Scoliosis

"Scoliosis"


Everyone's spine has curves. These curves produce the normal rounding of the
shoulder and the sway of the lower back. A spine with scoliosis has abnormal curves with
a rotational deformity. This means that the spine turns on its axis like a corkscrew.
Scoliosis is a curvature of the spine which may have its onset in infancy but is
most frequently discovered in adolescence. It is more common in females by a 2:1 ratio.
However, when curves in excess of 30 degrees are evaluated, females are more
frequently affected by a ration of approximately10:1. The cause of the most common
form of scoliosis; idiopathic scoliosis. is unknown, but there have been hereditary factors
discovered that are present.
Scoliosis causes shoulder, trunk and waistline "asymmetry". In mild forms, the
condition may be barely noticed; however, in severe forms there is significant
disfigurement, back pain and postural fatigue, and it may be associated with heart failure.
Fortunately the majority of scoliosis cases need only close follow-up to watch for
worsening of the curve. Some cases require more aggressive treatment which could
include surgery.
The non-operative treatment of scoliosis involves observing the deformity with
examinations and repeated x-rays. Under certain circumstances, when spinal growth
remains, a brace may be used in combination with follow-up x-rays. Physical therapy
exercises have not been shown to be effective treatment for scoliosis.
The most common surgical treatment for scoliosis is a spine fusion using special
stainless steel rods, hooks, and a bone graft. The rods are attached to the spine with
hooks and the curved portion of the spine is carefully straightened. Then, small strips of
bone graft are placed over the spine to fuse it in a straight position. As the bone graft
heals over the next several months, the spine becomes solid and will not curve again. But
the part of the spine that has not been fused will still be flexible, and allow nearly normal
overall movement.

MANATEES

MANATEE


The manatee popularly called the sea cow is any of
the species of large water animals in the genus
Trichechus. There are three species of manatee with T.
inunguis found in the Amazon and Orinoco river systems;
T. manatus is found in central Florida and along the
Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean coasts; and T. senegalenis
found in the rivers of tropical West Africa. A manatee
is a slow moving, seal shaped mammal that lives in
shallow coastal waters where rich plant grows. It
usually is at home in salt or fresh water but rarely
straying far from home.

A manatee is grayish-black stout thick skinned
animals and almost hairless. Its corpulent body tapers
to a horizontally flattened, round tail. The fore
limbs are set close to it's head and are used to push
algae, such as seaweed and other water plants toward
their mouths. They have a small head, with a straight
snout and cleft upper lip with bristly hairs. Adults
can grow up to 15ft (4.6 meters) but they usually only
grow to about 10 feet. They weigh an average of 1300
pounds.

Manatees live in small family groups sometimes up
to herds of 15-20. After a gestation of up to 6
months, usually a single pinkish calf is born.
Manatees ferquently communicate by muzzle to muzzle
contact and when alarmed they emit chripy squeaks.

The number of manatees has been reduced over the
past several years due to heavy hunting for their
hides, meat, and blubber oil. Some governments,
including the United States, have placed the manatees
under the endangered species list. One practical
reason for this is that they have proved useful in
clearin girrigation and transport channels clogged with
aquatic plant life. There has also been an increase in
manatee death due to passing boats that speed through
channels.

If we all do not help protect these sea cows today
then they will not be around for future generations to
enjoy. Everyone must do their part in protecting these
mammals of they ocean. If we do not help save their
dying species who will?

Laboratory Safety

Recognizing Laboratory Safety

Purpose:
The purpose of this lab is to stay safe no matter what you're doing in lab. You may be working with dangerous materials such as glass or acid.

Procedure:
I am following the procedure described in pages 21-24 in the Biology Laboratory Manual.

Observations:
Does not apply to this lab

Answers to Questions:
1. The flask symbol means glassware safety. Glassware can be broken easily.

2. The goggle symbol means that you are working with fire. It is extremely important to protect yourself from fire.

3. The hand symbol signifies that you are to wear heat-resistant gloves.

4. The bottle with the crossbones on it means chemical safety. Whenever you see this symbol, you know that you will be working with possibly dangerous chemicals.

5. The eye symbol signifies that you will be working with objects that could be hazardous to your eyes

6. The razor blade symbol signifies that you will be working with sharp objects. You should always be careful when working with sharp objects.

7. An electrical plug symbol means that you will be using electricity in your lab. Never touch an electrical socket or appliance with wet hands.

8. The symbol that looks like a duck means that you will be working with live animals.

Analysis and Conclusion:
1. The person is not wearing safety goggles and he isn't really paying close attention. Safety goggles are vital when you are working with fire.

2. She is pointing the vial towards herself. Whenever you are working with heating liquids, the vial should never pointing towards you.

3. The person is heating a liquid with a top on the beaker. Whenever you are heating a substance, there should never be a top on the liquid.

4. The lady is drinking out of the beaker. You should never do that. You also should never eat at a lab station

Conclusion:
In this lab, I learned what certain signs mean. I also learned about situations that could happen in the lab, and what to do if they occur. If in the future, I see this sign: , I know to wear protective goggles

Cell

CELLS


Cells are the basic unit of all life. Even though they are the smallest unit of life
they are highly complex. Each cell has enough parts to it to practically survive on its own.
There are two types of cells; the plant cell and the animal cell. These two cells do not vary
intensely, but there are some major factors that separate them completely.

Animal cells are highly organized. The many parts that make up the cell work in
synch with each other. These parts are called organelles. The most important organelle in
the cell is the nucleus. The nucleus holds all of the blueprint information for the cell. The
DNA of a cell is found in the nucleus along with RNA. The nucleus is surrounded by two
membranes due to the need to be highly selective with materials that enter the cell's
nucleus. The cell itself is surrounded by a membrane. In between the membrane of the
nucleus and the cell membrane is cytoplasm. It is in the cytoplasm where all of the other
organelles are stored. There are six main organelles in the cytoplasm. First, the
mitochondria, which provides energy to the cell through ATP and respiration. Then there
is the endoplasmic reticulum which separates parts of the cell. Then there is the Golgi
apparatus which is used for sorting, storing, and secretion for the cell. Next are
lysosomes, which hydrolyze macromolecules. Then there are centrioles that play a major
role in cell division. And lastly there are vacuoles which have a variety of storage
functions.

The plant cell is similar in most ways. The only really big differences between the
plant cell and the animal cell are as follows. The first is the outer membrane. The plant
cell has a cell wall that highly acts as support to the cell, where the animal cell has a more
flexible, softer outer membrane. Also in the plant cell are chloroplasts, which are not in
the animal cell. Chloroplasts carry out photosynthesis which is the plants ability to make
it's own food. This also accounts for the large central vacuole in the plant cell. It is used
for storage.

Prairie

PRAIRIE
An ecoysystem is all the biotic and abiotic components of an environment. The prairie is located
in North America. The tempaturevaries greatly and the environment doesn't get enough rainfall to support trees.
One organism in the ecoysystem that adapts well is grass which withstands grazing animals and occasional fires.

Producer: An autotroph organism (grass).
Consumer: Organism that eats producers (caterpillars, bison).
Primary consumer: Organisms that eat consumers (chicken, meadowlark).
Secondary consumers: Organisms that eatprimary consumers (praire felcon, eagle).
Decomposers: Organisms that uses nutrients from dead plants and animals, it starts the chain over (bacteria).

Say that an organism was removed from the web, such as a caterpillar. Though it's not the only grass eating organism it would still mess up the web. Say you put the bison in its place, that part would work, except for the fact that the indigo bunting wouldn't eat the bison. Which would also eliminate that from the food chain and so on.

minerals

Minerals are natural compounds or elements of inorganic nature. There are 92 naturally occuring elements that have specific physical properties, definite chemical composition, and characteristic atomic structure. You can also find between 2,000 to 2,500 minerals in the earths crust. Minerals are formed in a positive response to their environment, most of them to deep for an observer. Environments in which minerals are formed far beneath the earths surface are plutonic igneous, pegmatitic, hot temperature vein, moderate temp. vein, low temp. vein, and a metamorphic environment. Environments in which minerals form near the earths surface are groundwater, weathering, and sedimentary. Minerals are divided into groups on the basis of their composition. About one third of all mineral belong to the group silicates. Other groups are carbonates they includes calcite, oxide which includes magnetite, sulfides which includes pyrite, halides which includes halite, sulfates which includes gypsum, and phosphates whic
he apalite the mineral belongs to. The last group is every mineral that is a chemical element and is found their uncombined state. The elements include copper, silver, gold, and so on.

By: Nick Hirschmann
October 25, 1996

Impotency The New Therepy

IMPOTENCY: NEW THERAPY

By Tony Gramazio



As many as two-thirds of the men with impotency because of physical conditions, vascular disease, stress, trauma, surgery and diabetes, can probably have an erection again.
A new treatment to help men has been thought to be found. It is less invasive than most other treatments. According to almost 60 medical centers all over the United States of America, the new approach has been found. Transurethral Alprostadil has enabled 64.9% of all men with erectile disfunction to have an erection during sexual intercourse, compared to 18.6% on placebo.
Other therapies include needle injection, vacuum devices, and implants. the new treatment is used by inserting an applicator containing a microspository of aprosital into the urethra after going to the bathroom. When a button on the applicator is pressed the suppository is deposited into the urethral lining. Then after ten minutes an erection is formed

fungi

Fungi: The Great Decomposers


Although fungi are over looked in the commerical asspect of the world, they play a great rool in the web of life. In the fungi kingdom there are over 175,00 diffrent species. The main object of fungi is to decompose nutrients of plants and animals.

History

the history of fungi is not very clear because scientists have never realy wnt in great deepth , because fungi are not needed commericaly. the ancestors of fungi lived in shallow bodies of water about 600-800 million years ago. Some of the things the fungi had to encounter from living out of water was, there was more sunlight that was normally blocked be the water, and the had to do something about the rapid shifts in tempature and seasonal shifts.
Fungi are different from other plants in many ways. The general characteristics of fungi are extracellalar digestion, peculiar structures, growth patterns, their use of spores for reproduction, and their life cycles.

Characteristics of Fungi

Fungi have many feactures that set them apart from the plant and animal dingdom. Fungi are heterotrophs that obtain nutrients by secreting enzymes.

