Miami Dade College Perversions and Potentials of Genetic Tests Discussion for the attached 2 files is about 500 words, there is one file explaining how to

Miami Dade College Perversions and Potentials of Genetic Tests Discussion for the attached 2 files is about 500 words, there is one file explaining how to do write and some examples, and the other file contains the content on what to writethe other assignment is about 400 words about this link writing about thoughts on this matter https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/11/618870881/a-science-writer-explores-the-perversions-and-potential-of-genetic-tests Exemplary responses
Here are a few responses done in previous classes to give you some examples of what I think is thoughtful
engagement with the readings. We’re not reading the articles they refer to this semester. Notice that they lead off
with a bolded statement of the insight that they will be writing on. Think of it as a one-sentence abstract of your
response. I love that they respond to or riff off ideas from the source without just making a synopsis. Also, they
include some personal reflections to humanize their responses along with the more “intellectual” ideas.
This one was about a podcast that we listened to about stress.
I believe that it is safe to say that the life of a college student in America today has a pretty stressful life.
Some deal with it by drinking and partying a ton or smoking a ton of pot, some deal with it with physical activity,
some cannot seem to find a way to deal with it. I feel that my life – between school, schoolwork and work work – is
pretty stressful. I never feel like I have the time to just sit down and enjoy being twenty one years old. I had no
idea that this could make me sick.
Before listening to this radio show, I was aware of some of the chemicals in the body that react to stress. I
did know that when you get hurt really badly, the pain is not foremost on your mind simply because the
adrenaline has made it so. I did also know that this has something to do with the fight or flight mechanism.
What I did not know – or what I failed to think about – is that when I fall out of a tree, the same chemicals are
released as when I am afraid to study for my midterm. And I hate it. Having stress in my life does not do well for
my Midwestern sensibility. Life is a lot slower in beautiful Kalamazoo, Michigan than it is in rainy Boston,
Massachusetts. I do not hate Boston or anything; I just seem to have found that my life is a lot busier here. And a
lot more wet. But that’s neither here nor there.
What amazes me about this new stressful life that I have found here in Boston could be really wreaking
havoc on my body. I did always know that you can have stress induced hyper tension and high blood pressure and
ulcers and all of these things, but I did not know that it could lead to adult onset diabetes. And not only did I not
know that the stress of the daily grind could lead to these diseases or illnesses, but I did not realize that the same
chemicals released into my body when I’m running for my life (which I don’t do particularly often) are released
when I am stressing over my next French paper. Not only is this not good for my psyche, but it’s no good for my
body on the whole. I suppose that if I want to live to be ninety-four, I need to try not to let these things get to me.
One thing this podcast did not answer for me, however, is how to de-stress. They mentioned yoga in
passing, but never explained whether or not it is really good for you, or if it helps. I suppose that is all on an
individual basis, but maybe I can take a lesson from the rats. Maybe all American college students can take a lesson
from the rats and gnaw on wood, try to anticipate the stress or try to control it. Personally, I don’t recommend
beating up other rats, but whatever works, right?
This one was about an article that explored the sizes of the brains of birds and mammals.
The article on brains and the evolutionary changes in the sizes of brains raised an insight I had never
considered before which was that rather than measuring the entire brain, and that being the only significant
factor of the brain, individual parts of the brain can be measured. By measuring different parts of the brain, the
cognitive functions associated with that part can be assessed. While we as humans have larger brains than other
animals, and that explains our higher intelligence and cognitive abilities in comparison to other animals, one can
consider the different sizes of different areas of the brain and how that may change our cognitions. The article
discusses how it is different among different species. They found that it was more accurate to measure the overall
brain size in primates, but to measure different area of the brain for innovation in birds. It is interesting to consider
that for some species their brain’s size is what makes them innovative but for another it may be just the size of a
specific part of the brain.
Sexual selection among birds in this article was an interesting topic as it was not a idea I had ever
considered in terms of sexual selection. When I think of sexual selection, I think of animals picking one another for
attractive traits. I had ever before considered the idea that the traits were indicative of something in the structure
of the brain. Lefebvre describes how male zebra finches attract their female mates through singing songs. While it
would make sense that the females would pick the mates that sang the best songs, which made them the most
attractive, I had thought the birds that attracted the most mates would have just had an advantage due to a
learned behavior, such as hearing other complex songs and creating their own. However, I had not considered that
they would have varying cognitive abilities due to the size of an area on the brain. The male finches that sang the
most complex songs had larger HVCs and telencephalon than other finches. These males then attracted the most
mates. Rather than sexual selection only choosing the most attractive traits, it chose the animals with the larger
neural structures. Therefore, without knowingly doing so the females choose mates for the size of these neural
structures through sexual selection.
