What did the Treaty of Waitangi say?

The different of the English and Maori Treaty?

Article 1. English version main point is Maori to give up complete sovereignty to the British. This meant Maori came under complete control of the British government and laws. Maori version main point is that Maori to give up the governorship. For Maori, this meant Queen Victoria became the sovereign of New Zealand. However, Maori chiefs still had control of their tribes.

Article 2. English version main point is Maori are guaranteed their 'possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries and other properties'. British Crown has the pre-emptive right to buy Maori land that is offered for sale. That meant Maori could only sell land to the British government. Maori version main point is Maori have full chieftainship of their lands, villages and possession and everything they treasure. If Maori wanted to sell their land, they had to first offer it to the British Crown at an agreed price. If the British Crown did not agree, land could then be sold to someone else.

Article 3. English version main point is Maori have the same rights as British subjects. Maori version main point is that the British will protect Maori. Maori have the same rights as British subjects.

My understanding of this article is that Maori they don't really need to sign a treaty. The Treaty of Waitangi was more about giving the British people power which the Maori regret signing it because the English version is different from the Maori version this is what causes conflict.   

An Ideal World

My ideal world is a world without humans. I want to see a world where natural overgrow the city. I think that if human disappear oil refineries malfunction, producing mouth-long blazes at plants like the one in western India, the southern United States, and South Korea. In underground rail systems like those in London, Moscow, and New York City, hundreds of drainage pumps are abandoned, flooding the tunnels in just three days. Within 20 years, sidewalks have been torn apart by weeds and tree roots. Flooded tunnels erode the streets above into urban rivers. This would create a new environment for the animals.

Why was a Treaty needed in New Zealand?

Introduction 

In 1830 there were 100k Māori and 100 Europeans living in New Zealand. The behaviour of the Whalers, the Missionaries’ desire to help protect Māori rights and the Musket Wars were reasons that a treaty was needed. The Declaration of Independence was another contributing factor to the need for a treaty.

Paragraph One (Lawyer)

One reason that a treaty was needed was the lawless behaviour of some of the British Settlers like whalers. This is important because of the lawless behaviour of the whalers caused conflict and disorder in Kororareka. It was so depressing that Kororaeka was called the hell hole of the pacific. For example, when the whalers came ashore there was a lot of serious drinking and partying all night. This would lead to fighting and disease were common too. Also, prostitution and short-term marriages for land and trading with the Maori. This worried the Maori chief, however, they did enjoy the trading with European, to put an order in Kororareka they sign a treaty.                 

Paragraph Two (Lawyer)

Another reason that a treaty was needed was to protect Māori rights. One group that felt strongly about this was the missionaries. The missionaries were catholic they came to New Zealand to share their religions with the Maori. Also, the missionaries introduced new technologies such as farming equipment and methods, hoping that the Maori would understand the missionaries way of life that would help the Maori convert to their religions. But the missionaries were worried about the Maori being killed or enslaved as a result of the Musket Wars. They are also concerned at the lawlessness and the violent behaviour of the whaler on ashore. The whaler spread disease and prostitution in Kororareka. Not only that, the Maori lands were being sold rapidly around the country however the missionaries themselves purchased large tracts of lands as a type of trustee on behalf of Maori. This was the reason that the treaty was needed.              

Paragraph Three (Hammer)

Another reason that a treaty was needed was the Musket Wars. The Musket killed over 20000 people. Ngapuhi which is the northern tribes around the Bay of Islands attacks the tribes to the South. This causes the other tribes to trade of muskets to defence their people. Tribes in the central North Island can not trade muskets, therefore, they die in bloody death. The impact causes the Maori population to drop rapidly. Also, the tribal boundaries changed rapidly as a result of the Musket Wars. The Maori that doesn’t have muskets are enslaved or killed as the outcome of the Musket Wars.       

Paragraph Four (The Slam Dunk)

The final reason that a treaty was needed was the existence of the Declaration of Independence. Why did the Maori need the Declaration of Independence? Interestingly, the Maori needed the Declaration of Independence so that the Maori would have full control of New Zealand, therefore, they can trade with the British. The Declaration of Independence was signed in the home of James Busby the British resident in New Zealand. He was sent here because 13 Ngapuhi rangatiras had written to the British king and asked for protection from other countries that were missing them. When James Busby arrived he decided that we need a flag so that the Maori can recognize the British ships. So James Busby took one step further and had the Maori sign the Declaration of Independence. The outcome is that the Maori would have full control that they would have a lot of mana. This would lead to the signing of Waitangi because the British would realise that the Maori had a lot of power. This is why the treaty was needed.           

