Suppose there are 50 couples with the same blood type and hemoglobin genotypes. They live on a small, isolated Pacific island on which very few mosquitoes have been identified. All the individuals are heterozygous for type A blood and have sickle cell trait. The 50 couples had 224 children over the years. The children were all tested for blood type and for the presence of the sickle cell allele.

Here are the results. Testing Results Blood Test Results Number of Children Type A, normal RBCs 48 Type O, normal RBCs 18 Type A, sickle cell trait 92 Type O, sickle cell trait 33 Type A, sickle cell disease 27 Type O, sickle cell disease 6 Are these data significant? Explain using a chi-square statistical analysis test.

a. What is χ2 ?

b. Calculate df.

c. Using the critical values table, determine the P value.

d. Interpret the P value as it relates to these data. Explain the significance.

From what you know about hemoglobin, sickle cell disease, and blood type, what selection pressure is acting on this population of children and causing the null hypothesis to be rejected? Explain your answer. (Hint: Look at the actual differences between the observed and expected numbers.)

x2= 13.58

Explanation:

χ2 =sum ( o− e) ^2 /e

χ2 = 13.58

degree of freedom = 6 – 1 = 5

using the critical values table,

P value.

P < 0.05 (0.025 < P < 0.01)

As P < 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected,

This indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the observed and expected data.

Accept------ Alternative hypothesis :

================

null hypothesis :

there was NO significant difference between the observed and expected data.

Alternative hypothesis :

there was significant difference between the observed and expected data.

hey bro i looked it up on google the structure of the eye-spot in euglena viridie, e. ehrenbergii, and phacus pyriyorme is not as franzé haa described it. the so-called “crystal body” and “lens bodies” were not found in any of the individuals of the species examined by me. as earlier observers have stated, the eye-spot consists simply of a mass of pigment granules arranged in a single layer, and probably embedded in a protoplasmic framework, but the latter could not be seen, and its presence was only inferred from the fact that the pigment granules must be held together in some way, thd the eye-spot as a whole is capable of expansion, and that the pigment granules can be separated from each other.

hope this   and an i get brainlsiest

you didn't give any options but heres what i can tell you: an inference is likely to change based on additional observations. the latter is something that you have seen or sensed using your sensory organs while the former is like a conclusion out from what you have observed.