Artificial Selection

Artificial selection has resulted in plants that are more disease-resistant, cows that produce more milk, and racehorses that run faster. one must wonder what will come next. In the blog entry answer the following question - under what circumstances should humans be artificially selecting plants or animals, if any?

Before humans interfered with evolution, there was natural selection. Natural selection is similar to the often used phrase "survival of the fittest." In an environment, there is always competition between species. Those with the more desirable traits, tend to outlast those without these traits. The species feel the pressure to evolve and end up doing so. Darwin's finches are an excellent example to describe natural selection. There is a slight change in each of the beaks depending on the food they are going to capture.

Artificial selection is similar to natural selection but involves human interference. It is the modification of plants or animals to create desirable traits. In the picture shown here, you could see that the genes from the wolf were used to breed various types of other dogs. Many humans intentionally do this to profit or gain from it. For instance, chickens are bred to increase their size. Farmers get to sell these chickens at a higher price and receive more profit from it. But what is the cost to produce these fatter chickens? The trade off to produce these enhanced chickens is a small brain size and smaller leg bones. With the added weight on the shoulders of these chickens, some of them may be unable to move and cause a great deal of pain for the chicken.

Humans see artificial selection as a way to gain certain advantages, but for animals, artificial selection could be life threatening. By creating desirable traits, it phases out other genes and causes the animal more vulnerable to certain diseases. Also, the doubling up of genes occurs, increasing the chances of two recessive genes being together. This could result in various types of diseases such as urine stones. This occurs in Dalmatian dogs which have the doubling up of the abnormal uric acid gene, causing them to be predisposed to urine stones. Sure, we get more choices in the breeds of dogs, but the cost is to high to create them. Breeders have a certain standard for the dogs they create and if that dog doesn't meet the standard, they will be killed. Is that ethical? How far are we going to go in order to produce that perfect animal? That dog's life has been cut short just because something went wrong in the process of it's creation. Under no circumstance should that dog be killed. Many breeders see their work as a form of art and have pride for it, but don't care about the life of the animal they've created. Many humans see animals as a way to gain profit from or a tool that does all the dirty work. But animals deserve more than that and shouldn't be played around with just so they could do "more." Farmers should be satisfied with whatever amount of milk their cow produces or how many eggs their hens lay.

Artificial selection with plants creates a lot more variety of foods and allows farmers to easily control pests that eat away at the crops. For instance, sweet corn produces an insecticide that kills off harmful insects. Farmers don't have to continually spray pesticides of the corn, which makes their job a whole lot easier. However, the insects could become resistant to the insecticides and other insects that go near the corn could also be affected and die. Currently, there is a debate on the harmful effects that the corn has on the monarch butterfly. A lot of the monarch butterflies are dieing because of the insecticides that the corn has. If you want to look further into this topic, go on the following website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC59819/

I feel that artificial selection has opened up a world of options for us. There are different breeds of dogs to select from and more foods to choose from. However, I feel that it's unethical to continue artificial selection on animals. I don't have anything against experimenting with different animals to create new breeds, as long as the animal isn't hurt in the process, but enhancing the animals should be stopped. The chickens, for example, are made to be fatter than their weak limbs could support is causing them to suffer. As to the GM foods, I feel that it's alright to continue artificial selection on some foods. If the food produces chemicals that harms insects around it, then the food should just be kept under control by pesticides.

Here is a video about breeders talking about creating the perfect pet.

Work's Cited:

www.wisegeek.com/what-is-artificial-selection.htm
www.lycos.com/info/artificial-selection.html
www.biology-online.org/2/12_selective_breeding.htm

Who are we to play God?

Has genetic research gone too far? Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on researching for designer babies, when it could be spent on researching for incurable diseases. Scientists are now able to change the sex of the baby according to the parents' preference. The comical drawing shown here makes a joke out of designer babies. If the genetic research of designer babies continues, then more traits concerning the babies could be changed. Would there be any diversity in our world anymore? Imagine almost wherever you go, you see a blond, blued eyed person. How sick would that be? Now, this is an extreme example, but it could become reality if more parents decide to have a designer baby.