Conclusion (Robust Conclusion)

In conclusion, a treaty was needed because the Maori have a lot of mana. This is when the Maori signed the Declaration of Independence to give the Maori full control of New Zealand. This means that if other countries went to do stuff in New Zealand it needs to be approved by the Maori. Like, the lawless behaviour in Kororareka, to protect Māori rights, and the Musket Wars. What we learn from this is that the treaty leads to war and it stops the Maori from killing themself. This is why the treaty was needed.   

Different colour bloods

To understand the colour of the blood we need to know the blood proteins. Today for many animals, the blood protein of choice is globin. A globin molecule has a special prong on it that binds to an atom of iron, which in turn is surrounded by a doughnut-shape molecule called heme. And on the opposite side of the doughnut, a molecule of oxygen can bind to the iron. The basic protein structure that cradles this heme doughnut is called the globin fold. And this fold is so distinct and so good at holding onto and releasing oxygen, that it's been used in many different forms, by many different organisms to do a variety of jobs over the aeons. Today, in many animals, including you, blood carries oxygen around the body with the help of a protein called haemoglobin. This is why your blood is red because of iron. Blood inside the body is darker but if you get a cut and bleed the blood would become bright red because of oxygen. 

Haemoglobin is not the only one. The horseshoe crab has blood proteins called hemocyanin. Hemocyanin has copper rather than iron. This is why horseshoe crabs have blue blood because copper turns greenish-blue when it's oxidized. Hemocyanin and Haemoglobin are the most common oxygen-carrying blood proteins found in animals today, and they're the ones we know the most about. But other animals have different blood proteins.





Many species of marine worms and brachiopods, for instance, use a totally different blood protein hemerythrin. It uses irons to transport oxygen, but it doesn't have doughnut-shaped heme. Because of this, the blood in those animals turns a bright violet when it's oxygenated. And like hemocyanin, this protein is less efficient, but it's also simpler so simple, in fact, that it's thought to have been used by the very earliest single-celled organisms. Blood can also be green.  Some animals like certain species of lizards have a lime green pigment in their blood called biliverdin which is produced when haemoglobin is broken down and having a lot of this stuff might actually make their blood more resistant to disease. And other animals have even lost their blood proteins entirely like the Icefish which lives off the coast of Antarctica. Its blood is a clear white because unlike other fish it doesn't have any haemoglobin or other proteins at all. That might be because having blood cells would cause its blood to clot too easily in such cold temperatures or maybe it was just a genetic accident. But even without blood proteins, the Icefish gets along by having a low metabolism and living in oxygen-rich waters.
             

               

How Evolution works

The story of life on Earth is a story of change. Living things have transformed the atmosphere and the climate. They've survived the movements of the continents, and the rise and fall of the seas. And they've adapted to these changes over the long course of Earth's history, through a process that still continues today: evolution.

Evolution, in the simplest terms, just change over time. And it's responsible for the shape of the tree of life, for creating the diversity that we see in the fossil record as well as in modern ecosystems. It's the very foundation of our understanding of biology, and it continues to help us make sense of the world around us.

Evolution was revolutionary when it was first introduced. The first to put all of the pieces together into a unified explanation that would radically alter our understanding of life on our planet were Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. But our understanding of evolutionary theory didn't stop there. In the last 160 years, we've learned what Darwin and Wallace didn't know, and we've figured out a lot about how evolution actually works like how it can produce the incredible array of animals you see here, and how we know they're all related.

Darwin and Wallace were both British naturalists whose thinking about the natural world was deeply shaped by long voyages of exploration. Darwin famously sailed to South America and the Galapagos Islands, and Wallace went to South America and Southeast Asia. Together they observed an unbelievable diversity of life. They observed how very similar organisms seemed to be somewhat restricted in a way that made them ideally suited to their surroundings. In the Galapagos Islands, Darwin observed the different shapes in the beaks of finches on different islands. For Wallace, it was the differences between monkeys living on different riverbanks in the Amazon. And they both recognised that the patterns they observed meant that these species all probably arose from the same place a common ancestor.