The finches raised the question to me about whether or not sexual selection among humans ever reflects
this. It reminded me of psychology in which different areas of the brain and either deformations or size of the area
causes differences in cognition. For example, people with damaged a amygdala are more prone to be risk takers
and not be fearful of dangerous situations. If we were to avoid them as a mate, would it be because of a dislike of
risky behaviors due to our social behaviors or is sexual selection acting the same way it did in the finches? Do
humans sexually select mates unaware that they are selecting for neural structure size, or are we such social
creatures that our social needs and wants surpass that?
This last one was a response about the things that science can and can’t do.
In general I thought Derry’s article was well thought out and quite interesting to read. There were a
couple of new insights that I hadn’t fully considered prior to the reading. One such point Derry made was that in
order for scientific articles to be published they have to be peer reviewed. I had always thought of this process in
a positive light, and I still do to an extent, but I hadn’t considered the idea of bias amongst scientific communities. I
know that bias is inevitable, but I had always assumed that the peer review process helped to ensure the integrity
and fidelity of the research. I still believe this and can’t think of an alternative method to weeding out sloppy
research or fraudulent data, but it is disconcerting to know that a group of humans (who by nature are imperfect
and biased) are determining the logical and scientific value of a piece of work (which is something one hopes to be
calculated and pragmatic). The whole idea of peer review reminds me of the Daubert and Frye standards utilized in
court to justify the admission of scientific evidence. The Daubert standard is used for the admissibility of scientific
evidence that may or may not be a new technique in the scientific field. The Daubert standard has a set of
reliability factors that need to be satisfied; whether the theory or technique has been tested, it’s subjection to peer
review and possible publication, the known error rate, the standards of control, and whether it has general
acceptance in the scientific community. In order for some new scientific evidence to be submitted for legal review
it needs to check off most if not all of these boxes. The Frye standard contrastingly, just requires general
widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Most states operate by the Daubert standard, but a few still
use Frye. I think these standards mirror peer reviewing of scientific articles. When there’s a new theory or
hypothesis being tested a lot more scrutiny goes into whether the research is evidence based and the tests are
robust. In comparison when a new study emerges that is a replication, or is testing an already evidenced
hypothesis, it’s publication requires less inspection as it’s building on scientific facts and evidence that have
already been established.
Another point Derry brings up is the idea of scientists chasing fame and recognition and the possibility of
that skewing data or producing fraudulent research. While I understand his concern I think this fear is alleviated
by Null Hypothesis testing. In Null Hypothesis testing one has to prove that the data gathered isn’t a result of
random coincidence. Rather than trying to prove a very specialized hypothesis about a correlation or causation, in
Null Hypothesis testing one has to be able to reject the Null Hypothesis. I think this type of testing greatly reduces
the likelihood of false positives. It’s statistically and mathematically based and provides substantial evidence on
whether or not to pursue more specialized research. In a sense this type of testing tests a research hypothesis’s
incorrectness rather than its correctness, which helps to eliminate research bias.
The third point I wanted to respond to in Derry’s article was his discussion of power lines. Much like the
research done on whether or not there is a correlation between vaccines and autism, the results were mixed,
inconclusive, or fake. When there’s a causation between two variables (i.e. proximity to power lines creating an
increased likelihood of cancer) the testing of said variables should yield decently consistent results. When the
controls of an experiment get stricter if there is a true causation it should become more evident rather than less
evident. The inconsistencies after multiple research studies convinces me that there is no effect or a negligible
one. I think when someone is diagnosed with cancer or autism, there is a want to understand why, and a need to
find a responsible party to blame. But in nature there are random distributions of things. I think the best way I can
express this is through an analogy: if someone were to throw fifty marbles onto the floor and the floor was then
separated into equal, square grid-like segments there wouldn’t be an equal number of marbles in each square.
Some square might have five marbles, others might have zero. The point is they would have dispersed randomly.
The cancer clusters that coincided with power lines were seemingly random. And I think a fear of science and a
lack of understanding of it and technology is why power lines were thought to be the result. Again, a parallel to the
fear of vaccinations. If power lines were the cause of the cancer cluster, then research in the forty-odd years since
the first hypothesis would have turned something up, especially with the presence of power lines in our society.
The only way to combat fear-mongering and false data is to educate the public about scientific processes and
encourage funding for scientific research.
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Charles Darwin (1859)
with annotations by Eric Dewar
What follows is a reprint of the last chapter from the Origin’s first edition, which summarizes most of the
main lines of argument, for and against, that Darwin describes in the preceding chapters. The first edition,
written over a 13 month period, is usually seen as the most undiluted version of Darwin’s ideas. Later
editions incorporate criticisms or a little more waffling in the prose. The chapter is comprehensible, but
Darwin does use a lot of long and somewhat confusing sentence constructions. This can make the first time
through kind of slow, but don’t get frustrated. Actually reading the Origin is rare, despite all the attention it
gets in the larger society, most people never have. I hope that this excerpt gives you a flavor of what the
whole book is like.
I included some explanatory notes along with the text in order to call out important lines, describe animal
groups, or reword for simplicity. As you read, if there are things that you find confusing that I don’t
comment on, please e-mail me at edewar@suffolk.edu and I’ll try to clarify for everyone by e-mail and on
the course blog. This will help me to update this document for future classes, too.