InVitro Fertilisation and Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis are two techniques that work hand in hand to help "design" a baby. InVitro Fertilisation allows scientists to work with the sperm and eggs outside of the mother's body. The sperm and eggs are put in test tubes and are changed accordingly by the scientists. Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis determines whether the embryos has a genetic disease or not. It is used to see whether or not a genetic disease would be passed on. The sperm and egg of the parents are observed by the scientists and the ones that don't contain genetic diseases are put back in the womb.

Germ line therapy is the name used when scientists replace faulty DNA in embryos with healthy DNA. The faulty DNA is what causes genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis. However, this process is currently illegal, but body gene cell therapy, changing faulty DNA in adults, is legal.

Want a boy or a girl?

Research has perfected gender selection to reach an accuracy of almost 100%. Scientists separate the X and Y chromosome from the male sperm to fertilize the egg, depending on the desired gender. The Y chromosome carries less genetic information than the X chromosome, so scientists stain the sperm with nontoxic light sensitive dye to differentiate between the Y and X chromosomes. If the parents want a baby boy, then the Y chromosome from the male sperm would be used to fertilize the egg (XY chromosome). If the parents want a baby girl, then the X chromosome from the male sperm would be used to fertilize the egg (XX chromosome). Artificial insemination would be the technique used for this process. Artificial insemination used to insert sperm into a woman "manually" rather than the natural way.

Scientists at the Princeton University has conducted research on enhancing the brain through the use of mice. They put a gene known as the NR2B gene into the mice, which is suppose to encourage better brain development. What was observed was that the mice did learn faster, but were also more sensitive to pain. Are humans next to be experimented with? What if this gene disrupts other genes around it?

During the year 2000, the Nash family had a baby boy that contained the perfect tissue match for his older sister who had a genetic disease. This baby boy was selected through Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis and his tissue saved his sisters life. So, whose to say that the genetic research we've been conducting isn't useful? I strongly disagree with changing a baby before it's born for cosmetic reasons, but if we could help prevent genetic diseases that the baby is predicted to have, then I'm all for designer babies. Currently, to have your own designer baby, it would cost parents about $19 000.

Designer babies has created quite a stir ethically. Two lesbian couples in the U.S deliberately chose to have their child to be deaf. They felt that being deaf wasn't a disability, but more along the lines of cultural identity. The lesbian couple wanted to share this with their unborn child, thus asking the doctor to make their child deaf. Read more about this article through the following website http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1916812.stm. This causes ethical issues and creates a social dilemma. People will read this article and feel that the research about designer babies has gone out of control.

Within the next decade or two, scientists predict that they would be able to determine the height, weight and even the child's IQ. Different genes that the parents don't have could even be created in labs, so that the designer baby could have different traits. Would the baby you've conceived even feel like yours anymore? Is it worth it to pay thousands of dollars to have your own designer baby?

The following is a video from the Today Show, commenting on designer babies.

Sources:

http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_cont1.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/

WE'RE GONNA DIE BY THE YEAR 2020!

Topic: Many scientists consider humans as the most invasive species, as humans can greatly change and environment impact the living things that reside there. Are we being stewards of an the world? Take a look at an issue in which human intervention has positively or negatively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems.

We're not actually going to die by 2020, but our forests will, if we continue destroying them. Scientists predict that by the year 2020, about 80 - 90 percent of our rainforests will be gone.

Here are some quick things about deforestation and rain forests that you may want to know before we begin.

• Everyday, about 137 species of plants and animals are dying in rainforests because of deforestation.

• You may think that deforestation only affects plants and animals, but that isn't true. Five centuries ago, the amazon rainforest was home to 10 million Indians, now, deforestation has brought that population down to about 200 000.

• About 10 million species of animals, plants and insects live in the rainforests.

• The amount of fish in the Amazon rainforests outnumber the amount in the Atlantic Ocean.

• Rainforests once covered 14% of the Earth's land and now, it only covers about 6%.

• Trees are important to the water cycle because they help return water vapour to the atmosphere.

• Plants in the rainforests have been found to fight against cancer.

