http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2014/06/09/did-violence-shape-evolution-of-the-human-face
New research shows that the human (primarily male) face may have evolved to regulate injury from punches from other humans. Males who were able to survive and win fights were more likely to reproduce than those who did not. Human's ancestors, called australopiths, evolved so that their hands were able to form fists. If these changes in the formation of our hands were due to frequent fighting among males, then it is thought that the current male human face was selected for so that it minimized damage from punches. Another study has shown that the greatest difference in the structure of male and female faces is that the parts of the face that are most likely to be broken in a fight are larger and stronger in males opposed to females . Further research in this topic revealed that male hand proportions, bipedal posture, and facial structure all actually do help in fighting. This evidence points to frequent male combat among human' ancestors, which is quite possibly the reason for why our body, and especially our face, is built how it is.
This relates to the current unit because it has to do with natural selection and evolution. The current structure of our face and hands were selected for because they helped males to survive and reproduce.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Evolutionary biologists observe parallel, repeated evolution of cichlid fish in Nicaragua
Evolutionary biologists observe parallel, repeated evolution of cichlid fish in Nicaragua
Date: October 28, 2014
Source: Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141028082353.htm
Famous Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once asked the question, "If one would rewind the tape of life, would evolution result in the same outcome?". The University of Konstanz conducted a study on evolution, specifically the evolution of the cichlid fish in Nicaraguan lakes that suggested the evolutionary trajectory would have been similar. They found that in the isolated new crater lakes of Nicaragua, which are perfect settings for evolution, isolated from the other lakes, the cichlid fish evolved differently from the fish in the nearby great lakes of Nicaragua. In the two totally separate crater lakes Apoyo and Xiloa, the cichlid fish evolved similar elongated bodies to adapt to their deep, clear lakes that differ from the ancestral population's shallow murky lakes. This phenotype is not typically found in the ancestral population but is found in both Apoyo and Xiloa, two completely separate populations which suggests evolution would have happened similarly if we "rewinded the tape of life". However, they also found that while the phenotype ended similarly, the evolutionary route between start to finish differed between the two lakes, which indicated that parallel adaptation to similar environments may lead to the same results by natural selection but it can happen by different evolutionary genetic routes.
This article tied to our unit on evolution because it discussed how these cichlid fish, when faced with an environment different from their ancestral environment, adapted by natural selection to become best suited to thrive and reproduce in said environment. It also touched on the chance of evolution, that evolution happens by chance and that while natural selection might point evolution in one way, the route it takes is still up to luck.
Famous Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould once asked the question, "If one would rewind the tape of life, would evolution result in the same outcome?". The University of Konstanz conducted a study on evolution, specifically the evolution of the cichlid fish in Nicaraguan lakes that suggested the evolutionary trajectory would have been similar. They found that in the isolated new crater lakes of Nicaragua, which are perfect settings for evolution, isolated from the other lakes, the cichlid fish evolved differently from the fish in the nearby great lakes of Nicaragua. In the two totally separate crater lakes Apoyo and Xiloa, the cichlid fish evolved similar elongated bodies to adapt to their deep, clear lakes that differ from the ancestral population's shallow murky lakes. This phenotype is not typically found in the ancestral population but is found in both Apoyo and Xiloa, two completely separate populations which suggests evolution would have happened similarly if we "rewinded the tape of life". However, they also found that while the phenotype ended similarly, the evolutionary route between start to finish differed between the two lakes, which indicated that parallel adaptation to similar environments may lead to the same results by natural selection but it can happen by different evolutionary genetic routes.
This article tied to our unit on evolution because it discussed how these cichlid fish, when faced with an environment different from their ancestral environment, adapted by natural selection to become best suited to thrive and reproduce in said environment. It also touched on the chance of evolution, that evolution happens by chance and that while natural selection might point evolution in one way, the route it takes is still up to luck.
USDA allows GM Grass
URL: http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20141230/usda-clears-gmo-tall-fescue
Published: December 30, 2014
Author: Mateusz Perkowski (Capital Press)
The USDA recently cleared a GM Fescue turfgrass for cultivation. The fescue was developed and released by Scott's Miracle-Gro, however, the USDA cleared it without any type of testing. The reason for this is because it was not under its regulatory control, as the fescue was modified using a different method, basically using a "gene gun" to shoot the genes into the plant. The GM fescue is resistant to glyphosate, a commonly used herbicide, allowing growers to spray herbicides easily.
Some people are concerned about the grass's glyphosate resistance, which could make the grass a difficult weed to kill. This type of grass also commonly cross-pollinates with other grasses, which creates a concern that it may create "superweeds," or herbicide resistant plants. However, it is easy to contain this in a lab, but if homeowners use it, this is a major problem.
This connects to our recent study on GMOs and our debate on the use of GMOs. This fescue displays a new way to modify plants, and could spark more concern among GMO dislikers. It is a newer advance in the field of GMOs, shown by the USDA's inability to limit and regulate it. It will be interesting to see how this grass turns out and the response.
"Walking Fish" provides insight into Early Land-Based Animal Development
http://www.livescience.com/47582-unusual-fish-bichir-animal-evolution.html
This article outlines the evolutionary implications of the behavior of the Bichir, a fish with legs.
It begins by outlining the challenges faced by fish in an early environment, with many
species of fish competing for different resources. The stiff competition faced by the different fish species pushed the fish towards occupying a land-based niche.
The Bichir could reflect a modern-day intermediate step between a water and land based animal.
Scientists conducted an experiment in which they separated two groups of young Bichir, and had one group live on land, and one in water. The two Bichir groups developed differently, with the group raised on land adapting its behavior to make better use of its lungs and also its repurposed fins, and the group in the water relying on its gills and regular fins more.
These results show an approximation of how ocean-based life could have adapted to live on land. By slowly adapting its existing structures such as fins into legs, and also by relying less on its gills as a source of oxygen, an ocean-based animal can eventually adapt itself for life on land. This entire process is an example of adaptive radiation.
This article outlines the evolutionary implications of the behavior of the Bichir, a fish with legs.
It begins by outlining the challenges faced by fish in an early environment, with many
species of fish competing for different resources. The stiff competition faced by the different fish species pushed the fish towards occupying a land-based niche.
The Bichir could reflect a modern-day intermediate step between a water and land based animal.
Scientists conducted an experiment in which they separated two groups of young Bichir, and had one group live on land, and one in water. The two Bichir groups developed differently, with the group raised on land adapting its behavior to make better use of its lungs and also its repurposed fins, and the group in the water relying on its gills and regular fins more.
These results show an approximation of how ocean-based life could have adapted to live on land. By slowly adapting its existing structures such as fins into legs, and also by relying less on its gills as a source of oxygen, an ocean-based animal can eventually adapt itself for life on land. This entire process is an example of adaptive radiation.
GMO Super Bugs and Super Weeds
http://www.themindfulword.org/2012/gmo-genetically-engineered-food/
This article talks about the potential dangers of super weeds and super bugs that are emerging in our croplands. With the introduction of so many pesticides in our food multiple organisms have developed a natural resistance against the GM crops. Many species of weeds have developed forms of immunity against our weed killers and organisms such as the pink bull worm have also developed a immunity to the toxins originally developed to kill such bugs. In order to combat these new super weeds and super bugs Monsanto has developed new 2,4-D resistance. Essentially these new selection of traits kill both the original species and the new super breed. However, if this is their way of combating the bugs then we pose the question; Won't the super breed evolve to develop even more resistance? Monsanto is using a "battle fire with fire" mindset and could be setting out on a very dangerous road. These plats/bugs have already started to adapt to our original modification, why won't they do the same to 2,4-D?
This connects to our class because we had a very extensive unit on GMO's and modified organisms. This is a great article because it talks about very negative effects of Genetic modification. It's scary and fascinating to learn about how these leaps in science could have potential backlashes to us personally (in our food).
This article talks about the potential dangers of super weeds and super bugs that are emerging in our croplands. With the introduction of so many pesticides in our food multiple organisms have developed a natural resistance against the GM crops. Many species of weeds have developed forms of immunity against our weed killers and organisms such as the pink bull worm have also developed a immunity to the toxins originally developed to kill such bugs. In order to combat these new super weeds and super bugs Monsanto has developed new 2,4-D resistance. Essentially these new selection of traits kill both the original species and the new super breed. However, if this is their way of combating the bugs then we pose the question; Won't the super breed evolve to develop even more resistance? Monsanto is using a "battle fire with fire" mindset and could be setting out on a very dangerous road. These plats/bugs have already started to adapt to our original modification, why won't they do the same to 2,4-D?
This connects to our class because we had a very extensive unit on GMO's and modified organisms. This is a great article because it talks about very negative effects of Genetic modification. It's scary and fascinating to learn about how these leaps in science could have potential backlashes to us personally (in our food).
Un-Natural Selection: Human Evolution's Next Steps
URL: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129638953
Date Published: September 6, 2010
Source: NPR
For billions of years, species have evolved by natural selection. This process takes millions of years. However, humans have been on earth for only tens of thousands of years, and we are altering the world so much that genetic evolution is unable to keep up with the pace. Instead of the environment controlling the humans species, humans are creating their own environments.
For example, before humans developed a cure for malaria, people were dying throughout Africa. But through natural selection, the people who were able to develop a sickle-cell mutation were resistant against malaria. These people were then able to survive, and their offspring would have these malaria resistant traits too. With natural selection, the death rate of Africans would have decreased through a span of billions of years. But humans quickly made medicine that cured people with malaria. With this medicine, the people who were treated were able to survive. Natural selection didn't occur anymore because the medicine made it so that it didn't matter whether one had a sickle-cell mutation or not. After several years, malaria didn't have much impact on Africans because of the medicine. But there were still people with the sickle-cell mutation who survived before medicine intervened. Although this sickle-cell mutation is no longer useful, if a child inherits this mutation from both parents, it turns into a sickle-cell anemia.
