Manufacturing Evolution

Have you ever thought about cloning and the impact it could leave on this planet? How evolution will have human finger prints all over every genome know to man. Does this scare you or does it fascinate you? Personally I am confused, because neither the pros nor the cons of cloning can outweigh each other. Yes, cloning will cure diseases and replace much needed organs; however, cloning will also create a synthetic evolution and ultimately human race.

How you ask? Well it is simple, as humans, we have a natural desire to better ourselves. With the power of cloning we will never have to worry about another disease or organ failure again. We will have "optimal health", so we think. However, with no diseases life expectancy will increase and our world will become over populated. In turn, humans will become earth’s number one disease. If cloning becomes an everyday commodity, natural selection will take the back seat. The genes responsible for illnesses and less desired traits will not have natural selection to weed them out. Therefore, future generations are more likely to inherit "bad" genes.

The Council for Responsible Genetics warns that we do not know enough about the relationship of genes and traits. Therefore, there is no guarantee that if a gene is altered it will present the results we are looking for. Also they warn that there are many ideas of "biological perfection". Therefore, a gene that is altered by a parent and is considered "good" may in turn be considered "bad" by the descendent.

Morally cloning is in the eye of the beholder. For example a Christian may feel differently about cloning than an Atheist. Prof. Qiu Renzong, Director of the Bioethics Program at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, points out solid arguments against the morality of human cloning. He believes that cloning not only will cause religious issues but also legal issues. Prof. Qiu Renzong also supports his argument by adding that when animals are cloned we are only fulfilling human need. Like I pointed out earlier humans have a natural desire to better themselves and unfortunately the life of other species are at risk of our selfishness.

I think in the near future cloning will become a major medical tool and evolution will be based on the ability to balance natural selection with human desire.

Time Is Running Out

“We're losing at least two species an hour. (This is 2,500 times the "background" rate at which species have disappeared due to evolution.)” (2007 David Suzuki Foundation)
Incase you haven't noticed, we, humans, the selfish things that we are (naturally), are killing off more species than we could ever imagine. I guess part of it is not the fault of a single person considering that it takes two people for the population to grow. But let's come to our senses people; we are on the road to destroying our own kind. From the time we finally realized that what we are doing now may have a big influence on the lives of our great great great great grandchildren, it was already too late. There have been countless times where one person or group tries to take initiative in reducing whatever harmful things that us humans produce so that biodiversity can still be a part of this world but it's the fact that there are only so little of us who truly care what is happening to the earth. Take a look here at the list of things (other than population growth) that are threatening biodiversity. Everything, everything, is our fault; we are even capable of climate changes.

People, like David Suzuki, have dedicated their lives to find ways for society to live in balance with the natural world that sustains us. But the truth is, hardly anyone really cares for nature the way he does. Don't think that just because we are living in Canada, then by simply following the laws and promotions that are already set about recycling, carpooling, saving endangered species...etc. that we are doing the best we can. You would think that Canada should be a world leader in sustainability. However, in a recent study comparing the environmental performance of Canada to other developed countries, we finished 29th out of 30. Sad isn't it?

Some threats can be reduced in a short period of time. But some will take as long as we took to realize all the things we've done to damage the earth. Either way, we have to take action now.
After all, if it takes all of us to make up this world, then it takes all of us to save this world.

• References:

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Biodiversity/Threats.asp

• Photo References:

"Nature, The Wildlife Blog"

http://www.deviantart.com/ Patricia Morel 2007

Invasive species and the death of biodiversity on Earth!

It has come to my attention that 300 species a day are transported in the ballast water of large ships or freighters. Many species including lamprey, alewife and zebra mussels have been introduced into our Great lakes and some of these species are having a very negative affect on the biodiversity in this area. I was utterly shocked to learn that invasive species were being introduced to these lakes in this manner and at this rate. Ships fill there ballasts with water while out for stabilization in the sea and many times will not release this water until they are in an extremely different ecosystem. In this water there are many species that are alien to this dumping location.

In many cases the new species is incapable of surviving, but this is not always the case. Sometimes, the introduced specie is capable of invading the habitat of native species and becomes a strong competitor for food and space. An excellent example of this is the introduction of the zebra mussel into the Great lakes some time in the 1980s.

This species, believed to be transported in the ballast of a large freighter, is a filter feeder that is capable of surviving at an extremely high density rate. Due to the increase of this species population the water looks much clearer than it has in the past, although many native species are suffering because of this. With the numbers of zebra mussels increasing the amount of food they intake and deprive native species from also increases. There are many other native mussels and fish that feed on the phytoplankton that these invasive mussels are hording.