With all the advancements in technology, humans are now able to clear vast amounts of trees, without much effort. This develops greed and selfishness in humans. Many companies who don't care about the environment decide to cut down as many trees as possible in order for them to make a profit. They use the trees for making paper and building luxurious buildings, but never took the time to see how it impacts our world. Agriculture is also one of the main reasons to why people cut down so many trees. Farmers want more land to raise their live stocks and for growing crops, causing so many trees to be cleared. We are called to be the stewards of the world and are to be the role models for the next generation. How are we suppose to set a good example for others when we are destroying vast amounts of trees each year? During the years from 2000 to 2005, there have been a loss of 90 million acres of forestry land. Many people are blind to see that our world is in need of help. Some people that know what's going on in our world decide to keep one eye shut and think that things will take care of themselves. Those who think this underestimate the importance of trees to our planet. Trees are vital to humans due to the fact that they take in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. They provide clean air for us to breathe and are said to be the "lungs of the earth." By clearing out forests, we are releasing the carbon dioxide that was stored in the trees. This will help deplete the ozone layer and will in turn speed up global warming. About 1.6 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases are released into our atmosphere due to deforestation and this needs to come to a halt. Animals that can't adapt to the changes in the temperature will die, affecting the biodiversity of ecosystems.





18% of carbon released into your atmosphere comes from deforestation.


When portions of the forest are cut, the soil becomes dry, making it harder for trees to grow back. This is because the trees in the forests provide shade for the soil, keeping it moist and when they're cut, the soil is exposed to the sunlight.


Forests are also the habitats to many different species. The rainforest for example, are homes to over half of the Earth's plants and animals. When we destroy the homes of these species, many of them will die and if we keep on doing this, they may even become extinct. The species that do survive the horrible affects of deforestation may still end up dieing. All these species are part of a large food web. When one species of animals die or become extinct, there is less food for it's predator. So this in turn may cause the predator's population to lower. There are many species of animals out there that are needed for medical research. Some animals are used to make different kinds of medicine and their population is diminishing each year. "An estimated 39% of the world’s remaining frontier forest is under moderate or high threat. http://www.daversitycode.com/earthscope/)" This is a serious matter. If we don't stop our habits of cutting down trees, soon there will be nothing left.

The following video is something that I found on Youtube, demonstrating the effects of deforestation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsq3WsFIVmQ







It may seem that there's no hope for our world, but activists like Greenpeace are fighting for our planet. They are doing everything within their power to try and save what's left of our forests. They've challenged governments and have done many protests to try and stop those corporate companies from harming the environment. The following news article isn't about Greenpeace fighting for deforestation, but it shows their will and passion that they have in saving our world.
http://www.thestar.com/article/703571# Basically, this article talks about how Greenpeace is protesting against the company Suncor, because their oil sands is causing climate change. You could also log onto the following website http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/ to learn more about these activists.


The companies that clear all these trees should be the ones responsible for the extinction of so many species. Birds like the Macow are diminishing each day and it is our job to help save them. If more people were to realize the seriousness of deforestation, then maybe more people would help protest against these greedy companies. Don't think that one person can't help change the world. Look at people like Craig Keilburger. If he were to think that his voice didn't matter, then so many kids out there today would still be exploited. VOICE YOUR OPINION! Spread the word of the dangers of deforestation and how it affects the biodiversity of our ecosystem. We need more people to help with the cause so it would put pressure on these corporate companies to stop cutting down our trees. We should all learn from the Aboriginals way of life because they are the true stewards of the Earth. They treated the environment with respect and would use everything till the last drop. They lived in harmony with nature and took care of it.
By doing something like planting a tree or donating to organizations like Greenpeace, we are being the stewards of the Earth.


In short, I don't think that many of us are being stewards of the Earth. Humans have more of a negative impact on the environment than a positive one. Not many of us actually care about the environment and thrive to protect it. We should start changing our ways and should protest against the major companies that disrupt the habitats of the species.

WORKS CITED

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/

http://www.daversitycode.com/earthscope/

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/rainforest-profile.html