In order to overcome bad mutations, humans have developed medicine. We want a cure for everything, such as eyesight. For instance, if a hunter was nearsighted, he would die of starvation pretty quickly because he would be unable to see any animals in the distance. But now there are glasses to counter this nearsightedness. Also, there are contact lenses that make the human vision sharper without wearing glasses,
Now, natural selection is very fast. What usually happens during the course of billions of years, happens in a course of several years nowadays. Nature isn't the only one that selects the genes, because humans are doing it too.
This article relates to the current unit which consists of natural selection. Specific traits of an individual helps it survive in its environment more than others. Then these traits are passed on through billions of years. Darwin's finches showed that a particular finch's beak made it able to eat certain foods and survive. But this slow process of natural selection is sped up by humans, and nature is no longer the only force.
Should GMO Products be Labelled?
Harry Cho
Dempsey - Period 6
URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-gunlock/food-labeling-fatigue_b_6215052.html
Article Published: December 1st, 2014
Author: Julie Gunlock
Voters of both Oregon and Colorado voted "no" to labeling GMO products on shelves of markets. Many people want labels on their food to know if what they are buying is organic or genetically modified. Many GMO products' labels are unclear or unspecific. For example if chips are labeled "genetically modified", some labels will not show if the corn is modified or if the oil is modified. This will cause uncertainty of purchase and customers will most likely not purchase it. Another problem of labeling is some states might consider one food as a GMO, but another state might not consider it as a GMO. This can lead to confusion. Around 2/3 of foods that caused this confusion were freed from being labeled in those states. This leads to consumers being unaware of what they are eating which can lead to displeasure.
Another problem about labeling GMO products is the cost. According to the data, labeling GMO products will raise an average family's food cost by $500, which is ridiculously high for both food and the unnecessary food labels. This is a huge concern because it will not affect economically advanced people and residents, but many of the people living in the U.S are economically struggling and if this were to happen, then those needy people are in big trouble. If all GMO products were labeled, not only then people wouldn't feel like buying them after seeing what was modified, it the cost will increase as well. Although GMOs are tested and are proven to be 100% safe to eat, many people are ignorant of this fact and are only concerned about what is modified, whether it is good for them or not. This leads to the unnecessary arguments of labeling or even going back to producing GMO foods and products.
This article is relevant to Molecular Genetics, one of the topics we went over in our second term of biology class. This is specifically related to GMO products, a section our class went over. We specifically researched and even debated about the cons and pros about GMO foods and experimented to see which foods each group brought had GMOs or not. Although this article was not arguing about the effects of the use of GMO foods, it was still about GMO products and how people are debating to use them. It is amazing that just labeling GMO products can greatly affect the economy and that people are fighting over something that isn't really necessary to be fought over.
Dempsey - Period 6
URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-gunlock/food-labeling-fatigue_b_6215052.html
Article Published: December 1st, 2014
Author: Julie Gunlock
Voters of both Oregon and Colorado voted "no" to labeling GMO products on shelves of markets. Many people want labels on their food to know if what they are buying is organic or genetically modified. Many GMO products' labels are unclear or unspecific. For example if chips are labeled "genetically modified", some labels will not show if the corn is modified or if the oil is modified. This will cause uncertainty of purchase and customers will most likely not purchase it. Another problem of labeling is some states might consider one food as a GMO, but another state might not consider it as a GMO. This can lead to confusion. Around 2/3 of foods that caused this confusion were freed from being labeled in those states. This leads to consumers being unaware of what they are eating which can lead to displeasure.
Another problem about labeling GMO products is the cost. According to the data, labeling GMO products will raise an average family's food cost by $500, which is ridiculously high for both food and the unnecessary food labels. This is a huge concern because it will not affect economically advanced people and residents, but many of the people living in the U.S are economically struggling and if this were to happen, then those needy people are in big trouble. If all GMO products were labeled, not only then people wouldn't feel like buying them after seeing what was modified, it the cost will increase as well. Although GMOs are tested and are proven to be 100% safe to eat, many people are ignorant of this fact and are only concerned about what is modified, whether it is good for them or not. This leads to the unnecessary arguments of labeling or even going back to producing GMO foods and products.
This article is relevant to Molecular Genetics, one of the topics we went over in our second term of biology class. This is specifically related to GMO products, a section our class went over. We specifically researched and even debated about the cons and pros about GMO foods and experimented to see which foods each group brought had GMOs or not. Although this article was not arguing about the effects of the use of GMO foods, it was still about GMO products and how people are debating to use them. It is amazing that just labeling GMO products can greatly affect the economy and that people are fighting over something that isn't really necessary to be fought over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)