Amazon Rainforest



I am just boggled by the incredible amount of biodiversity in the rainforest. "A single pond in Brazil can sustain a greater variety of fish than is found in all of Europe's rivers" (Raintree Nutrition, Inc.). Europe, a small continent, has less biodiversity as far as fish are concerned than Brazil, a single country. Even more impressive is that more than "20 percent of the world oxygen" is made in the Amazon Rainforest (Raintree). More than 20% comes from just the Amazon Rainforest, not all the rainforest in the world just the Amazon Rainforest. That alone should pique the interest of anyone who likes breathing. However, according to Raintree Nutrition, Inc. (link here: http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm ) the rainforestes are disappearing at alarming rates. 



"The red areas show where the Asner-led team found
selective logging disturbance in Brazil" -Science Daily



Rainforests loss "more than 200,000 acres... every day" and the Amazon Rainforest is predicted to disappearing entirely in our lifetimes if nothing is changes. While there are some efforts made toward sustainable selective logging practices, unregulated selective harvesting of hardwoods is and has been incredibly damaging to the Amazon Rainforest. A research team lead by Carnegie scientist Gregory Asner has found that "every year unregulated selective logging of mahogany and other hardwoods destroys an area of pristine rainforest big enough to cover the state of Connecticut" (ScienceDailyLLC). Clearly, something more has to be done. The rainforests are destroyed for economic reasons, so why not protect them for economic reasons. Raintree mentions that "if medicinal plants, fruits, nuts, rubber, chocolate, and other renewable and sustainable resources are harvested, the land will yield the landowner $2,400 per acre" and can then be pasted on to support the next generation. By placing an emphasis on the value of the rainforests being renewable, slash-and-burn operations could be pushed out by more lucrative sustainable harvesting methods. This will not happen over night, and it will not happen in a world that prizes tropical hardwoods for coffins; however, it is a possibility that given the right incentive governments, companies, and citizens could save the rainforests. 


Link for Science Daily article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051023123348.htm



Evidence supporting evolution.



When people say “evolution is just a theory” what they mean is that evolution is one possible explanation for how life developed on this planet. The “just a” is often meant to trivialize the idea of evolution. However, a theory is more than a possible explanation or guess. It is a statement backed by large amount of data supporting the claim. Evidence in favor of evolution includes Charles Darwin’s observation of diverse species on the Galapagos Islands.

 

Just because it was said,
does not means it was heard.

The reason I believe people take offense is that evolution is at its core a very secular idea. Traditional religions, Catholicism in particular, are not the most flexible or open to revision. These religions generally believe in creationism, or have some sort of epic story explaining the creation of the world. This does not leave a whole lot of room for “natural selection” or “adaption”. Trying to reconcile the two possible explanations for the beginnings of life on this planet that requires a level of thought most people are not interested in bothering with. Then there is the feeling in both the scientific community and the religious community that each party is attacking the other. This suspicion leads to an ungodly high talking to listening ratio by both parties. (Think of it as yelling so loudly that the other person cannot be heard.) Which, that's right, gets nobody anywhere. It only contributes to the distrust of scientists who are religious, and church-goers that think scientifically. 

Firm religious beliefs and good grasp of evolution are not incompatible or exclusive of each other. If one believes in a higher being, then why not consider that if they viewed time as we do they would not be much of a higher being. So then, if a day is not a day to a higher power, then how about a day being a millennium, or millions of years even. If that is the case evolution would make not necessarily be out of context, since humans generally acknowledge the advancement and shift in the human race why not allow for it elsewhere. If someone believed in a higher power that controls all and cannot be defied, then surely that being must have made allowances for evolution. Or if one should tend towards Deism none of this really matters, because the higher power made the world and saw that it was good, and then promptly left.  In short, evolution does not contradict or support religious beliefs as an obviously secular notion it tried very hard to steer clear of all that commotion. It did not, but evolution was never meant as an alternative belief system. It was meant as just a scientific explanation back by a preponderance of scientific evidence. Those that attempt to “believe” evolution, or legislate on “creationism” fail to understand that this debate has never been about the evidence supporting or undermining evolution. It has always at its core been an argument about how far religious beliefs and secular thought extends into both private and public life. The argument about evolution is a symptom, of an insistence on science and religion maintaining exclusive spheres and never interacting. If science and religion were to acknowledge that each system has a different, but not necessarily wrong view point, then all of this would vanish. Then neither community would feel threatened by the other. People would stop asking nosy questions about people beliefs or thoughts that have nothing to do with passing a science class, presenting evidence in a scientific journal, or showing up to early morning Mass.  

Genetics Hoemowrk

So far no problems. I actually think it is relatively easy. Most issues I had were resolved with another look at the lecture. The only thing I did not like was the problem related to sex linked inheritance.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the future. Someday this may be perfectly normal, but at the present it is rare.  There are certainly ethical concerns with this technology that may result in unwanted population booms and severe changes to gender ratios. These concerns are in addition to the classist’s nature that almost all technological advances face initially when they are very expensive.

There are many parents who would use this technology to determine if my child had a particular disease, especially couples who either have or are potentially carriers of genetic diseases.  This may lead to increases in population as more couples maybe inclined to have children; it may almost lower the infant mortality rate in countries where the procedure is available. 

A Chinese classroom where boys outnumber girls 

Using genetic advances to determine sex, eye color, or other arbitrary traits may come into vogue. If it does there is a strong chance that gender ratios in countries where the procedure is available will be affected. Already without this technology countries such as China have seen booms in the male population as female fetus are aborted in a culture that values male above female heirs. With this technology the effects would be even greater. Changes in eye color would change the statistic on that; however, that is not a particularly important point for discrimination in most societies.

