How to trigger evolution in 5 easy steps! (...not really)

Natural selection is the main force behind evolution. To sum it up, two main conclusions can occur as a result of natural selection.

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:
Future generations will thank and honour this tortoise.

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

Unit 5: Take control of the future? Or leave it up to fate?

The Human Genome Project – a project which allows us to further understand our DNA – has allowed many, many opportunities for humanity’s future. Specifically, they may allow us to predict the qualities of offspring and even ensure that they receive certain qualities.

Did you know that clinics that allow people to select the gender of their babies have existed ever since 2001? A technique known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is used to examine embryos in their early stages. They can be used to predict many qualities in advance; diseases the child may have inherited, gender, and even more recently, hair and eye colour. In February of this year, a company known as Fertility Institutes announced that they were going to perform services involving the prediction of hair and eye traits, but stopped this project soon afterwards as a result of public ethical opinions.

This begs the question: Is PGD beneficial or bad for humankind?


PROS – “I just want the best for my kids,” – Every single loving parent in the world

Alright, class, raise your hands if you’ve ever wished that you were born smarter or stronger. Everyone? Thought so. Let’s face it; everyone wants their baby to be stronger and smarter, and gene therapy seems like just the way to do it.
However, the real gem of the Human Genome Project is that it would allow us to perform gene therapy. You see, genes are a key factor in disease immunity. About 3500 diseases ranging from cystic fibrosis to muscular dystrophy – and these are just the ones that have been discovered – have been attributed to genes. Resistances are possible, but cures have not even been found. With the miracle of gene therapy, cures won’t be necessary because the disease won’t even be existent in the first place! This can allow inherited diseases – diseases that have ran through several generations – to finally stop. Millions of dollars are currently going into caring for children with A.D.D. and associated disorders; money that can be saved because these disorders can be stopped.



CONS – “It is what God has given me. Why should I change it?” – A Sikh in response to the question of why he does not shave

All of us have seen trends in what is “in”; in Grade 4, everyone had Yu-Gi-Oh cards and Beyblades, and today, everyone has Apple products. If a few people end up getting this product, most kids would buy it. Oh, you don’t have an IPod? That’s probably because it’s either too expensive or because you just don’t want one. That’s okay; you’ll just be the kid who’s left out of everything. Don’t lie; it’s happened to all of us.

Now let’s apply this example to certain societies like China, in where boys are more favourable than girls. This can also apply to other cases like natural shortness or even disorder prevention. When a trend is alive, everyone naturally follows it, and those who don’t would end up being inferior to certain other people. If everyone naturally followed certain trends, society would be very similar and diversity would begin to die out (See Unit 2 Blog for details). And as for those unlucky children who haven’t been modified, would they be remarked as more inferior than modified children?


CONCLUSION

It’s inevitable that we now have a better understanding of human genes.
Even with this knowledge, however, I think that this knowledge should only be used to fight diseases. We are already doing this, and we have been able to free certain children from the possibility of breast cancer and other diseases. It is through this project that genetic defects that have plagued a family for generations have been stopped.

As for choosing a gender/hair colour/IQ, that is where it gets ridiculous. Why in the world should we spend money and effort just to change a petty thing like hair colour? Perhaps a child would appreciate that their parent allowed them to be tall, but I know quite a lot of short and medium-sized people who are quite happy with what they are, and a bunch of tall people who find their height a hindrance. Have you ever been annoyed when your parents said something like this…

“My son is going to be a (insert ambitious career that never appealed to you here)!”

The point I’m trying to get at is that parents have an amazing knack for not really seeing what’s best for the child (at first, anyway). All those times that humans have tried to have an incredibly firm grip over things, they’ve gone incredibly wrong (again, see Unit 2 blog on diversity for another example). The Human Genome Project is useful for certain things, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

After all, if humans got what they wanted all the time, we’d all be dead.


SOURCES

David Bjerklie, Michael Lemonick, and Park, Alice. “Designer Babies.” Time Magazine. Jan. 1999. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987,00.html

Kiem, Brandon. “Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?” Wired Science. Condé Nast Digital. Mar. 2009. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/designerdebate/

“Designer baby row over US clinic.” BBC News. Health. Mar. 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7918296.stm

Anissimov, Michael. “The Great Designer Baby Controversy of ’09.” H+ Magazine. Infoswell Media. June 2009. http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/great-designer-baby-controversy-%E2%80%9909

Comic by Jed de los Reyes

MiiSkin.gif from http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/wii/en_na/channelsMii.jsp

Unit 2: ...well...at least humanity got what they wanted...?

So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good - Genesis 1: 21

Unfortunately for these creatures, humankind would be born two days later.