Evolution

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................... 2 DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION .............................. 4 THE THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION: CONTRIBUTING ELEMENTS ....................... 7 WALLACE'S CONTRIBUTIONS ................................... 13 HARDY-WEINBERG PRINCIPLE .................................. 15 COMPARISON: LAMARCK vs. DARWIN ........................... 16 DARWIN'S INFLUENCES ....................................... 20 METHODS OF SCIENTIFIC DEDUCTION ........................... 23 LIMITS TO DARWIN'S THEORY ................................. 25 MORPHOLOGICAL & BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS ....................... 27 BIO-EVOLUTION: POPULATION vs. INDIVIDUALS ................ 29 MECHANISMS FOR GENETIC VARIATION .......................... 31 GENETIC VARIATION AND SPECIATION .......................... 35 DARWIN'S FINCHES .......................................... 37 SPECIATION vs. CONVERGENT EVOLUTION ....................... 39 CONCEPT OF ADAPTATION ..................................... 41 PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM .................................... 43 VALUE/LIMITATIONS: THE THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION .... 45 ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS OF BEING ........................... 47 CONCLUSIONS ............................................... 48 INTRODUCTION Theories explaining biological evolution have been bandied about since the ancient Greeks, but it was not until the Enlightment of the 18th century that widespread acceptance and development of this theory emerged. In the mid 19th century english naturalist Charles Darwin - who has been called the "father of evolution" - conceived of the most comprehensive findings about organic evolution ever1. Today many of his principles still entail modern interpretation of evolution. I've assessed and interpreted the basis of Darwin's theories on evolution, incorporating a number of other factors concerning evolutionary theory in the process. Criticism of Darwin's conclusions abounds somewhat more than has been paid tribute to, however Darwin's findings marked a revolution of thought and social upheaval unprecedented in Western consciousness challenging not only the scientific community, but the prominent religious institution as well. Another revolution in science of a lesser nature was also spawned by Darwin, namely the remarkable simplicity with which his major work The Origin of the Species was written - straightforward English, anyone capable of a logical argument could follow it - also unprecedented in the scientific community (compare this to Isaac Newton's horribly complex work taking the scientific community years to interpret2). Evolutionary and revolutionary in more than one sense of each word. Every theory mentioned in the following reading, in fact falls back to Darwinism. DARWINIAN THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Modern conception of species and the idea of organic evolution had been part of Western consciousness since the mid-17th century (a la John Ray)3, but wide-range acceptance of this idea, beyond the bounds of the scientific community, did not arise until Darwin published his findings in 19584. Darwin first developed his theory of biological evolution in 1938, following his five-year circumglobal voyage in the southern tropics (as a naturalist) on the H.M.S. Beagle, and perusal of one Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population which proposed that environmental factors, such as famine and disease limited human population growth5. This had direct bearing on Darwin's theory of natural selection, furnishing him with an enhanced conceptualization of the "survival of the fittest" - the competition among individuals of the same species for limited resources - the "missing piece" to his puzzle6. For fear of contradicting his father's beliefs, Darwin did not publish his findings until he was virtually forced after Alfred Wallace sent him a short paper almost identical to his own extensive works on the theory of evolution. The two men presented a joint paper to the Linnaean Society in 1958 - Darwin published a much larger work ("a mere abstract of my material") Origin of the Species a year later, a source of undue controversy and opposition (from pious Christians)7, but remarkable development for evolutionary theory. Their findings basically stated that populations of organisms and individuals of a species were varied: some individuals were more capable of obtaining mates, food and other means of sustenance, consequently producing more offspring than less capable individuals. Their offspring would retain some of these characteristics, hence a disproportionate representation of successive individuals in future generations. Therefore future generations would tend have those characteristics of more accommodating individuals8. This is the basis of Darwin's theory of natural selection: those individuals incapable of adapting to change are eliminated in future generations, "selected against". Darwin observed that animals tended to produce more offspring than were necessary to replace themselves, leading to the logical conclusion that eventually the earth would no longer be able to support an expanding population. As a result of increasing population however, war, famine and pestilence also increase proportionately, generally maintaining comparatively stable population9. Twelve years later, Darwin published a two-volume work entitled The Descent of Man, applying his basic theory to like comparison between the evolutionary nature of man and animals and how this related to socio-political development man and his perception of life. "It is through the blind and aimless progress of natural selection that man has advance to his present level in love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, etc. as well as progress in "knowledge morals and religion"10. Here is where originated the classic idea of the evolution of man from ape, specifically where he contended that Africa was the cradle of civilization. This work also met with opposition but because of the impact of his "revolutionary" initial work this opposition was comparatively muted11. A summary of the critical issues of Darwin's theory might be abridged into six concise point as follows: 1 Variation among individuals of a species does not indicate deficient copies of an ideal prototype as suggested by the platonic notion of Eidos. The reverse is true: variation is integral to the evolutionary process. 2 The fundamental struggle in nature occurs within single species population to obtain food, interbreed, and resist predation. The struggle between different species (ie. fox vs. hare) is less consequential. 3 The only variations pertinent to evolution are those which are inherited. 4 Evolution is an ongoing process which must span many moons to become detectably apparent. 5 Complexity of a species may not necessarily increase with the evolutionary process - it may not change at all, even decrease. 6 Predator and prey have no underlying purpose for maintenance of any type of balance - natural selection is opportunistic and irregular12. THE THEORY OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION: CONTRIBUTING ELEMENTS The scientific range of biological evolution is remarkably vast and can be used to explain numerous observations within the field of biology. Generally, observation of any physical, behaviourial, or chemical change (adaptation) over time owing directly to considerable diversity of organisms can be attributed to biological evolution of species. It might also explain the location (distribution) of species throughout the planet. Naturalists can hypothesize that if organisms are evolving through time, then current species will differ considerably from their extinct ancestors. The theory of biological evolution brought about the idea for a record of the progressive changes an early, extinct species underwent. Through use of this fossil record paleontologists are able to classify species according to their similarity to ancestral predecessors, and thereby determine which species might be related to one another. Determination of the age of each fossil will concurrently indicate the rate of evolution, as well as precisely which ancestors preceded one another and consequently which characteristics are retained or selected against. Generally this holds true: probable ancestors do occur earlier in the fossil record, prokaryotes precede eukaryotes in the fossil record. There are however, significant "missing links" throughout the fossil record resulting from species that were, perhaps, never fossilized - nevertheless it is relatively compatible with the theory of evolution13. It can be postulated that organisms evolving from the same ancestor will tend to have similar structural characteristics. New species will have modified versions of preexisting structures as per their respective habitats (environmental situations). Certainly these varying species will demonstrate clear differentiation in important structural functions, however an underlying similarity will be noted in all. In this case the similarity is said to be homologous, that is, structure origin is identical for all descended species, but very different in appearance. This can be exemplified in the pectoral appendages of terrestrial vertebrates: Initial impression would be that of disparate structure, however in all such vertebrates four distinct structural regions have been defined: the region nearest the body (humerus connecting to the pectoral girdle, the middle region (two bones, radius and ulna are present), a third region - the "hand" - of several bones (carpal and metacarpal, and region of digits or "fingers". Current species might also exhibit similar organ functions, but are not descended from the same ancestor and therefore different in structure. Such organisms are said to be analogous and can be exemplified in tetrapods, many containing similar muscles but not necessarily originating from the same ancestor. These two anatomical likenesses cannot be explained without considerable understanding of the theory of organic evolution14. The embryology, or early development of species evolved from the same ancestor would also be expected to be congruent. Related species all share embryonic features. This has helped in determining reasons why development takes place indirectly, structures appearing in embryonic stage serve no purpose, and why they are absent in adults. All vertebrates develop a notchord, gill slits (greatly modified during the embryonic cycle) and a tail during early embryology, subsequently passing through stages in which they resemble larval amphioxus, then larval fishes. The notchord will only be retained as discs, while only the ear canal will remain of the gills in adults. Toothless Baleen whales will temporarily develop teeth and hair during early embryology leading to the conclusion that their ancestors had these anatomical intricacies. A similar pattern, exists in almost all animal organisms during the embryonic stage for numerous formations of common organs including the lungs and liver. Yet there is a virtually unlimited variation of anatomical properties among adult organisms. This variation can only be attributed to evolutionary theory15. Biological evolution theory insists that in the case of a common ancestor, all species should be similar on a molecular level. Despite the tremendous diversity in structure, behaviour and physiology of organisms, there is among them a considerable amount of molecular consistency. Many statements have already been made to ascertain this: All cells are comprised of the same elemental organic compounds, namely proteins, lipid and carbohydrates. All organic reactions involve the action of enzymes. Proteins are synthesized in all cells from 20 known amino acids. In all cells, carbohydrate molecules are derivatives of six-carbon sugars (and their polymers). Glycolysis is used by all cells to obtain energy through the breakdown of compounds. Metabolism for all cells as well as determination of definitude of proteins through intermediate compounds is governed by DNA. The structure for all vital lipids, proteins, some important co-enzymes and specialized molecules such as DNA, RNA and ATP are common to all organisms. All organisms are anatomically constructed through function of the genetic code. All of these biochemical similarities can be predicted by the theory of biological evolution but, of course some molecular differentiation can occur. What might appear as minor differentiation (perhaps the occurrence-frequency of a single enzyme) might throw species into entirely different orders of mammals (ie. cite the chimpanzee and horse, the differentiation resulting from the presence of an extra 11 cytochrome c respiratory enzymes). Experts have therefore theorized that all life evolve from a single organism, the changes having occurred in each lineage, derived in concert from a common ancestor16. Breeders had long known the value of protective resemblance long before Darwin or any other biological evolution theorists made their mark. Nevertheless, evolutionary theory can predict and explain the process by which offspring of two somewhat different parents of the same species will inherit the traits of both - or rather how to insure that the offspring retains the beneficial traits by merging two of the same species with like physical characteristics. It was the work of Mendel that actually led to more educated explanations for the value in protective resemblance17. The Hardy-Weinburg theory specifically, employs Mendel's theory to a degree to predict the frequency of occurrence of dominantly or recessively expressing offspring. Population genetics is almost sufficient in explaining the basis for protective resemblance. Here biological evolutionary theory might obtain its first application to genetic engineering18. Finally, one could suggest that species residing in a specific area might be placed into two ancestral groups: those species with origins outside of the area and those species evolving from ancestors already present in the area. Because the evolutionary process is so slow, spanning over considerable lengths of time, it can be predicted that similar species would be found within comparatively short distances of each other, due to the difficulty for most organisms to disperse across an ocean. These patterns of dispersion are rather complex, but it is generally maintained by biologists that closely related species occur in the same indefinite region. Species may also be isolated by geographic dispersion: they might colonize an island, and over the course of time evolve differently from their relatives on the mainland. Madagascar is one such example - in fact approximately 90 percent of the birds living there are endemic to that region. Thus as predicted, it follows that speciation is concurrent with the theory of biological evolution19. WALLACE'S CONTRIBUTIONS There is rarely a sentence written regarding Wallace that does not contain some allusion to Darwin. Indeed, perhaps the single most significant feat he preformed was to compel Darwin to enter the public scene20. Wallace, another English naturalist had done extensive work in South America and southeast Asia (particularly the Amazon and the Malay Archipelago) and, like Darwin, he had not conceived of the mechanism of evolution until he read (recalled, actually) the work of Thomas Malthus - the notion that "in every generation the inferior would be killed off and the superior would remain - that is the fittest would survive". When the environment changed therefore, he determined "that all the changes necessary for the adaptation of the species ... would be brought about; and as the great changes are always slow there would be ample time for the change to be effected by the survival of the best fitted in every generation". He saw that his theory supplanted the views of Lamarck and the Vistages and annulled every important difficulty with these theories21. Two days later he sent Darwin (leading naturalist of the time) a four-thousand word outline of his ideas entitled "On the Law Which has Regulated the Introduction". This was more than merely cause for Darwin's distress, for his work was so similar to Darwin's own that in some cases it parallelled Darwin's own phrasing, drawing on many of the same examples Darwin hit upon. Darwin was in despair over this, years of his own work seemed to go down the tube - but he felt he must publish Wallace's work. Darwin was persuaded by friends to include extracts of his own findings when he submitted Wallace's work On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species to the Linnaean Society in 1858, feeling doubly horrible because he felt this would be taking advantage of Wallace's position. Wallace never once gave the slightest impression of resentment or disagreement, even to the point of publishing a work of his own entitled Darwinism. This itself was his single greatest contribution to the field: encouraging Darwin to publish his extensive research on the issues they'd both developed22. He later published Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection, comprising the fundamental explanation and understanding of the theory of evolution through natural selection. He also greatly developed the notion of natural barriers which served as isolation mechanisms, keeping apart not only species but also whole families of animals - he drew up a line ("Wallace's line") where the fauna and flora of southeast Asia were very distinct from those of Australasia23. HARDY-WEINBERG PRINCIPLE Prior to full recognition of Mendel's work in the early 1900's, development of quantitative models describing the changes of gene frequencies in population were not realized. Following this "rediscovery" of Mendel, four scientists independently, almost simultaneously contrived the Hardy-Weinberg principal (named after two of the four scientists) which initiated the science of population genetics: exploration of the statistical repercussions of the principle of inheritance as devised by Mendel. Read concisely the Hardy-Weinberg principle might be stated as follows: Alternate paradigms of genes in ample populations will not be modified proportionately as per successive generation, unless stimulated by mutation, selection, emigration, or immigration of individuals. The relative proportion of genotypes in the population will also be maintained after one generation, should these conditions be negated or mating is random24. Through application of the Hardy-Weinberg principle the precise conditions under which change does not occur in the frequencies of alleles at a locus in a given population (group of individuals able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring) can be formulated: the alleles of a locus will be at equilibrium. A species may occur in congruous correspondence with its population counterpart, or may consist of several diverse populations, physically isolated from one another25. In accordance with Mendelian principle, given two heterozygous alleles A and B, probability of the offspring retaining prominent traits of either parent (AA or BB) is 25 percent, probability of retaining half the traits of each parent (AB) is 50 percent. Thus allele frequencies in the offspring parallel those of the parents. Likewise, given one parent AB and another AA, allele frequencies would be 75 percent A and 25 percent B, while genotype frequencies would be 50 percent AA and 50 percent AB - the gametes generated by these offspring would also maintain the same ratio their parents initiated (given, of course a maximum of two alleles at each locus). In true-to-life application however, where numerous alleles may occur at any given locus numerous possible combinations of gene frequencies are generated. Assuming a population