Chapter XIV. Recapitulation and Conclusion
Recapitulation of the difficulties on the theory of Natural Selection — Recapitulation of the general and
special circumstances in its favor — Causes of the general belief in the immutability of species — How far
the theory of natural selection may be extended — Effects of its adoption on the study of Natural history —
Concluding remarks.
As this whole volume is one long argument, it may be convenient to the reader to have the leading facts and
inferences briefly recapitulated.
That many and grave objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through
natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavored to give to them their full force 1. Nothing at first can
appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been
perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of
innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor2. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though
appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following
propositions, namely,—that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct, which we may consider,
either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind,—that all organs and instincts are, in ever so
slight a degree, variable,—and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each
profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed.
It is, no doubt, extremely difficult even to conjecture by what gradations many structures have been
perfected, more especially amongst broken and failing groups of organic beings3; but we see so many
strange gradations in nature, as is proclaimed by the canon, Natura non facit saltum4, that we ought to be
extremely cautious in saying that any organ or instinct, or any whole being, could not have arrived at its
present state by many graduated steps. There are, it must be admitted, cases of special difficulty on the
1
in the preceding chapters of the Origin
Here’s his restatement of natural selection.
3
i.e., species that have gone extinct.
4
Latin: “Nature does not take leaps;” implies that all change in nature takes place gradually.
2
1
On The Origin of Species, Ch. 14. Recapitulation and Conclusion
Charles Darwin (1859)
theory of natural selection; and one of the most curious of these is the existence of two or three defined
castes of workers or sterile females in the same community of ants5; but I have attempted to show how this
difficulty can be mastered.
With respect to the almost universal sterility of species when first crossed, which forms so remarkable a
contrast with the almost universal fertility of varieties6 when crossed, I must refer the reader to the
recapitulation of the facts given at the end of the eighth chapter, which seem to me conclusively to show
that this sterility is no more a special endowment than is the incapacity of two trees to be grafted together,
but that it is incidental on constitutional differences in the reproductive systems of the intercrossed species 7.
We see the truth of this conclusion in the vast difference in the result, when the same two species are
crossed reciprocally; that is, when one species is first used as the father and then as the mother.
The fertility of varieties when intercrossed and of their mongrel8 offspring cannot be considered as universal;
nor is their very general fertility surprising when we remember that it is not likely that either their
constitutions or their reproductive systems should have been profoundly modified. Moreover, most of the
varieties which have been experimented on have been produced under domestication; and as domestication
apparently tends to eliminate sterility, we ought not to expect it also to produce sterility.
The sterility of hybrids is a very different case from that of first crosses, for their reproductive organs are more
or less functionally impotent; whereas in first crosses the organs on both sides are in a perfect condition. As
we continually see that organisms of all kinds are rendered in some degree sterile from their constitutions
having been disturbed by slightly different and new conditions of life, we need not feel surprise at hybrids
being in some degree sterile, for their constitutions can hardly fail to have been disturbed from being
compounded of two distinct organizations. This parallelism is supported by another parallel, but directly
opposite, class of facts; namely, that the vigor and fertility of all organic beings are increased by slight
changes in their conditions of life, and that the offspring of slightly modified forms or varieties acquire from
being crossed increased vigor and fertility. So that, on the one hand, considerable changes in the conditions
of life and crosses between greatly modified forms, lessen fertility; and on the other hand, lesser changes in
the conditions of life and crosses between less modified forms, increase fertility9.
Turning to geographical distribution10, the difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with
modification11 are grave enough. All the individuals of the same species, and all the species of the same
genus, or even higher group, must have descended from common parents; and therefore, in however distant
and isolated parts of the world they are now found, they must in the course of successive generations have
passed from some one part to the others. We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could
have been effected. Yet, as we have reason to believe that some species have retained the same specific
form for very long periods, enormously long as measured by years, too much stress ought not to be laid on
the occasional wide diffusion of the same species; for during very long periods of time there will always be a
good chance for wide migration by many means. A broken or interrupted range may often be accounted for
by the extinction of the species in the intermediate regions. It cannot be denied that we are as yet very
ignorant of the full extent of the various climatic and geographical changes which have affected the earth
during modern periods; and such changes will obviously have greatly facilitated migration. As an example,
5
The problem with the ants is that many individuals appear to act for the good of the colony rather that themselves: why
this apparent altruism?
6
i.e., varieties within species
7
meaning that they have diverged enough not to be able to interbreed any longer
8
or hybrid
9
That last sentence is the big point there: species that have diverged for a longer period of time are less likely to be
fertile, but ones that have split more recently are more fertile. We’ll see that this has to do with their genes.
10
i.e., the ranges of individual species
11
Darwin never really calls it “evolution;” he mostly calls it “descent with modification.” I think that Darwin thinks of
“evolution” to me…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment