the aforementioned perceptions are undeniable so long as one works on them. Doubt shall creep into the perception as soon as one falls out of cognizance. As a result the above method of understanding is compromised. This is the point where Descartes intervenes to offer a long lasting solution to the aforementioned concern that may present itself to an individual. Descartes sees the bigger picture and brings God as the ultimate solution to the irrefutability of the system of knowledge. Descartes asserts that God is the source of one’s vibrant perception and in addition to this He is always perfect. Ultimately, Descartes mission is to prove that God exists.
In his argument of proving God’s existence Descartes proposes two arguments to back up his notion. His first argument is based on the ontological argument of God’s subsistence. Under the ontological argument Descartes highlights the following issues; the notion of all individuals’ God is that of a perfect being; secondly, it is more impeccable to subsist than non-existence; finally, due to the two arguments mentioned above God must be in existence (Cahn, 85).
The other argument adopted by Descartes in proving God’s existence appears to be more complex than the one mentioned above. The second argument has an underpinning that relies on the peculiarity between two authenticities. The first sort of reality is formal reality. The aforementioned authenticity represents the reality that all possess by the virtue of its subsistence. This form of reality covers three grades namely mode, finite and infinite. Ultimately, God is the only being that subsists with infinite formal authenticity. All substances that surround people possess finite formal authenticity. The final grade which is mode has modal formal authenticity. Any form of idea that one possesses falls under this grade of formal reality. However, ideas possess a different kind of reality which is unique to them. Ideas can be referred to as objective reality when they are equated to the objects they epitomize. Due to the aforementioned fact objective reality exhibits three grades similar to the one in formal authenticity.
The argument proposed by Descartes commences with the controversial assertion that every individual has a notion of God as an infinite being. Descartes is of the opinion that no individual can fail to have this notion since it is innate. Since one’s idea of God is that of an infinite being, there must exist a correlating infinite objective reality. Subsequently, Descartes asserts that something cannot originate from nothing or simply referred to as the innate rational principle. With strict reliance to the aforementioned principle he is able to come up with two distinct fundamental principles. The first fundamental principle is the existence of a reality in a cause and in an effect equally while the second principle is the subsistence of formal authenticity in a cause of an idea and the objective reality of the idea equally. With the presence of an infinite objective reality namely the idea of God, he arrives at an intelligent conclusion that there must exist a being that possesses infinite formal authenticity who acts as the source of the idea.
With regard to Descartes philosophy, the objections that arise are the application of the evidence of God in order to corroborate pure perceptions. The objection in this domain is coined as the ‘Cartesian Circle’ which depicts the notion that Descartes uses God to ascertain the truth of pure perceptions and vice versa. The critics question the viability of the adoption of clear and pure perceptions to ascertain God’s existence. They claim that the use of clear perceptions to validate the existence of God is circular reasoning. However, when I went through Descartes work I found that he did not adopt circular reasoning in his efforts to prove God’s existence. With regard to his work, one finds that the existence of God does not prove that pure perceptions are indeed true. People do not require any evidence to prove the veracity of pure perceptions. Actually, pure perception in a thing is portrayed through actual attendance to it. The existence of God only comes into play to ensure that doubt does not compromise the system of understanding. It is only after this that Descartes proves the existence of God through pure perception. Once the existence of God is proved the thing that changes is that one does not have to keep attending to the perceptions to maintain its veracity (Hume, 109).
The fault that I found in Descartes philosophy which tries to explain the existence of God is its ontological argument. With regard to the ontological argument, one has to possess strong belief that the entire events of the world are correlated to a chain of logical explanations which are accessible. If an explanation lacks an ontological argument it may transform into an infinite regress thus having no end to it (Adler & Catherine, 63). As a result one has to ensure that the explanation comes to a successful conclusion through adopting a certain level of authenticity that causes itself, something which is its specific elucidation. In this instance the sole conceivable possibility for a being that is its own elucidation is God. Ultimately, the ontological argument has to be effective in order for God to be his own explanation in Descartes philosophy. The rationale behind the vanity of Descartes ontological argument is that he existence as any other property. Evidently this depiction is deceiving since it is illogical to assert that God does not possess existence. Once the aforementioned assertion is made God cannot have properties; in simple terms he is non-existent. Descartes failed to note this fundamental difference between existence and other forms of property that one can possess.