Why must such a ruthless and corrupt invasion continue? These species damage many aspects of the community and are capable of blocking drains, and even small inlets, yet, it is not a very high priority. Many states have adapted new regulations regarding ballast exchange before entering this water system, but it will require an extreme group effort considering the amount of people, and different governing systems that surround these bodies of water.

I did come across some information regarding some possible solutions that may have the ability of counteracting some of this invasion. One is the introduction of a less invasive species that is capable of feeding on the mussel. There are may different sponges that feed on these mussels but research is still underway.

Scientists are also trying to come up with a possible chemical that would kill all life in ballasts before they unload and would not harm the ecosystem. To me, this is just ridiculous! To fight a problem that occurred because of lack of knowledge, we should dump newly tested, chemically treated water into an already stressed habitat? How does that make sense? These lakes contain 95% of North Americas surface freshwater. This fact alone makes us aware of the importance of these lakes, and the impact they have on our survival. It is almost a guarantee that a few years down the road there will be a negative impact on this environment due to the intoruction of this chemical. What would the solution be then, and what impact would it have on the Great Lakes?

Is Antibacterial Soap Creating Superbugs?

Bacteria are among the most amazing organisms found on earth. They can evolve extremely fast, which allows more diversity and a better chance of survival. In recent studies biologists are finding that because of the nature of bacterial evolution, antibacterial soap is more harmful than beneficial. The purpose of antibacterial soap is to kill the bacteria, however, there are the few bacteria which are not affected by it and survive to reproduce further. Scientists think that the antibacterial craze is overdone. Joe Schwarcz a director at McGill University says “You don’t want to use a jackhammer to kill an ant when stepping on it will do”. He means why use antibacterial soap and run the risk of creating a resistant colony when you can use normal soap. Humans have survived centuries with only soap, why change now to a more risky substance. According to Natural Life Magazine the FDA is planning on banning antibacterial soap altogether. It is also stated in the Natural Life Magazine that antibacterial soap kills all bacteria including the good bacteria. This causes a threat because with the good bacteria gone there is no competition for the bad resistant bacteria. Therefore this could potentially create a domination species of bacteria. Eventually these bacteria could become resistant to most of the drugs we use and cause a colony of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Another aspect of antibacterial soap is that it is too sterile. Humans are a very delicate species and live in very sterile conditions. In order to have a good immune system we must come in contact with bacteria, so that our immune systems can make antibodies. A baby for instance needs this contact with bacteria in order to have any immune system at all.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=5e77ed4a-0881-4715-8963-72663b5bd13a&k=89059

http://www.life.ca/nl/107/soap.html

View link for cartoon:
http://foodsafety.wisc.edu/assets/foodfacts_2007/wffFeb2007_clip_image002.jpg

Sickle Cell Disease "Cure"

More than 70,000 Americans suffer from sickle cell anemia, an inherited blood disorder that can be very painful and has no cure.
Fortunately doctors may be on the verge of discovering new treatments.
The hospital is a painfully common place for Juanita Gougis and Dave Auberry.
They have sickle cell anemia, and pain is just part of it.
In Dave's case it affected his growth. For Juanita it meant countless days away from school and social events.
Blood transfusions and surgery can reduce the risk of stroke and other complications, but there is no cure yet.
Dr. Yutaka Niihara may change that.
He made a surprising discovery when he was doing research on sickle cell.
"We did not want to believe it because it just seemed so simple," Dr. Niihara said.
The researchers found that when they applied glutamine, a common amino acid and nutritional supplement, to sickled cells in the lab it caused them to open up and become the normal ball-like shape.
"What this treatment does, is we are adding substance that is going to increase anti-oxidant in red blood cell and this seems to prevent all the damages that's caused by sickling," explained Dr. Niihara.
When Nihara and his team began to administer a strong form of glutamine to patients, the results were astonishing.
"We had about 85 percent success. One child had kidney dysfunction which is not uncommon for sickle cell patients. After starting on this medication, the kidney function start to normalize and this was really a fascinating story for me because this was one case where things actually reversed," he said.
Juanita and Dave volunteered for the study.
"It's better to try something that could possibly give me less frequent crises. Even if it doesn't work for me, it might work for the next person that has sickle cell," Dave said.
Dave's crises went down from once a month to once every three months.
Juanita, who used to go to the the hospital for treatment six times a year, only went once in the last year and a half.
Researchers hope to one day start the treatment in infancy in order to prevent organ damage.

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/health/10716196.html

Sickle Cell Disease is an evolutionary response to Malaria. If we can stop sickle cells from forming, will malaria be a greater threat?

Sickle Cell disease has supposedly been around for 70,000-150,000 years.
"Available calculations suggest that this gene has developed between 3000 and 6000 generations, approximately 70000-150000 years ago", (http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijhe/vol1n2/sickle.xml)
In all the regions where this disease originated, there is an endemic of malaria.


Malaria is a disease caused by protozoan parasites and are transferred between individuals by a vector (mosquitoes). Malaria has many affects on individuals, however since we have covered most of this in class; I will go over the general sociological and economic effects (Same with Sickle Cell Anemia).

Malaria infects about 400-900 million and kills 3 million of these a year and the vast majority infected are under 5 years of age. The death rate could double in twenty years if conditions remain the same (http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/reprint/64/1_suppl/1-c) In Sub-Sahara Africa, 85-90% of fatalities from Malaria occur.

Malaria has also been a cause of poverty in many Sub-Saharan countries, it is estimated to cost $12 Billion US Dollars per year.

Since Sickle Cell Disease is a result of a recessive trait, those which are homozygous recessive have a high chance of death. People who are homozygous dominant, will be affected by malaria. The true advantage is to be heterozygous. Heterozygous individuals have a dominant trait, and a recessive trait, which lets them become immune to malaria and still able to live. This is where the problems with this treatment begin, will more people die from Malaria because we cure sickle cell anemia?

Some doctors say that the trade off is better for those with sickle cell disease to take Glutamine because Malaria can be prevented by other methods such as Mosquito nets or Jesuits Bark.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08372b.htm

Personally, I find that anything that will save lives is a good thing.

The Evolution and Destruction of the Vancouver Island Marmot

web.mala.bc.ca

To this day it is still unknown when the first marmot ancestor arrived on Vancouver Island. Some researchers believe they migrated here during the Illinoian glacial period 100 000 years ago, and others believe 10 000 years ago during the Cordilleran glacial period. During these ice ages the sea levels greatly declined and produced a pathway for the marmots to travel to the island. The marmots that traveled to the island became trapped when the glaciers melted and replenished the sea levels. This occurrence is what began the evolution of the Vancouver Island marmot.

Scientists described the first Vancouver Island marmot in 1911. They are herbivores that feed on over fifty species of grasses and wild flowers. They live in burrows they build that will have a number of exits. They are known to hibernate in these dens from Sept-April, as a family, and will block the exits with mud and grass. The marmots mate soon after waking, and produce three or four pups around July. Their average life span is roughly ten years old, and in this lifetime they can produce anywhere from twelve to fifteen pups. Roughly one third of young marmots will move away to start a new colony, consisting of at least two marmots.

-

http://www.cancaver.ca/

-

-

-There has been a recent discovery of marmot bones in 6 caves in British Columbia, and the research of these bones began in 1988. One cave in Strathcona Park held the bones of 74 marmots. It was determined by analysis that these bones were 26 000 years old. Bones of thirteen Vancouver Island marmots were discovered in a small cave in an isolated mountain range near Clayquot Sound, just west of Port Alberni. It is believed that these bones were the remains of the animals hunted for food in these areas.

The population of marmots on the island is currently about 121 marmots on the island total, and because of this they are considered one of the most endangered animals in Canada. There are two small colonies on Mt. Washington, but unfortunately at least 5 larger colonies on the island have become extinct. There is land throughout the island that is available for these marmots, but they are having a difficult time reaching it. This is because of the mass amounts of clear-cut areas that marmots will not cross because of the possibility of being spotted by predators. It has been found that female marmots in these areas located close to clear-cuts produce less offspring, and with the numbers so low this decrease in offspring is quite devastating. The lack of ability to move from habitat to habitat has had a huge impact of the population, and causes a decrease in genetic drift. Scientists believe that captive breeding and reintroducing will assist in getting this animal off of the endangered list. Marmots are being held for breeding at the Calgary and Toronto Zoos, and there is talk of opening a special breeding center on Vancouver Island.

Since clear cutting is the major destructor of this marmot species, I for one believe that we should explore alternate options to this logging technique. It affects a number of species, where as, other less drastic options would not demolish these habitats in this extreme manner. It is the pure selfishness of human beings that urges us to ignore these facts! Instead, we concentrate on what many believe is more important; money and a strong economy. I am convinced that with the diverse options available, including selective logging and alternate planning strategies these major logging companies could still make themselves money, while sparing the lives of wild species. In turn, this would keep environmentalists, and animal activists off their back, providing a win-win situation. We have all seen the attention activists can bring to situations and specific companies. If you were running one of these companies wouldn’t you want to avoid any bad publicity that could seriously damage the reputation of your company? Wouldn’t you want to avoid making it look like its being ran by money hungry corporate thugs?

The biggest influence on the population numbers is the clear cutting that is leading to many tragedies in wildlife eco-systems, but scientists are also looking for other possible problems. Some research is being done on marmot fecal and blood matter to test for Yersina and other potential pathogens. There is not very much known about the reproductive systems, but more is currently being learnt at the breeding facilities.

Through my research of the Vancouver Island marmot I learnt that at these zoos, where the breeding is taken place, marmots are being fed rabbit pellets, yams, broccoli, beets, spinach and carrots. This sound nice for the marmots but what I would like to know is how this will affect the marmots when they are returned to the wild. I also learned that they enjoy eating dandelions. I strongly believe that animals being bred with the intention of being returned to their natural habitat should be kept in habitats as similar to he ones they will be returning to. This includes feeding them foods that they can access on their own, in the wild.

not so perfect

      I've often thought of how miraculous evolution really is, how amazing it is to find such infinitely complex structures that have been derived from billions of years of natural selection, how all of these "perfect" structures somehow or other originated from a single celled ancestor. Take, for instance, the human eye. Human eyes, and in fact most vertebrate eyes, are pretty incredible don't you think? We can see a broad range of colours, we have an acute sense of depth perception, and in fact primates are believed to have lost much of their sense of smell and hearing due to an increased reliance on our keen eyesight. Our eyes seem perfectly evolved to give us full colour, clear and true vision.
     I was intrigued when I picked up a recent issue of New Scientist that in their article, Evolution's Greatest Mistakes, Claire Ainsworth and Michael Le Page argue that the halls of human evolution are actually full of bloopers, and big "mistakes". Surprisingly, a good case of an evolutionary "oops" is the vertebrate eye. Contratry to my initial thoughts, our eyesight is actually quite far from perfect. According to Ainsworth and Le Page, "vertebrate eyes" have a huge flaw: "the retina, is wired up back-to-front, with the light-sensitive cells behind the nerves and blood vessels that support it". Apparently this distorts our vision and causes a substantial "blind spot in each eye". Although there is a small spot in the center of the retina that is not obstructed by these blood vessels, called the fovea, we still only have a small dot of full colour, detailed, in focus vision and a large out-of-focus periphery.
     Graham Lawton explores the concept of the imperfect eye in his article, Mind Tricks. Far from my assumption of clear and true vision, he calls our vision merely "sporadic input". Lawton reveals that what we see as a "seamless visual experience" is noneother than the patchwork collage of "fixations", or short bursts of vision, which are gathered in between the small darting movements of our eyes "called saccades". Apparently each time we move our eyes they cease to pick up visual information for that fraction of a second. Since we flick our eyes on average three times each second there is a lot we are not picking up. Most of us will never be able to see this blind spot, because it happens so quickly that we do not "see" it. However, if you want to test this theory Lawton suggests that you watch "your eyes close-up in the mirror and flick your focus back and forth from one pupil to another. However hard you try you cannot see your eyes move - even though somebody watching you can."
     The worst of it is that while your visual cortex isn't looking your brain is filling in the gaps with what it thinks you should be seeing. This likely explains why when the police interrogate five different eye witnesses, they tend to get five very different stories of what was or was not seen.
     So the question is why on earth would natural selection favour misassembled retinas, a mere peekhole of clear vision, and a line of sight that clocks off three times per second? The truth is probably that although the structure of the eye is not as perfect as it could be it is pretty useful at fulfilling it's evolutionary purpose: proliferation of the species by allowing us to quickly identify food and danger which in turn enables us to survive long enough to reproduce.

References

Ainsworth, C., & Le Page, M. (2007, August 11). Evolution's Greatest Mistakes. New Scientist, 36 - 39.

Lawton, G. (2007, September 22). Mind Tricks: Six ways to explore your brain. New Scientist, 35 - 41.