of 100 individuals = 1, 30 at genotype AA, 70 at genotype BB. Applying the proportionate theory, only 30% (0.30) of the gametes produced will retain the A allele, while 70% (0.70) the B allele. Assuming there is no preference for AA or BB individuals for mates, the probability of the (30% of total population) AA males mating with AA females is but 9% (0.3 x 0.3 = 0.09). Likewise the probability of an BB to BB match is 49%, the remainder between (30%) AA and (70%) BB individuals, totalling a 21% frequency. Frequency of alleles in a population in are commonly denoted p and q respectively, while the AB genotype is denoted 2pq. Using the relevant equation p + pq + q = 1, the same proportions would be obtained. It can therefore be noted that the frequencies of the alleles in the population are unchanged. If one were to apply this equation to the next generation, similarly the genotype frequencies will remain unchanged per each successive generation. Generally speaking, the Hardy-Weinberg principle will not favour one genotype over another producing frequencies expected through application of this law. The integral relevance for employment of the Hardy-Weinberg principle is its illustration of expected frequencies where populations are evolving. Deviation from these projected frequencies indicates evolution of the species may be occurring. Allele and genotype frequencies are typically modified per each successive generation and never in ideal Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. These modifications may be the result of natural selection, but (particularly among small populations) may simply result from random circumstance. They might also arise form immigration of individuals form other populations where gene frequencies will be unique, or form individuals who do not randomly choose mates from their wide-ranged species26. COMPARISON: LAMARCK vs. DARWIN Despite the lack of respect lamarckian theory was dealt at the hands of the early evolution-revolutionaries, the enormous influence it had on numerous scientists, including Lyell, Darwin and the developers of the Hardy-Weinberg theory cannot be denied. Jean Lamarck, a French biologist postulated the theory of an inherent faculty of self-improvement by his teaching that new organs arise form new needs, that they develop in proportion to how often they are used and that these acquisitions are handed down from one generation to the next (conversely disuse of existing organs leads to their gradual disappearance). He also suggested that non-living matter was spontaneously created into the less complex organisms who would evolve over time into organisms of greater and greater complexity. He published his conclusions in 1802, then later (1909) released an expanded form entitled Philosophie zoologique. The English public was first exposed to his findings when Lyell popularized them with his usual flair for writing, but because the influential Lyell also openly criticized these findings they were never fully accepted27. Darwin's own theories were based on those of older evolutionists and the principle of descent with modification, the principle of direct or indirect action of the environment on an individual organism, and a wavering belief in Lamarck's doctrine that new characteristics acquired by the individual through use or disuse are transferred to its descendants. Darwin basically built around this theory, adding that variation occurs in the passage each progressive generation. Lamarck's findings could be summarized by stating that it is the surrounding environment that has direct bearing on the evolution of species. Darwin instead contested that it was inter-species strife "the will to power" or the "survival of the fittest"28. Certainly Lamarck was looking to the condition of the sexes: the significantly evolved difference of musculature between male and females can probably be more easily explained by Lamarckian theory than Darwinian. There was actually quite a remarkable similarity between the conclusions of Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck - Lamarck himself only mentioned Erasmus in a footnote, and with virtual contempt. The fact is neither Lamarck nor Darwin ever proposed a means by which species traits were passed on, although Lamarck is usually recalled as one of those hopelessly erroneous scientists of past it was merely the basis for his conclusions that were hopelessly out of depth - the conclusions were remarkably accurate29. DARWIN'S INFLUENCES In 1831 a young Charles Darwin received the scientific opportunity of lifetime, when he was invited to take charge f the natural history side of a five year voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, which was to sail around the world, particularly to survey the coast of South America. Darwin's reference material consisted of works of Sir Charles Lyell, a British geologist (he developed a concept termed uniformitarianism which suggested that geological phenomena could be explained by prevailing observations of natural processes operating over a great spans of time - he has been accused synthesizing the works of others30) who was the author of geologic texts that were required reading throughout the 19th century including Principals of Geology, which along with his own findings (observing the a large land shift resulting from an earthquake), convinced him of geological uniformitarianism, hypothesizing for example, that earthquakes were responsible for the formation of mountains. Darwin faithfully maintained this method of interpreting facts - by seeking explanations of past events by observing occurrences in present time - throughout his life31. The lucid writing style of Lyell and straightforward conclusions influence all of his work. When unearthing remains of extinct animals in Argentina he noted that their remains more closely resembled those of contemporary South American mammals than any other animals in the world. He noted "that existing animals have a close relation in form with extinct species", and deduced that this would be expected "if the contemporary species had evolved form South American ancestors" not however, if thereexisted an ideal biota for each environment. When he arrived on the Galapagos islands (islands having been formed at about the same time and characteristically similar), he was surprised to observe unique species to each respective island, particularly tortoises which possessed sufficiently differentiated shells to tell them apart. From these observations he concluded that the tortoises could only have evolved on the islands32. Thomas Robert Malthus was an English economist and clergyman whose work An Essay on the Principal of Population led Darwin to a more complete understanding of density dependent factors and the "struggle in nature". Malthus noted that there was potential for rapid increase in population through reproduction - but that food cannot increase as fast as population can, and therefore eventuality will allow less food per person, the less able dying out from starvation or sickness. Thus did Malthus identify population growth as an obstacle to human progress and pedalled abstinence and late marriage in his wake. For these conclusions he came under fire from the Enlightment movement which interpreted his works as opposing social reform33. Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Darwin, was an unconventional, freethinking physician and poet who expressed his ardent preoccupation for the sciences through poetry. In the poem Zoonomia he initiated the idea that evolution of an organism results from environmental implementation. This coupled with a strong influence from the similar conclusions of Lamarck shaped Darwin's perception on the environment's inherent nature to mould and shape evolutionary form34. METHODS OF SCIENTIFIC DEDUCTION Early scientists, particularly those in the naturalist field derived most of their conclusions from observed, unproven empirical facts. Without the means of logically explaining scientific theory, the hypothesis was incurred - an educated guess to be proven through experimentation. Darwin developed his theory of natural selection with a viable hypothesis, but predicted his results merely by observing that which was available. Following Lyell's teaching, using modern observations to determine what occurred in the past, Darwin developed theories that "only made sense" - logical from the point of view of the human mind (meaning it was based on immediate human perception) but decidedly illogical from a purely scientific angle. By perusing the works of Malthus did Darwin finally hit upon his theory of natural selection - not actually questioning these conclusions because they fit so neatly into his own puzzle. Early development of logical, analytic scientific theory did not occur until the advent of philosopher Rene Descartes in the mid-17th century ("I think therefore I am"35). Natural selection was shown to be sadly lacking where it could not account for how characteristics were passed down to new generations36. However, it did present enough evidence for rational thought to be applied to his theory. Thus scientists were able to develop fairly accurate conclusions with very limited means of divination. Opposition from oppressive Judeo-Christian church allowed little room science. Regardless, natural selection became the basis for all present forms of evolutionary theory.37 LIMITS TO DARWIN'S THEORY Darwinism, while comparatively rational and well documented nevertheless upheld the usual problem that can be found in many logical scientific conclusions - namely deliberate ignorance of facts which might modify or completely alter years the conclusions of years of research. Many biologists were less than convinced with an evolutionary hypothesis that could not explain the mechanism of inheritance. It was postulated by others that offspring will tend to have a blend of their two parents characteristics, the parents having a blend of characteristics from their ancestors, the ancestors