Science People I Could Use Your Help Asap

[sylvia]

I'd love to see what you wrote! Well done for the mark as well

Well my comment is way old but I thought I would add anyway. I just finished reading Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life by Richard Dawkins and the third chapter titled "All Africa and Her Progenies" would have been a good resource
Dawkin's more recent book, The Ancestor's Tale, has an even mroe comprehensive (and obviously more recent) chapter dedicated to Mitochondrial Eve. I find the idea wonderful - it puts things in perspective.

BTW - whoever mentioned the Biblical take on human origins, Mitochondrial Eve's name might have been inspired by the Bible but that's where the connection ends The male equivalent of Mitochondrial Eve (an 'Adam') didn't live anywhere near the same time as Eve and they are only the ancestors of all living humans - they lived amongst humans themselves and were decendants of humans no more made of clay than any human ever has been.

As for chloroplasts and mitrochondria once having been independent organisms - well that's just awe-inspiring, isn't it?!

About GM...

I feel the only valid argument is concerning the possibility of GM crops reducing biodiversity by out-competing wild species. However, this is already a problem faced with any non-endemic crop regardless of whether it is GM. One example is where GMHT (herbicide-tolerant) plants might out-compete native weeds that normally provide seed-eating birds with food. Obviously this can decrease biodiversity by having a knock-on effect on after the effect on the birds themselves.

The health concerns are over-blown. You'd think, from hearing some of the worrying that goes on, that GM crops are the result of random genetic modification, are not tested, aren't assessed for their potential impacts etc. This is nonsense IMO. I live in the UK at the moment and the trials GM crops have to go through before they can be comercialy grown and supplied to the market here are, at the very least, thorough.

There are economic concerns but I don't know all that much about economics. I think it's obvious to see, however, what benefits hardier crops that produce a better yield would bring to developing countries.

Besides the benefits already mentioned, there are some interesting and more obscure ones. For example, there's the prospect of creating crops that'll fluoresce if infected by a specific fungus - obviously a major time and money-saving quality! And if you aren't limmiting the discussion to crops, modifying animals - such as pigs - could lead to all sorts of advances in medicine. For example, there's work on producing GM pigs that can provide an alternative source of organs for transplantation. Not only will this save human lives, it'll also stall the illegal trade in organs that is responsible for destroying human lives the world over.

As for GM being unnatural - I disagree. We humans are not exempt from nature. What we do is natural. No one complains about spider webs being unnatural - GM is no different.

This is entirely seperate to what (I think) people really mean when they say this - that it might be immoral to create GM crops. I personaly can't see where that 'immoral' bit is (I can perhaps with 'taking advantage' of pigs but with crops, the problems are real practical problems like reducing biodiversity etc). I can see how someone 'religious' might dislike the idea of GM though.

 

[zoekin8yg]

I would say a textbook is where you should be looking, not online!

 

[PlecMama]

On line is the future - while people are still reading in text books that two brown eyed people can not make a blue eyed baby, the internet has the publications that prove otherwise. Unless you bought a book that was written RIGHT NOW, you are more likely to find up to date info on the web.

It amazes me how quickly sites like Wiki update things. John Inman died today, his DoD is already on his Wiki page. I swear if I ever become famous I shall start checking my Wiki entry every morning before I get my coffee to see if I made it through the night!

 

[atmmachine816]

hmmm. there it is, sorry for such a late response, been busy with the marine tank setup and track, have a state meet to go to tomorrow. I know it's not that great of a report but I kinda did it the night before and a little a few days before, I was bad but this guy doesn't grade it that hard and seemed to not like genetically modified foods so you know, suck up a little and say you don't like them either I still haven't gotten this one back yet so I don't know what I got but I had some other things to do at the time so it was put on the back burner. Thanks for the help and

