Artificially Selecting

Artificial selection. What exactly is this may you ask? Well, artificial selection is a human intervention in animal or plant reproduction to ensure that certain desirable traits are represented in successive generations. Basically, it alters a population for our personal benefits. This procedure is most likely used in agriculture, such as in the number of eggs laid by a hen, the meat property of bullocks, and the milk yield of cows. Other examples of artificial selection include the different breeds of domestic dogs and the large ears of maize corn. In fact, I'm sure most people aren't aware that broccoli and cauliflower are also on the list of products resulting from artificial selection. As you can see, cauliflower and broccoli come from the same ancestor, the wild mustard plant. These plants are full of vitamins and are accepted by everyone (well, except by those kids who don't like their vegetables ;D) because they are contributing to making everyone healthier.

The introduction of a new population isn't the only benefit that results from artificial selection, but it has also resulted in plants that are more disease resistant. In countries that are prone to pests like locusts, drought, or flooding, artificial selection would be beneficial to create crops that are both pest and disease resistant. As well as ones that would be able to withstand an excessive amount of rainwater or heat. This would help feed more people and create more money for those who need it, because through artificial selection one would be able to choose the desirable trait of having their crops be able to withstand these disastrous natural phenomenons.

Now, focusing more on animals. As I've stated before, artificial selection can be used for our benefits of creating more. As in, selecting pigs that will produce more meat, race horses that will run faster, or chickens to lay more eggs and/or to be more plump. Yes, we may benefit from getting more out of all of this, but this does have some downsides as well. Inbreeding is the potential danger that can result from too much artificial selection. Inbreeding decreases the heterozygosity in the gene pool, which can have potential problems. The limited gene pool caused by inbreeding can higher up the endangerment and extinction potential since is does not ensure variation. With the lack of variation, animals are more susceptible to diseases. Artificial selection can result in irreversible results that were not intended, but too late to change. Take this featherless chicken as an example. It was selected to have no feathers so that one wouldn't have to waste time plucking the chickens' feathers. Thus, saving a lot of time. Less time plucking, and more time creating more meat is the result! This featherless chicken also grows faster and larger than its ancestor. Yet, because it has no feathers, it has no protection to cover itself. Therefore this chicken is prone to more viruses and viral infections, be attacked by mosquitoes, susceptible to parasites, and dare I say it.. get sunburn! :O As well, featherless males will not be able to mate because they can't flap their wings. All these factors just show that featherless chickens will suffer more than normal birds do. This is just one example of a bad affect from artificial selection. Other examples would be dairy cattle, which are selected to produce more milk, but some lines now suffer from increased infection and fertility problems. Some Persian cats are bred to have extremely flat faces, but this often results in respiratory problems and trouble eating. These few selected traits that I've mentioned are not selected to help animals survive, but instead for the own selfish desire of the owner.

As you can see, there are both positives and negatives to artificial selection. Sure, it benefits us. But does it also benefit the plants and animals in turn? The answer to this is not always. Sometimes our desires get in the way, and we put ourselves ahead of everything. Which is not how it's supposed to be. Whether or not you are okay with artificial selection or not, or if you just feel indifferent about it, I don't know.  In my opinion though, I think it is beneficial, but to a certain extent. We just need to learn where and when it is appropriate to stop. We just need to learn our limits.

Sources:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118084/Gene/Genetic_variation/artificialselection.htm

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-artificial-selection.htm

http://www.nextnature.net/2006/10/featherless-chicken/

Design-A-Baby?

What is a designer baby you may ask. Well, "designer babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). This significantly reduces the chances that a child will be born with a genetic disorder. In this process, they use reproductive techniques involving InVitro Fertilization or IVF to fertilise eggs with sperm in 'test tubes' outside the mother's body in a labratory. Legally, there are only two ways that designer babies can be created. One of these ways is by choosing the type of sperm that will fertilise the egg. The other is by screening embryos for a genetic disease, and then only putting back the selected embryos in the mother's womb.

To think, we have advanced so ahead in technology that we can choose the desirable characteristics that we want our babies to have! It sounds pretty cool, don't you think? But, it is just unethical. Sure, by screening embryos for a genetic disease we are able to prevent the future children of this world from having any sort of disease by replacing their faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA. We can have the baby that we always dreamed of. Sounds like a dream come true.. or more like an unbelievable scene from a science fiction book. Who would have thought that we would come to this point in life? We've created all the objects that are in our life, and now we are creating the people in our life as well!?

Not only is designing our babies wrong in my opinion, it is also financially draining. Doing this is very expensive, and couples really should take into consideration their financial status. They also need to consider how their child will be affected by being a designer baby. There are many high risks when it comes to these genetic enhancement experiments. By doing this we are losing our social and ethical values. We are changing how God has planned us to be. Just think about it, in the near future we will be divided even more. There's already criticism on many people's parts about being "perfect." Now this will just grow even stronger and result in more division. We will have our "perfect" designer babies and then we will have those who were created without the use of genetic enhancements. Do we really want this? Do we want to lose the uniqueness of each and every one of our children? We should embrace everything that God has to give to our children and not try to change it.

Yet, some people will actually be for this. They want their children to have the best that they can have. This even includes removing the obesity gene, or any undesirable gene that will only bring them suffering in life. But think about it. Isn't life made worth while with all the suffering that we have to endure? Sure, we want the best for our child, and having the oppurtunity to give them the best is great. Yet, there are always cons with the pros. Soon, this will all just turn into a competition. A competition as to which person has the better looking baby. People may think twice about this, but hopefully they won't do it. Babies and science shouldn't mix. Sure, it can cure diseases which is what we all want. A cure, right? But is this really the way to go? Well, I don't know how this will turn out. It can go either way. We'll just see what the future has in store for us. To design a baby or to not design a baby, that is the question.

Sources:

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

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

Humans. Invasive Species, Or Stewards Of The World?

In my own personal point of view, I see us humans as both invasive species & stewards of the world. There are some situations in which we are just trying to make things better, but in the long run we end up making it worse. This happens unintentionally many times, such as in the following situation. In the 1990's, there were two national parks in Africa in which the elephant population greatly increased. People believed that the best way to deal with this situation would be by killing a selected number of them in order to reduce their numbers. Or else they would eat up all the vegetation, which would not only affect them, but other animals as well. A scientist was against this, & asked them not to do this, but they eventually came to a mutual agreement. That agreement was that one park would be left alone, not touched at all, & the second park was allowed to have its elephant population reduced. A few years later, they found out that the park that was left alone regenerated its vegetation at a natural pace, the elephant popuation was naturally reduced, & everything was back in balance. While the other park that had some of its elephants killed was in poor conditions. As you can see from this situation, what we thought was going to benefit this ecosystem, in reality ended up harming it & affecting it negatively. Sometimes our quest to take care of & protect the biodiversity of our ecosystems ends up taking a wrong turn somewhere on the path.

Yet, there are other situations in which we know that we are being invasive, but choose to continue anyways. One of the situations that falls under this category is when we cut down trees. We cut down forests more quickly than they can regenerate. As well, we are taking away animals' habitats when we cut trees down. Yet, we do so because we need places to build new buildings, or materials to make objects with. But by getting stuff for ourselves through the cutting of trees, we are snatching away what many animals have strived on. We are well aware of our actions, but we invade other species' territories to meet our own needs. We all have different opinions when it comes down to whether we're invasive or just tending to the ecosystem's needs, but to me I see us as both. We were created to be stewards of the world, but both intentionally & unintentionally we are being invasive species.

.

.

.

Sources:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1105_041105_elephants_2.html