They realized the bodies of these animals had been formed over time by the conditions in their environments, occurring in the different forms they found on different islands and riverbanks. Darwin and Wallace's ideas were deeply influenced by other, earlier thinkers, in natural history, geology, and even economics. Scholars like Georges Cuvier, Charles Lyell, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and Thomas Malthus helped establish the ideas that were important to evolutionary thinking, that the Earth was very old, that species seemed to change and go extinct over time, and that individuals fought over limited resources. Darwin and Wallace used these insights along with their own observations to both arrive at the same mechanism by which species evolve: natural selection.

In a paper read to a meeting of scientists in London in 1858, their theory of natural selection was presented based on a series of principles: The first key idea was that, in a population of living things, natural variations will occur, and as a result of those changes, some members of the population will survive and reproduce more than others. Then, they posited that those that survive and reproduce will pass on their traits to their offspring. And this meant that traits that give individuals an advantage in a certain environment will get passed on more often. As a result, more members of the population will have that trait. Therefore, gradually and over time, this will result in certain traits showing up more or less often in a population.

Today, when this series of events happen within a species, we call it microevolution. It's how a single species respond to changes in the environment. On a broader scale, we call it macroevolution. This is how these changes accumulate over long periods of time to produce entirely new body plans, new species, and the grander patterns of diversity in the tree of life. One of the most incredible things about the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that Darwin and Wallace didn't have a good explanation for how traits were passed from parent to offspring. Genetics as a field was still a long way off, and neither of them was aware of the experiments that were being done on pea plants at the time, by a Czech monk named Gregor Mendel.

In the 1850s, while Darwin and Wallace were putting all the puzzle pieces of natural selection together, Mendel was breeding peas at his monastery to try to figure out how heredity worked. And he figured out that traits didn't simply blend together when living things reproduce. Instead, only some were inherited as discrete traits by different numbers of offspring. Mendel's results were rediscovered around the turn of the 20th century when a new generation of biologists was investigating genetic. And it was a new wave of researchers that brought our understanding of evolution to the next level.

One of these scientists was American biologist Thomas Hunt Morgan. Instead of peas, he bred flies, and in 1910, he bred a fly with an odd trait. It had eyes that were white, instead of red. What's more, he was able to breed that white-eyed trait back into the parent population. Morgen had discovered another key driver of evolution by natural selection: mutation. He realized that the fly had undergone a random change in its genes that made it different from the rest. So Morgan theorized that mutations were a source of variation in living things and that it was the source of the variation that natural selection acted on. Beneficial mutations would be passed on, he thought, and detrimental ones would eventually disappear.

So by early 1900s, we'd already recognized two of the four major force of evolution: Darwin and Wallace gave us natural selection and Morgan brought mutation into the mix. It wasn't until the 1920s that things would really start to come together through the work of three of the founders of the field of population genetics: Ronald Aylmer Fisher, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, and Sewall Wright. Fisher and Haldane both looked at natural selection mathematically, especially in a large population, using Mendel's ideas about inheritance to figure out how often and how fast natural selection worked on variations. It was Haldane who did the math that explained the transition of England's famous peppered moth, in which a gene for dark colour spread quickly, as pollution darkened the bark of the trees they lived on. Studies like this led Fisher and Haldane to conclude that natural selection acted slowly, but also uniformly, in large populations. Meanwhile, in the US, a geneticist named Sewall Wright was thinking about how evolution worked in smaller, more isolated populations. He did some research breeding animals like cattle and guinea pigs. But it was his mathematical studies of genetics that led him to uncover another key idea: genetic drift.

This is the idea that the frequency at which certain genes appear will sometimes change, totally by chance, and randomly, and Sewell found that this has a greater effect in smaller populations than in larger ones. Another idea that came up around this time, in the late 1930s, is gene flow the movement of genes between populations, by way of migration. So, when members of one population of a species say, panthers from Texas breed with members of another population like panthers in Florida that will change the makeup of the gene pool in the Florida population. And this, too, is a driving force of evolutionary change. Together, the work of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright showed that natural selection acting on genes was the most likely explanation for how evolution works.

And in 1937, another biologist brought together all of the evidence from genetics and natural history to show how evolution by natural selection could produce new species. And this enabled us to make the enormous conceptual jump from microevolution to macroevolution. His name was Theodosius Dobzhansky, and he had worked in Hunt's fly lab. He'd found that fly population from different countries seemed to be genetically different, even though they were considered to be the same species. But, these flies weren't so good at reproducing with each other. So he wondered if they were actually different species. And this took the scientific conversation all the way back to the 1800s, and the once-novel idea that evolution could eventually, gradually produce new species. From his experiments, Dobzhansky produced a theory about how new species originate.