The other problem that I noted on Descartes philosophy is his causal argument. I specifically questioned his claim of a special form of reality which he coined as objective reality. The concern under this domain is his rationale for assuming that authenticity came in grades which are metaphysically laden. In addition to this Descartes fundamental claim in his causal principle was discernibly fabricated. It is evident that not every one of us has an innate idea of God as being of infinite perfection thus the existence of pagans and atheists. The only time people have the idea of God as a being of infinite perfection is when that particular group (of people) are nurtured in a culture where the notion of a sole flawless supreme being is ubiquitous.
Works Cited
Adler, Jonathan E, and Catherine Z. Elgin. Philosophical Inquiry: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub. Co, 2007.Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy. , 2012.
Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Boston: MobileReference.com, 2010.
Crayfish Peer Response (22)
Crayfish
Part 1: Peer Response
In your response, you mention how the numbers of dragonflies and mosquito larvae change due to the presence of crayfish in specific months i.e. March, April, June and July, but it is not affected in May and August. I specifically appreciate how you mention the treatment and the control variables for purposes of clarification. In relation to your question, “Why are dragon-flies not active when they are with crayfish?” the research study by Gary Bucciarelli et al. (126) established the dragonfly nymphs in a majority of cases are terrified by the crayfish. This then allows more mosquito larvae to grow in the water bodies that contain crayfish (Bucciarelli et al. 128). The researchers observed that in streams, or tanks that had dragonfly nymphs, and no crayfish, there was a low number of the mosquito nymphs, and in water bodies that had crayfish, despite having dragonfly nymphs, it seems that the mosquito nymphs were thriving in these water bodies, which contributed to Bucciarelli et al. (127) making the conclusion. This was a vital experiment as it provided evidence on how invasive species can affect the eco-system of an area and contribute to a rise of infection rates for specific diseases (Bucciarelli et al. 128). For instance, in this case, there is a high likelihood of an increase in Malaria cases because of an increase in the number of mosquitoes in the region. However, it is worth noting that the researcher did not specifically and directly answer the question on why dragonflies are not active when they are with crayfish, but makes the inference that they are preys to the crayfish.
Part 2: Results Section
Q. 2
The most important point from the results section is that under natural conditions, it is likely that crayfish reduce the abundance of dragonfly nymphs and their predation efficiency and thereby, directly and indirectly, lead to higher mosquito populations and a loss of ecosystem services related to disease vector control.
Q.3
There is a significant relationship between crayfish presence and counts of dragonflies and mosquito larvae during March, April, June, and July and the same relationship between crayfish presence and counts of dragonflies and mosquito larvae is not observed in May or August (Bucciarelli et al. 126)
The results showed that the interaction for all predator treatments (crayfish, dragonfly, and combination) significantly affected survival relative to larval survival in the absence of predators (Bucciarelli et al. 127)
The study showed that, on average, when crayfish were present that the dragonflies were in physical contact 64.3% of the time, which means that they were being “distracted” by the crayfish rather than hunting the mosquito larvae and the dragonfly behavioral trends in the combination treatment showed that dragonflies were in physical contact with crayfish (Bucciarelli et al. 128)
When the researcher recoded the model with crayfish as the reference group and compared this treatment with the combination treatment (crayfish: combination), survival over time did not differ significantly between the two indicating that crayfish modified dragonfly nymph behavior in such a way that nymphs essentially became ineffective predators in the presence of crayfish (Bucciarelli et al. 128)
When crayfish and dragonflies appear together (relatively), the survival rate of dragonfly is very low (Bucciarelli et al. 128)
The results indicated that dragonfly nymphs consumed more larvae through time than crayfish alone or when crayfish and dragonfly nymphs foraged together (Bucciarelli et al. 127-8)
Q. 4
Behavioral trends: the way a thing or person reacts or acts is a behavior and when it forms a pattern, then it becomes a behavioral trend.
Significant relationship: in a statistical study, significant relationship refers to the probability that a researcher is right in finding that a relationship exists between variables.
Works Cited
Bucciarelli, Gary M., et al. “Assessing effects of non‐native crayfish on mosquito
survival.” Conservation Biology 33.1 (2019): 122-131.