having a blend of characteristics from their predecessors - allotting the final offspring impure, diminished desirable characteristics38. Thus did they believe a dilution of desirable traits evolved even more diluted desirable traits - these traits now decidedly muted. It was more than two decades after Darwin's death that Mendelian theory of the gene finally came to light at the turn of the century39. Because of this initial scepticism with Darwin's natural selection, when Mendel's work became widely available biologists emphasized the importance of mutation over selection in evolution. Early Mendelian geneticists believe that continuous variation (such features as body size) hardly factored in the formation of new species - perhaps nothing to do with genetic control. Inferences on the gradual divergence of populations diminished in wake of notions of significant mutations40. This gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory in the 1930's, what is called "modern synthesis" which encompasses paleontology, biogeography, systematics and, of course, genetics. Geneticists have noted that acquired characteristics cannot, indeed be inherited, while observing that continuous variation is inherited through the effects of many genes and have therefore concluded that continuously distributed characteristics are also influenced by natural selection and evolve through time. Modern synthesis, in other words, differs little form Darwinian theory, but also incorporates current understanding of inheritance. Modern synthesis maintains that random mutations introduce variation into population, natural selection inaugurating new genes in greater proportions. Despite revolutionary progress the discovery of the gene has made, neo-Darwinian theory is still based on the arbitrary assumption that the primary factor causing adaptive change in populations is natural selection41. MORPHOLOGICAL & BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS Species have been traditionally described based on their morphological characteristics. This has proven to be somewhat premature to say the least: some organisms in extremely different forms are quite similar in their genetic make-up. Male and females in many species develop more than a few many characteristic physical differences, yet are indeed the same species (imagine that!). Likewise some organisms appear to be quite morophologically similar but are completely incompatible. There are many species of budworm moths, all of which are highly indistinguishable - most of which do not interbreed42. The idea of species is usually called the biological species concept, stressing the importance of interbreeding among individuals in a population as a general description. An entire population might be thought of as a single unit of evolution. However similar difficulties arise in attempting a universal application of this theory. Because morphologically similar species occur in widely separated regions, it is virtually impossible to exact whether they could or could not interbreed. One might ask whether cactus finches from the Galapagos interbreed - the answer may invariably be yes...but due rather to the morphological similarities between them. Consider further asexually producing species, which can be defined by appearance alone: each individual would have to be defined as different biological species - a fact which would remain irrelevant. There are also cases for which no real standard can be applied - the donkey and horse, for example can mate and produce healthy offspring, mules which are almost always sterile and therefore something completely undefinable. Therefore, despite seeming ideal in its delimitation, the biological species concept cannot be employed in describing many natural species43. It is nonetheless a popular concept for theoretical discussions since it can distinguish which populations might evolve through time completely independent of other similar populations. Species classification is therefore not defined by fixed principles surrounding biological and morphological classifications both. The random nature of evolution itself is predictable perhaps only in that one respect: that it remain virtually unpredictable. In accordance with the Hardy-Weinberg theory the proportion of irregularity should not necessarily increase, but because, by its own admission this theory cannot be employed as a standard but merely to predict results, even it is limited random un-law of nature44. BIO-EVOLUTION: POPULATION vs. INDIVIDUALS According to the theory of evolution, all life or most of it, originated from the evolution of a single gene. All relatives - species descended from a common ancestor - by definition share a certain percentage of their genes. If naught else than these genes are of a very similar nature. A species depends on the remainder of its population in developing characteristics which allow easier adaptability to the changing environment. These modified genes will ultimately express themselves as new species or may be passed on to other populations within a given species. For these traits to be expressed individually is certainly not going to benefit the species (ie. the mule retains remarkable traits but cannot reproduce - they're also a literal pain in the ass to generate). Nevertheless should but one individual in a million retain a beneficial characteristic, opportunity for this to be passed on is significantly increased. In short order, as per natural selection highly adapted species can develop where they were dying out (over centuries to be sure, but dying out nonetheless) only a ('n evolutionarily) short span of time ago. Plant breeders especially know the value of the gene pool. They depend on the gene pool of the wild relatives of these plants to develop strains that are well adapted to local conditions (here we refer to comparatively exotic plants). The gene pool is there for all compatible species (and that could be a large amount down the line) to partake of - given the right random conditions and the future for plant breeders brightens45. MECHANISMS FOR GENETIC VARIATION There are a number of known factors are capable of changing the genetic structure of a population, each inconsistent with the Hardy-Weinberg principle. Three primary contributing factors are migration, mutation and selection and are referred to as systematic processes - the change in gene frequency is comparatively predictable in direction and quantity. The dispersive process of genetic is predictable only in quantitative nature. When species are sectioned into diverse, geographically isolated populations, the populations will tend to evolve differently on account of the following accepted standards: 1 Geographically isolated populations will mutate exclusively to their population. 2 The adaptive value for these mutations and gene combinations will differentiate per each population. 3 Different gene frequencies existed before the population was isolated and are therefore not representative of their ancestors. 4 During intervals of small population size gene frequencies will be fluctuating and unpredictable forming a genetic "bottleneck" from which all successive organisms will arise46. Gene frequencies can be altered when a given population is exposed to external populations, the change in frequency modified as per the proportion of foreigners to the mainstream population. Migration may be eliminated between two populations in regions of geographic isolation, which will isolate in turn, the gene pools within the population. If this isolation within population develops over a sufficient span of time the physical differences between two given gene pools may render them incompatible. Thus have the respective gene pools become reproductively isolated and are now defined as biologically different species. However, speciation (division into new species) does not arise exclusively from division into new subgroups inside a population, other aspects might be equally effective47. The primary source for genetic variability is mutation, usually the cause of depletion of species' fitness but sometimes more beneficial. The ability of a species to survive is dependent on its store of genetic diversity, allowing generation of new genotypes with greater tolerance for changing environment. However, some of the best adapted genotypes may still be unable to survive if environmental conditions are too severe. Unless new genetic material is obtained outside the gene pool, evolution will have a limited range of tolerance for change. Generally speaking, spontaneous mutations whether they are required or not. This means many mutations are useless, even harmful under current environmental conditions. These crippling mutations are usually weeded out or kept at low frequencies in the population through natural selection. The mutation rate for most gene loci is between one in 100 thousand to one in a million. Therefore, although mutations are the source of genetic variability, even without natural selection changes in the population would be unnoticeable and very slow. Eventually, if the only pressure affecting the locus is from mutation, gene frequencies will change and fall back to comparative equilibrium48. The fundamental restriction on the validity of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium law occurs where population size in immeasurably large. Thus the disseminating process of genetic drift is applicable for gene frequency alteration in situations of small populations. In such a situation inbreeding is unavoidable, hence the primary contributing factor for change of gene frequencies through inbreeding (by natural causes) is genetic drift. The larger the sample size, the smaller the deviation will be from predicted values. The action of sampling gametes from a small gene pool has direct bearing on genetic drift. Evidence is observed via the random fluctuation of gene frequencies per each successive generation in small populations if systematic processes are not observed as contributing factors. From this four basic assumptions have been made for idealized populations as follows: 1 Mating and self-fertilization in respective subgroups of given populations are completely random. 