Genetically Engineered Foods

Genetically engineered foods are quite different from non-genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered food is also called biotechnology and genetically modified foods. These genetically engineered foods have altered genetic makeup, not always being safe. Lots of controversary has erupted over the years, especially in the United States over genetically engineered foods. To date, it still has not been proven whether or not genetically modified foods are safe, while many believe they are not safe at all.
Genetically modified foods are made through a complicated process. Basically genetically modified foods are when plants or animals genes are manipulated unnaturally. DNA from one species of plants are taken and put into another plant giving the new plant a desired trait from different species. With new gene's some foods now are freezer resistant and pigs now can grow more effectively. However, sometimes the gene transferred into a new plant does not always behave as it did in its natural organism. Many problems are brought up, and questions unanswered with genetically engineered foods.
Currently there is a large debate whether genetically engineered foods are safe for consumption or not. People are also speculating whether they are safe to introduce to the natural environment also. Many believe genetically engineered foods are not safe to introduce to the environment for various reasons. It has been shown in various different organisms that introducing genetically engineered foods into the environment irreversible effects are the result. In one case genes jumped from one plant to another, creating a chain reaction. If a bad gene ends up jumping from plant to plant like this it could wipe out whole crops, make certain species of plants extinct, and even create famines if it's bad enough. Once released into the environment how are we supposed to get the genetically engineered organisms back, the answer is unknown. If the organisms starts producing ill effects we may never be able to stop them, and we will never know whether they spread their genes on to other organisms. However, we are being fed these genetically engineered foods without knowing it and without enough research done on them.
With the fact that releasing genetically engineered foods into the environment being a bad idea, new questions arise, how should we test them? Genetic engineers wish to test them on animals, but now the question of whether this is humane or not comes in to play. It has been proven by Compassion in World Farming that it results in ill effects such as ulcers, inflammation of the kidneys and other problems of animals. There is no law yet whether genetic engineers are not allowed to use animals in experiments.
Yet another question arises, are genetically engineered foods safe for us, and why do some of us fear them? Many people believe that not enough research has been done on genetically engineered foods and that we should at least know what foods are genetically engineered or not. It has not yet been proven whether or not we suffer ill effects or not, though there are studies that have shown that it's very possible we may. People also fear that government and businesses are using this as a scam to make more money and also believe it's unethical to eat unnatural foods. People have a right to fear genetically engineered foods, especially with such little research done.
With all the little amount of research done on genetically engineered foods and them being released to the public in foods were not aware of, I believe they are wrong. There is no real way to test all of them safely and I don't think it's right to be mixing genes of organisms. I believe that we should at least know what foods are genetically modified with clear, easy to read labels. I do not think this is too much to ask of genetically engineering food companies.



Resources
Organic food.co.uk. 21 Feb. 2007 <http/www.organicfood.co.uk/gm/
allabout.html>.

Green Peace International. 21 Feb. 2007 <http/www.greenpeace.org/
international/campaigns/genetic-engineering>.


And here is the endosymbiont hypothesis one

Endosymbiont Hypothesis

It has become common thought that the first cells were prokaryotic. Prokaryotic being the simpler cell, it is believed that the eukaryotic cell evolved from the prokaryotic cell, which the endosymbiont hypothesis explains. The endosymbiont hypothesis is a concept which was constructed over a hundred years ago. In the 1970's Lynn Margulis brought up the idea once again and made it quite popular. Initially people poked fun at her hypothesis along with criticizing her. Later with increasing evidence, the theory soon became more accepted and is now accepted in biology as being correct.
The endosymbiont hypothesis was thought of, formed, and reformed over a course of many years. A few different people tried to bring it up, but were dismissed since they did not provide enough evidence for being correct. The endosymbiont hypothesis claims that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells billions of years ago in simplified terms. The endosymbiont hypothesis is a possible answer to how eukaryotic cells acquired mitochondria and chloroplasts when prokaryotic cells do not contain them.
The endosymbiont hypothesis was formulated in a fairly complicated way. A simpler version is "An endosymbiont is an organism that lives inside a larger organism in a symbiotic relationship. The endosymbiont hypothesis proposes that long ago, free-living bacteria either invaded another cell or were swallowed by it. Instead of being digested, the bacteria developed a symbiotic relationship with their host. Eventually, in the descendants of the original endosymbionts, most of the bacterial genes were lost or transferred to the host's chromosomes, and the bacteria became specialized components of their host cells: organelles" (Howard Hughes Medical Institute 1). Basically a free-living bacterium enters a prokaryotic and slowly became part of it producing a prokaryotic cell. "Mitochondria and chloroplasts almost certainly originated this way because they still resemble bacteria in many respects. For example, they have two membranes, their own DNA in the form of a circular chromosome, and their own ribosomes, and their ribosomes are more similar to bacterial than eukaryotic ribosomes. As for the other organelles, their origins are less well understood. Some scientists have suggested that the nucleus also began as an endosymbiont. However, if that is the case, it has lost its bacterial characteristics so completely that we may never know for certain" (Howard Hughes Medical Institute 1-2). However, maybe someday in the future, another scientist will come forth with an explanation to where other organelles with unknown origins came from.
The endosymbiont hypothesis went through many stages to become what it is now. It was brought up by several scientists then knocked down by the scientist community and general public. When Lynn Margulis brought the endosymbiont hypothesis back up again in the 1970's was once again harshly criticized. Even Lynn was not spared of this criticism, rather she was criticized along with the endosymbiont hypothesis. As evidence for her hypothesis grew, soon people started believing the endosymbiont hypothesis presented by Lynn Margulis. Soon enough evidence was collected to prove her hypothesis correct. Her hypothesis now provided believable answers to many questions that had arisen about cells and was accepted in the science community as being correct.
Questions I would ask Lynn Margulis
1. What made you decide to work on the endosymbiont hypothesis?
2. Why did you continue gathering evidence when your hypothesis was initially rejected?
3. Did anybody help you in the time it took for you to complete all your research on the endosymbiont hypothesis?
4. If you had to tell us who inspired you to prove the endosymbiont hypothesis was correct, who would it be?
5. Did you pay for all the expenses involved or did you have outside help, if so who?