Mutations happen naturally in population, creating variations that can stick around if they're beneficial or just neutral. And if populations are isolated, these variations can remain within a single group, with new mutations popping up. but none of these would spread to the rest of the species. Over time, this would make one group genetically distinct from others, potentially causing problems if it tried to interbreed with others. And given enough time, it would lose the ability to interbreed with other population entirely. It would become a new species.

This was the beginning of "the Modern Synthesis," a collaboration by many evolutionary biologists of the time to explain large-scale patterns of evolution. And while the Modern Synthesis has changed over time, it's still the framework for our current understanding of how evolution works. In 1953, we added a better understanding of how genetics works, through the discovery of the structure of DNA and how it functions. So, now we know that mutations randomly happen when DNA is copied incorrectly during replication. Now we also know that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. And it's this knowledge that allows us to witness microevolution taking in studies of bacteria that develop resistance to antibiotics.

Krasue

Mount Rushmore

How this relates to our topic about the Treaty of Waitangi? This is related to Waitangi because after they form a treaty the United States broke the treaty it is similar to the Treaty of Waitangi because after they form a treaty with the European the Maori want to war. 

My thoughts on Waitangi day is that we should celebrate it if we don't, we wouldn't know what Waitangi day is about.   

Megaflood

In the vast, arid landscape of Eastern Washington lie the traces of an ancient disaster. Outside the city of Spokane, massive scour marks run through the rocky ground, creating a strange terrain known as the scablands. A bit to the west, a channel has been shaped into the Earth that's as deep as a forty story building. Elsewhere, miles of rolling hills run across Washington, Montana, and Idaho, resembling enormous ripples up to 15 meters high. These characteristics are all the lingering remains of an epic geological mystery that took nearly half a century to solve. Every great mystery requires a great detective and geologist J Harlen Bretz was a great detective indeed. In the early 1900s, He investigated these strange features and soon concluded that features like these could only have made by water. A lot of it. Running fast. But that stream of water that had transformed the land would have to be unimaginably huge. It must've been a flood, of almost biblical proportions. He met scepticism, to put it softly when Bretz presented this hypothesis in 1927. But ultimately, his investigation would unravel one of the most powerful and bizarre mysteries in recent geologic history. And as a result, it would change the way geologists understand the world today. Because Bretz was right: This landscape was the result of flooding. But not just a single flood. Rather, it was dozens of major, destructive floods that took place over the course of more than 7,000 years, forever transforming the landscape of the Pacific Northwest. What Bretz had discovered was evidence of floods that can only be described in one word: catastrophic.

When Bretz first started studying the weird landscape of the Northwest in the 1920s, there was a certain school of thought that most geologists followed. It was known as uniformitarianism, the idea that the present is the key to knowing the past. In this view, all rocks, landforms, and other geological features can only have been created by processes that we can observe today. And except for the occasional volcanic eruption, or river overflowing its banks, all modern processes are gradual, like erosion. So to these geologists, the scablands of Washington could only be formed by glaciers and the ripples must be deposited of what the glaciers had slowly scraped away. Because of the results of glaciers had been seen around to world and through the lens of uniformitarianism, they seemed to most closely resemble the features that Bretz was studying. But Bretz had studied glacial geology, too, and he knew what glacial could do. And to him, the characteristics he saw just didn't fit. Rather, they looked like a scaled-up version of what appears after a big flood. For Bretz, the clearest evidence of flooding was the shape of the canyons in the Scablands and other areas. These canyons, also called coulees, have flat bottoms and steep, vertical walls - very different from the U shape of valleys that are carved by glacial, or the V-shaped valley made by rivers. One especially large coulee called Dry Falls appeared to have formed a massive waterfall over 100 meters tall and 3 and a half kilometres wide; that's twice as tall, and five times wider, than Niagara falls! But water doesn't just remove things; it also deposits things. And Bretz saw that the landscape was scattered with boulders weighing up to 200 tons, having tumbled miles away from their origin, like pebbles on a beach. He also noted massive ripples in the earth and gravel bars up to 90 meters high, all types of deposits made by powerful flowing water. Finally, Bretz knew that these features couldn't be linked to glaciers, because of what was missing: the huge ridges of deposited sand and gravel called moraines, which form around advancing glaciers. Only one tiny moraine was located in the scablands, not nearly enough evidence for the giant glaciers that would have been required to carve features this big. But despite all of this evidence, other scientists weren't convinced that this strange landscape was developed by an epic flood. They argued that humans had never observed a flood anywhere that big as the one that Bretz proposed, so they were unwilling to believe that such a thing was even possible. Uniformitarianism explained a great deal about geology and epic floods just didn't fit into it. What giant floods did fit into was the geological mindset that Uniformitarianism had replaced: An older school of thought known as catastrophism. Catastrophism was an idea put forward in the early 1800s by French scientist Georges Cuvier. This theory explained all geologic formations as evidence of large, sudden, and unpredictable events usually that was referred to in the bible like celestial impacts, enormous volcanic eruptions, and massive floods. So no matter how good his evidence was, Bretz's hypothesis seemed extremely outdated. And there was still one mystery that Bretz couldn't explain.  If all this flooding really happened, then where's the water come from?

