1: The animal has a trait that allows them to better survive the natural environment and therefore reproduce in order to encourage the trait and create more of it.
2: The animal does not have a trait allowing them to survive long enough to reproduce, therefore dying out and eventually ending the trait.
Artificial selection is the same thing, except that – rather than the forces of nature influencing certain traits – humans are forcing the creation of various traits, usually for our own benefit. In today’s world, we’re already grafting apples, creating dog breeds, producing faster racehorses, and even modifying our food so that they contain more vitamins. However, some argue that we have no right to control nature and that we should just let it take its course. So the question remains: take control or let it be?
WHY WE SHOULDN’T:

I know it's smiling right now, but it'll realise its genetic weaknesses very soon
Farmers genetically modify foods with the intent of making them resistant to disease and pests, and to give them more nutrients. However, there are many arguments against this procedure. Some say that the crops may unintentionally cross-pollinate with other nearby plants like weeds and transfer the resistance to these plants. There may also be a possibility of creating new allergens, as well as other unknown effects on human health.
Dog breeders usually look for certain qualities in their dogs; examples include the flat face of a bulldog or the wrinkles of a Chinese Shar-Pei. After all, people deserve the best-looking dog as a pet (especially if you’re looking at dog shows).
The problem is that these dogs are bred for beauty and not health. With purebred dogs, there are many diseases that come from two recessive genes, which are very difficult to trigger accidentally, but which are very possible to trigger on purpose. Other times, breeders may want to encourage incredibly large or small sizes, which may cause other health programs; large dogs like Saint Bernards are especially vulnerable to heat because they cannot cool down their bodies, while miniature breeds like Chihuahuas are more prone to heart problems and dislocated kneecaps. In fact, these are only a few possibilities in a large list of things that can go wrong; hip diseases, behaviour problems, blood disorders in where it doesn’t clot properly, etc.
To sum it all up, there are some who say that we do not have the right to meddle in the genes of plants and animals. There are many things that could potentially go wrong with the process, and many of the modifications that we have already accomplished have only hurt the animal in question.
WHY WE SHOULD:

Selective breeding already has many applications in our world. While the side-effects of genetically modified plants is unknown, they have many definite advantages: its resistance to disease and pests would ensure an increase in crops (which is good for our overpopulating world) and it is possible to add vitamins and minerals to various foods. In fact, several apples that you eat today are a result of grafting, and I’m pretty sure that a lot of the meat and veggies that you love come from artificial selection.
The most eye-raising application for artificial selection for me is the Lazarus project. Artificial selection is already being used on species like Elaphurus davidianus in order to protect it from extinction. However, the Chelonoidis elephantopus went extinct in the 19th century, so the world will never be able to see it again.
Or will we? Scientists have discovered that there are certain Galapagos tortoises who are descendants of these extinct turtles and who still hold their DNA. This means that through selective breeding which takes advantage of these particular genes, we can theoretically revive this species by creating genetically identical members. Although it can take over a century to complete, this project shows that other extinct species have a possibility of coming back through selective breeding.
To sum it all up, there are many useful applications for selective breeding. It’s evident that selective breeding will allow us to create the best foods and products which are necessary to address our growing health needs. Furthermore, it has been shown that it can also be useful for preservation of animals and that there are many more potential benefits for today’s world.
SHOULD OR SHOULDN’T?
There are points where it is evidently too far. And horrendous side-effects are honestly not what our world should be experiencing. In fact, there are many dog breeders who might only care for a competition win rather than for the dog. Isn’t that a tad bit far?
But there are other times in where manipulation of genes is actually a good thing. As I said, we’re already doing it. Honestly, I don’t really see too many things wrong with artificial selection. I love my fruits and my meat and my vegetables just the way they are, and if we’re able to make more of them, then so be it.
A little too much of a good thing is bad…but it’s still a good thing.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Selective Breeding.” Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Vol. 9. New York: Marshall Cavendish Corp. 1996.
“Dogs That Changed the World: Selective Breeding Problems.” April 2007. PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/dogs-that-changed-the-world/selective-breeding-problems/1281/
Whitman, Deborah. “Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?” 2000. Proquest. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
Nelson, Bryan. “Ancestor of Galapagos tortoises to be resurrected from extinction.” Jan 2010. Mother Nature Network. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/ancestor-of-galapagos-tortoises-to-be-resurrected-from
3 comments:
Hii Jed...
I thought you did a really good job on your blog. I loved how you wrote why we should and why we shouldn't. It made me look at both sides.
"As I said, we’re already doing it. Honestly, I don’t really see too many things wrong with artificial selection. I love my fruits and my meat and my vegetables just the way they are, and if we’re able to make more of them, then so be it."
I agree that I like my fuits, vegetables and meat. Before these units, i never thought to think that the food i eat today aren't really "original". Plants and animals back in the day probally look a little or a lot different and changed in size. What i don't agree on is that some animals are hurt in the process of artificial selection. Because of artificial selection chickens get bigger fasterSo many chickens die due to artificial selection and its sad that farmers still continue with their methods just to earn more profits faster.
Hi Jed.
Excellent work on your bio blog. First off, I'd like to say that your title was extremely eye-catching and was what drew me to read this entry on your blog in the first place. I also liked the pictures that you selected for your blog and the captions that you added on each one of them. It made your blog more enjoyable to read.
You brought up an interesting point in your blog where you mentioned that now scientists can theoretically create a turtoise that became extinct in the 19th century. That was shocking to me as I (up until just now of course!) never thought that could be possible! Science never ceases to fascinate me; especially this topic of artifical selection.
Anyways, I agree, artifical selection definitely has its ups and downs. The horrendous side effects that are bound to occur are definitely not what the world needs to experience now or anytime in the future as it would be too much of a catastrophe. At the same time, we do live in an over populated world and so we do require more food. This is where the process of artifical selection without a doubt, comes in handy!
All in all, I thought that your blog was very convincing and well-written. Good job!
Hi Jed,
I thought your blog was really good. It was filled with lots of information from both points of view. You always start your blogs off with an interesting title and a catchy picture, which is great.
Clearly, you did a lot of research for this bio blog and it showed. Your points on dog breeding especially made an impact on me. "In fact, there are many dog breeders who might only care for a competition win rather than for the dog. Isn't that a tad bit far?" I think this is definitely way too far. I thought the purpose of dogs was for them to be used as pets which are 'man's best friend'. Yet now we are looking at a world that breeds dogs for shows and competitions, not caring about the dogs health. This is wrong, the dogs that we breed should be bred for health, so that they may live longer with us as companions.
The application of artificial selection on the Lazarus project is definitely an extremely mind-boggling concept. To create a turtle that went extinct in the 19th century will be world-changing, so thanks for opening my eyes to that idea.
For the most part, I agree with you. I love my fruits and my meat and my vegetables just the way they are as well, yet not so much that the animals I eat should be harmed in the process of artificial selection, as Melanie stated before me. Although it can be argued that it doesn't really matter because I will eventually eat the chicken anyways; there are always two sides to everything.
Overall, great blog, I'll be coming back to you for more blogs to comment on.
Post a Comment