What really worries me is the idea of superiority that will likely be conferred upon these children. Will societies come to define some genetic perfection against which all individuals will be judged? Can there be healthy competition when some participant where breed and born to compete in certain athletic events? These are the concerns I have. If genetic engineering becomes social, as opposed to medical, the social structure of those nations and countries employing the technology will change.  Society could become like the movie Gattaca, were genetic discrimination can determine everything from employment to social treatment. But maybe if the world is very lucky, and uncharacteristically fair, then society might not change at all. Genetic engineering would be nothing more than an apolitical choice made by people's parents that in no way reflects the value of the child.

Whatever this technology is or becomes it will undoubtedly be a very complex matter. There are a number of ethics questions attached to it and numerous technical challenges currently. Perhaps in time these will fade away. Regardless though genetic engineering will, when it finally gets around to being solid reality, change how babies are made and viewed.

Deforestation and Its Effects

This is a picture of a coniferous forest. This forest does not only not emit greenhouse gas, but actually processes them, thereby removing them from the atmosphere. This makes these forest very valuable "carbon sinks". Not only are these forests beautiful, they play an important part in helping to protect Earth's climate and environmental health. Yet these forests are continually threatened. These forest are uprooted, the trees turned into timber, and the land developed for other purposes. This modern deforestation is considered part of the climate change problem by global climate researchers. In the southern hemisphere areas of the Amazon Forest have been deforested to make way for the development of agriculture land. This has resulted in not only poor soil quality, but also been very harsh on the whole ecosystem and environment. While North America was largely deforested in the Industrial Revolution, there are still forests within America that can be preserved.

     Deforestation effects not just the atmosphere. The mass removal of trees means that groundwater that normally would have been drawn up by trees and released into the atmosphere remains buried. This means dry climates with less water easily accessible. The soil in the area also erodes more quickly as it has no protection from wind or water. This means that the top soil of an area may vanish completely (such as in deforested areas of the Amazon Basin). Ecologically it is a disaster as creatures that lived in a ecosystem intertwined with trees may not survive past the removal of forest and loss of their habitat.

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience to me is those weight loss commercials claiming to be a medical break through. Yet at the end in either fine print or gone over quickly verbally is the fact that none of the statements or claims have been evaluated by the FDA. Furthermore, these ads are not supervised by the FDA unless complaints are lodged against the company. The FDA regulates foods and medicines, not supplements and substances not claiming to cure a disease. Weight loss pills are supplements ergo they are unregulated. Therefore, their is no standard test and procedures these products have to pass meaning all claims made by them mostly likely would not stand up to traditional testing methods. In an article by the mayo clinic staff many of these drugs were listed with their claims, effective, and safety examined. Only one was proven effective, but the FDA is currently investigating claims of liver damage as a side effect. This article is at http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/weight-loss/HQ01160.

Something I suspect maybe pseudoscience is claims of antioxidant rich fruits such as acai berries and blueberries reducing signs of aging. Antioxidants do help the body to function better longer, meaning less wear and tear, but I do not know that it makes any significant difference if I eat "superfoods" rich with antioxidants over taking a multi-vitamin. Again this is not something evaluated by the FDA, but nutritionists agree that antioxidants do a body good. So, I'm not sure how much of it is a food fad, and what has real visible effects. Products such as the Bossa Nova drinks picture here sprung up based on claims of acai berries being "the nature's highest antioxidant fruit".  Supporters of the value of acai berries include Dr. Oz in an article on anti-aging found on Oprah's website. That article can be found here http://www.oprah.com/health/Dr-Ozs-Ultimate-Anti-Aging-Checklist/3. While I'm still not a hundred percent sold, I have trouble thinking that Oprah would outright lie to her legions of loyal fans.

Professor Martinez asked:

How do you know that you are alive? Is the scientific definition of a living thing complete or are there other characteristics that you would use to define a living thing?

My response:

I know that I am alive in the scientific sense because I meet all the 9 requirements outlined in the textbook "Campbell Essential Biology". I have order, shown in the symmetry of my body. I exhibit regulation; my body sweats to maintain the homeostasis of my body's internal temperature. I grow. I utilize energy by eating. I respond to my environment. For example, I blink to remove sand from my eye. I have the ability to reproduce as a human. I as a human have the potential to evolve as my ancestors evolved.

While I generally agree with the scientific definition of life there should be certain exceptions to the scientific definition of a living thing. Such as mules, which while incapable of reproducing other mules, are very much alive.

Introducing Ashleen

     Hello everyone I am Ashleen and this is my blog for Biology 11. I enjoy fun, action, and excitement; however, I sunburn easily, avoid pain, and am uncoordinated. In short, I am a couch potato with netflix, a wii, and a comfortable recliner.
     This is my fourth semester attending Sierra college, and this is my second science class. This is my second science class because science scares me, and I am informed the Geography class I took is not transferable to BYU. But of all the transferable sciences biology scares me the least so, I took Biology 11. And I hope to have transferable credits, hopefully learn something, and avoid physics and chemistry by the end of the semester.
    Currently I am taking 14 units, 6 of which are history. 4 of those units are math, and then there is this class that also consists of 4 units.
     I am not employed currently.
     Two suggested rules for blog responses are: 1st that responses to blogs should be no less than two sentences, and 2nd that all responses should be thoughtful. So "i agree" should not count as a response.
     I think that about covers it. Hope this made sense. Good Night and Good Luck.