Food chains are delicate things; a simple change to one part of the chain will change the circumstances dramatically for the rest of the chain. If the smallest of the animals disappears, another bigger animal won't have enough food, meaning that another animal won't have food, resulting in reduced populations. As this domino effect affects all the animals in a region, it is a rather big blow to an area's biodiversity; the variety of animals in the region.

In addition, pretty much every spot on Earth has somehow been impacted by humans over the last century. Humans have managed to really make their mark on the Earth; we've built towns, destroyed habitats, and added abnormal amounts of gases to the air, among a long list of other things. Unfortunately, in accordance with the previously mentioned domino effect, this also means that the mark of humans to the Earth has managed to affect food chains all over the world. But in a good way or a bad way?

On that note, behold one of the most game-changing factors in the recent history of the Great Lakes:

EXHIBIT A

These little objects are zebra mussels. They were discovered in Lake St. Clair in 1986, but caused one of the greatest uproars that the Great Lakes has ever known. You would think that this 3-centimeter organism wouldn't be able to cause too much change to an ecosystem...but they happen to have a long list of crimes attributed to them.

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

-Their biggest threat is that they compete with the other organisms in the water for algae and nutrients. There's less food to go around with zebra mussels around.

-The zebra mussels excrete Microcystic; toxic algae that is harmful to other animals

-They attach themselves right on top of mussels that ALREADY live in the Great Lakes (see Exhibit B). As a result, these mussels are rendered unable to retrieve enough nutrients to survive.

-As a side effect of the algae being consumed by the mussels, shrimp - who would normally use algae to hide - are suddenly without shelter from the salmon who are eating them. This will be a devastating blow to the shrimp population, which would also be a blow to the salmon who depend on them for food

-As if the above points weren't terrible enough, they also reproduce very FAST (see Exhibit C - note that there are many, many mussels in a pencil-sized area). According to research done on a SINGLE square meter, the zebra mussel population was able to jump from 1000 to 700000 in a mere six months.

-Finally, they have very few predators in the Great Lakes, meaning that their rapid reproduction is impossible to naturally stop.

Zebra mussels have managed to steal food from other organisms while poisoning them and remain perfectly safe the entire time. Ever since their first appearance in Lake St. Clair in 1986, they've managed to spread to the rest of the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and many other US Lakes. They have managed to seriously endanger several species living in the Great Lakes system, affecting its biodiversity.

It's really funny, seeing as North American isn't even its native home; it's actually the Caspian Sea.

Wait a moment. If their native home is in the Caspian Sea, then what in the world are they doing in the Great Lakes in the first place?

Seeing as there is no way for these mussels to magically show up in Lake St. Clair all on their own, someone must have brought them there. In this particular case, it's widely accepted that the zebra mussels attached themselves to a ship travelling in the Caspian Sea, after which the ship arrived in the Great Lakes a while later, which would allow them to settle in their new home sweet home. The mussels used one of our boats as transport, allowing them to terrorize the Great Lakes ecosystem. In other words: It was humanity's fault. Again.

So what does this say about us and our relationship with the environment? In all fairness, it's not like we're villains, trying with all our might to oppress the animals under our feet; we're simply trying to live our lives as well as we can.

But that's exactly what our problem is. We're so caught up in trying to live our lives as ambitiously as possible that we hardly ever consider the consequences of our actions. We're so determined to get boats to other countries that we don't realise that we might be providing transport to invasive species (although in all fairness, I don't think that too many people could've possibly foreseen this problem).

Perhaps we should try NOT to live too ambitiously...to take up as least space as possible, to try not to make world-impacting actions with unforeseen world-impacting consequences. Use less resources and bother less animals. Maybe then, everyone would be able to sleep a little better.

And not just the humans.

RESOURCES

"Dreissena polymorpha" Global Invasive Species Database. 22 June 2005. Invasive Species Specialist Group. www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=50&fr=1&sts

Nielson, John. "An Upside to the Invasive Zebra Mussel?" 2 Mar 2008. National Public Radio. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87843464

"Lakes with zebra mussels have higher levels of toxins, MSU research finds" MSU News. 10 Mar 2004. Michigan State University. http://news.msu.edu/story/2305/

"Are Zebra Mussels Re-Shaping Great Lakes Shorelines?" EnviroZine Issue 35. 11 Sep 2003. Environment Canada. www.ec.gc.ca/EnviroZine/english/issues/35/feature3_e.cfm
All photographs came from the above link, original photographers are listed below.
Exhibit A: Dermott, Ron
Exhibit B: Smith, Janice
Exhibit C: Dermott, Ron