He originally thought that the water had come from some melting glacier. But he couldn't explain how the glacier had melted fast enough to create so much water all at once. It turns out, he was looking in the wrong area. But someone else knew where the water came from. This half of the mystery was solved by Joseph T. Pardee, a geologist with the U.S Geological Survey. Pardee had visited a conference where Bretz presented his hypothesis about the Ice Age megaflood and watched as Bretz supported his claim against a room full of sceptics. And more than 10 years earlier, Pardee had been working in Western Montana and where he'd found evidence of an enormous, Ice Age lake that had since disappeared. His main piece of evidence? Distinctive lines he saw high on the hillsides. These lines create small benches, much like the shorelines of a reservoir. So Pardee thought that these ancient shorelines were made by an ancient lake whose origin was the Clark Fork River, which still flows today through the valley below. This giant lake came to be known as Glacial Lake Missoula, named after the town. But a reservoir requires a dam, and a lake this size would've needed a big one. So what had dammed the river to form a lake, what happened to the dam?

To find out, Pardee followed Lake Missoula shorelines for miles to the west, into the panhandle of Idaho, at which point the lines just disappeared. But where they ended, he found something else: big, U shaped valleys and glacial moraines both evidence of glaciers in the area. So the evidence proposed that a glacier had blocked the river to form the lake. Judging by the landforms around it, it must've been about 50 kilometres wide and more 600 metres tall. And the reason it didn't exist anymore was that it was made of ice. So with his missing dam now found, Pardee had a new question to answer: where'd all of the water go? By some accounts, Pardee had already suspected that the scablands that Bretz described were created by the drainage of his lake. But it took more than a decade for Pardee to publish the evidence that linked his lake to Bretz's flood. On a mountain pass in northern Washington for example, he found massive scour marks. In the river valleys of western Montana, he recorded large bars of debris that had been carried there by currents. And in Montana and Idaho, he studied enormous rippling dunes made of gravel. All of these strange features were consistent with the evidence of flooding. And they were all downstream of where the ice dam would have been. So Pardee concluded that, periodically, too much water built up behind the ice dam that held back Glacial Lake Missoula, until it ruptured. After all, ice is less dense than water. So when the water level in Lake Missoula got high enough, it would've caused the dam to float upward. And as the water began to rush out underneath, the enormous pressure would cause the dam to break. Then, by most estimates, about 2500 cubic kilometres of water broke free. The water formed massive waves as it rushed away from Lake Missoula to the west. Along the way, it lifted giant boulders, carved the steep cliffs and rolling hills of Bretz's scablands, and helped shape the vast Columbia River Gorge that today forms the boundary between Washington and Oregon. Pardee eventually wrote up all of this evidence, detailing what happened to the missing lake and connecting it to the floods that Bretz had postulated in 1942.

And in the decades after these two intrepid detectives did their work, other Geologists used newer techniques to establish that these floods actually happened many times, One of the clearest pieces of evidence is in the remains of the bed of Lake Missoula itself. The dark and light bands of sediment on the floor of the lake, known as varves, are like an archive of the years when the lake was full of water. Dark varves correspond to winter deposits and light ones to summer. But some of these layers are interrupted by beds of gravel that was deposited by rapidly moving floodwater. So the number of varves that appear between the layer of gravel tells us that these catastrophic floods happened every 20 to 60 years. And scientists have even been able to track down multiple lines of evidence to estimate when they happened. Over the years, geologists have studied flood deposited in the ocean, where the Columbia River empties into the sea. They've studied the sediments in rocky outcrops and the chemistry of the giant boulders found along the path of the flood. And together these clues suggest that Glacial Lake Missoula flooded many times within a span of 7,000, from around 20,900 to 13,500 years ago.