2 Overlap of one generation to its successor does not occur allotting distinct characteristics for each new generation. 3 In all generations and lines of descent the number of possible breeding individuals is the same. 4 Systematic factors such as migration, mutation and natural selection are defunct49. In small populations certain alleles, perhaps held as common to a species may not be present. The alleles will have become randomly lost somewhere in the population in the process of genetic drift. The result is much less variability among small populations that among larger populations. If every locus is fixed in these small populations they will have no genetic variability, and therefore be unable to generate new adaptive offspring through genetic recombination. The ultimate fate of such a population if it remains isolated is extinction50. GENETIC VARIATION & SPECIATION Through genetic variation new species will arise, in a process termed speciation. It is generally held that speciation occurs as two given species evolve their differences over large spans of time - these differences are defined as their genetic variation. The most popular model use to explain how species formed is the geographic speciation model, which suggests that speciation occurs only when an initial population is divided into two or more smaller populations - via genetic variation through systematic means of mutation, natural selection or genetic drift - geographically isolated (physically separated) from one another. Because they are isolated, gene flow (migration) cannot occur between the respective new populations51. These "daughter" populations will eventually adapt to their new environments through genetic variation (process of evolution). If the environments of each isolated population are different then they would be expected to adapt to different conditions and therefore evolve differently. According to the model of geographic speciation, the daughter populations will eventually evolve sufficiently to become incompatible with one another (therefore unable to interbreed or produce viable offspring). As a result of this incompatibility, gene flow could not effectively occur even if the populations were no longer geographically isolated. The differentiated, but closely related species are now termed species pair, or species group. Eventually differentiation will progress far enough for them to be defined as different species. While divergence is a continuing process, it does not necessarily occur at a constant rate - fluctuating between extremely rapid rates and very slow rates of evolution. Two standard methods have been postulated for the occurrence of geographic speciation: i) Individuals from a species might populate a new, isolated region of a give area (such as an island). Their offspring would evolve geographically isolated from the original species. Eventually, geographical isolation from the population on the mainland would evolved distinguishable characteristics. ii) Individuals might, alternately be geographically isolated as physical barriers arise or the range of the species or individuals of a population diminishes52. However, neither of these forms of speciation through geographic isolation and consequent individual genetic variation have been observed or studied direct because of the time span and general difficulty of unearthing desired fossils. Evidence for this form of speciation is therefore indirect and based on postulated theory53. DARWIN'S FINCHES The finches of the Galapagos islands provided Darwin with an important lead towards his development of his theory of evolution. They were (are) a perfect example of how isolated populations could evolve. Here Darwin recognized that life branched out from a common prototype in what is now called adaptive radiation. There were no indigenous finches to the islands when they arrived - some adapted to tree-living, others to cactus habitat, others to the ground. The differentiation was comparatively small, and yet there evolved fourteen species of bird classified under six separate genera, each visibly different only in the characteristics of its beak54. Joint selection pressure equations have been used to calculate the change in gene frequency and consequent rate of mutation resulting from action the of natural selection. Populations of Galapagos finches arrived at their islands from South America and were provided with varying methods of obtainment of sustenance. Only those individuals that evolved characteristics allowing them to more easily obtain food from varying sources were not selected against. Populations were isolated on certain islands and had to adapt to different food sources. The result was an adaptation to food (seeds) from trees, ground or cactus-dominated ares. However, the migratory nature of these finches prompted them to emigrate to alternate islands, therefore interbreeding with otherwise isolated populations of finches. The result has been a variation on single specific characteristics which retain certain properties due to the singular islands they predominantly occupied. When the population of immigrants was high enough, the gene pools of diverse populations of finches presently occupying the island was modified enough such that offspring would inherit some of the traits of otherwise isolated finch populations55. Nevertheless, these finches developed characteristics endemic to their particular habitat, and because finches tend to remain in groups rather than individual families, these particular characteristics became dominant enough to evolve morphologically and later even biologically different characteristics. These discrepancies could only lead to greater genetic variation down the line. Eventually immigrants from the mainland and even other Galapagos islands were completely incompatible with specific finch populations endemic to their respective islands56. Generally, selection pressure decreased as mutations resulting from systematic processes of genetic variation could no longer occur. This produced a significantly less versatile gene pool, however, via genetic drift from individuals of alternate populations who had, at some point evolved from ancestors the population in question. Thus the gene pool could be modified without really affecting the gene frequencies57 - joint pressures were therefore stabilized, along with the newly developed population. SPECIATION vs. CONVERGENT EVOLUTION Speciation is substantially more relevant to the evolution of species than convergent evolution. Through natural selection similar characteristics and ways of life may be evolved by diverse species inhabiting the same region, in what is called convergent evolution - reflecting the similar selective pressure of similar environments. While separate populations of the same species occupying similar habitats may also evidence similar physical characteristics - due primarily to the environment rather than their species origin - it should noted that they progressed form the same ancestor. A defining principle for the alternate natures of speciation and convergent evolution put simply: speciation results form a common ancestor, convergent evolution results from any number of ancestors58. Morphologically similar populations resulting from the same ancestor may be compatible and able to produce viable offspring (if in some occasions not fertile offspring). Morphologically similar species resulting form different ancestors are never compatible with one another - even if they are virtual morphological twins. In fact, morphologically disparate populations of the same species may be compatible with one another - whereas those disparate through convergent evolution would be more than merely incompatible, they may be predator and prey. Convergent evolution may only account for single specific physical characteristics of very disparate, unrelated species - such as the development of flipper-like appendages for the sea turtle (reptile), penguin (bird) and walrus (mammal)59. CONCEPT OF ADAPTATION If individuals were unable to adapt to changes in the environment they would be extinct in short order. Adaptability is often based on nuclear inheritance down the generations. Should an organism develop a resistance to certain environmental conditions, this characteristic may be passed down through the gene pool, and then through natural selection be dominant for all organisms of a given population. Bacteria are able to accomplish this feat at a remarkably fast rate. Most, if not all forms of bacteria are compatible with one another, that is able to exchange genetic information. The speed at which bacteria reproduces is immeasurably faster than that of more complex, eukaryote organisms. Bacteria have a much shorter lifespan as well - but because they can develop very quickly into large colonies given ideal conditions, it is easier to understand bacteria in clusters. Should a single bacterial organism develop a trait that slightly aids its resistance to destructive environmental conditions, it can pass its modified genetic structure on to half of a colony in a matter of hours. In the meantime the colony is quickly expanding, fully adapted to the environment - soon however, it has developed more than it can be accommodated. The population will drop quickly in the face of inadaptability. But that (previosly mentioned) exterior bacterial organism with the modified trait releases information yielding new growth, allowing the colony to expand further. It is generally accepted that bacterial colonies will achieve a maximum capability - however, through adaptation the bacterial population will quickly excel once again60. Antibiotics are now sent to destroy the bacteria. Soon they will be obliterated - and now all that remains of the colony are a few choice bacterial organisms. However, an otherwise isolated bacteria enters the system to exchange genetic information with the much smaller bacterial colony, conditions are favourable, the bacteria expands again. Antibiotics are sent again to destroy this colony - but the exterior bacteria, originating in another organism and having developed a resistance to this type of antibody has provided much of the colony with the means for resistance to these antibodies as well. Once again the bacterial culture has expanded having resisted malignant exterior interlopers61. This is how bacteria develops, constantly exchanging nuclear information, constantly able to adapt to innumerable harmful sources. As bacteria are exposed to more destructive forces, the more they decelop resistace to, as surely many of the billions of bacteria could develop an invulnerability to any threatening exterior sources given ideal environmental conditions. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM Recently the concept of punctuated equilibrium, as proposed by American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has be the subject of much controversy in the scientific world. Gould advanced the idea that evolutionary changes take place in sudden bursts, and are not modified for long periods time when they are reasonably adapted to altered environment62. This almost directly contradicts the older, established Darwinian notions that species evolve through phyletic gradualism, that evolution occurs at a fairly constant rate. It is not suggested by adherents of the punctuated equilibrium model that pivotal fluctuations in morphology occur spontaneously or in only a few generations changes are established in populations - they argue instead that the changes may occur in but 100 to 1000 generations. It is difficult to determine which model could more adequately describe what transpires over the course of speciation and evolution due to gaps in fossil-record, 50 to 100 thousand years of strata often covering deposits bearing fossils. Genetic make-up need not change much for rapid, discernable morphological alterations to detected63. Impartial analysts on the two theories conclude that they are both synonymous with evolutionary theory. Their primary differences entail their emphasis on the importance of speciation in long-term evolutionary patterns in lineage. While phyletic gradualism emphases the significance of changes in a single lineage and the revision of species through slight deviation, punctuated equilibrium emphases the significance of alteration occurring during speciation, maintaining that local (usually small) populations adapt rapidly to local circumstance in production of diverse species - some of which acquire the means for supplantation of their ancestors and rampant settlement in many important adaptive breakthroughs64. One must consider that Darwin was not aided by Mendelian theory. Under such circumstances Darwin would have surely produced an entirely different theory for the inheritance of beneficial traits. Consider that mutations can presumably occur spontaneously, given the properly modified parent. It can therefore be stated that punctuated equilibrium is probably a more likely explanation as it does take into account modern cell, and genetic theory. Phyletic gradualism, while certainly extremely logical is a theory which simply cannot encompass those circumstance in which significant change is recorded over comparatively short periods of time. Both are complementary to be sure, but perhaps one of the two distorts this complementary nature formulating inaccurate assumption. VALUE/LIMITATIONS: THE THEORY BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION Whether or not the theory of evolution is useful depends on whether or one values progress above development of personal notions of existence. Certainly under the blanket of a superficial American Dream one would be expected to subscribe to ideals that society, that the state erects. Of course, these ideals focus on betterment of society as a whole - which now unfortunately, means power to the state. Everybody is thus caught up in progress, supposedly to "improve the quality of life", and have been somewhat enslaved by the notion of work. Work has become something of an idol, nothing can be obtained without work - for the state. Whether one agrees with the thoughtless actions of the elite or not, people are oppressed by conforming to ideals that insist upon human suffering. Some irresponsible, early religious institutions did just that, erecting a symbol of the people's suffering and forcing them to bow before it. Development of aeronautic, or even cancer research contributes primarily to this ideal of progress. Development of such theories as biological evolution, contribute nothing toward progress. It instills in the people new principles, to dream and develop an understanding of themselves and that which surrounds them ones, freeing their will from that shuffling mass, stumbling as they are herded towards that which will reap for them suffering and pain. The state provides this soulless mass with small pretty trinkets along the way, wheedling and cajoling them with media images of how they should lead their lives - the people respond with regrets. Modern theory of biological evolution is actually sadly lacking in explanation for exactly how characteristics are passed down to future generations. It is understood how nitrogen bases interact to form a genetic code for an organism - but how the modification that the organism develops, occurs is unknown. Somehow the organism mutates to adapt to environmental conditions, and then presumably the offspring of this organism will retain these adaptations65. Of course, biological evolution cannot also explain precisely how first organisms developed: Generally, the theory accounts for energy and chemical interactions at a level consistent enough to establish a constant flow of said interactions - but even here it falls short. And what of phyletic gradualism? It is completely unable to explain the more sudden mutations that occur...for obvious reasons it cannot explain this (Darwin had no knowledge of genetics), but even punctuated gradualism doesn't balance this problem. I'm sure there are numerous other problems which can be addressed but these can be dealt with where opinion can be more educated. ALTERNATE EXPLANATIONS OF BEING Man it would appear, has always sought meaning for his existence. Development of many theories of existence have been conceived and passed down through the ages. Institutions conferring single metaphysical and elemental viewpoints have been established, some of which have been particularly irresponsible and oppressive towards the people they were supposed to "enlighten". Most religious institutions have been used as political tools for means of manipulation of the masses, going back to early Roman days when empower Augustus absorbed Christianity into the Roman worship of the sun, Sol Invectus, as a means of subjugating the commoners to Roman doctrine. Generally religious institutions have exploited the people and have been used as excuses for torture, war, mass exterminations and general persecution and oppression of the people it pretends to serve, telling the people they must suffer to reach ultimate transcendent fulfilment. Unfortunately this oppression continues in today's modern - even Western - world. There have actually been almost innumerable explanations for the physical presence of man - these explanations merely been suppressed by the prevailing religious institutions for fear that they will be deprived absolute power over the people...they're right. CONCLUSIONS Without Darwin it can be concluded, reasonable interpretation of biological evolution simply would not be. Natural selection, the process determining the ultimate survival of a new organism, remains the major contributing factor to even the most modern evolutionary theory. The evolutionary process spans over the course of hundreds of thousands of generations, organisms evolving through systematic and dispersive mechanisms of speciation. Recently, heated debate surrounding whether characteristics are passed on in bursts of activity through punctuated equilibrium or at a constant rate through the more traditional phyletic gradualism66. The release of Mendelian theory into the scientific community filled the primary link missing in Darwin's theory - how biological characteristics were passed on to future generations. Applications of genetic theory to evolutionary theory however, are somewhat limited. It is difficult to classify all species even through modern means of paleontology and application to the theory of organic evolution. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 Brent, Peter. Charles Darwin, A Man of Enlarged Curiosity. Toronto: George J. McLeod Ltd., 1981. 2 Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. New York: Paladin, 1978. 3 Farrington, Benjamin. What Darwin Really Said. New York: Shoken Books, 1966. 4 Gailbraith, Don. Biology: Principals, Patterns and Processes. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons Canada Ltd. 1989, Un. 6: Evolution. 5 Glass, Bently. Forerunners of Darwin 1745-1859. New York: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. 6 Gould, S.J. Ever Since Darwin. New York: Burnett Books, 1978. 7 Grolier Encyclopedia, New. New York: Grolier Publishing, Inc., 1991. 8 Haldane, J.B.S. The Causes of Evolution. London: Green and Co., 1982. 9 Leakey, Richard E.. Mankind and Its Beginnings. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978. 10 Miller, Johnathan. Darwin For Beginners. New York: Pantheon Books, 1982. 11 Moore, Johh A. Heredity and the Environment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973. 12 Patterson, Colin. Evolution. London: British Museum of Natural History Press, 1976. 13 Random House Encyclopedia, The. New York: Random House Inc., 1987, p. 406-25. 14 Ridley, Mark. The Essential Darwin. London, Eng: Allen & Unwin, 1987. 15 Smith, J.M. On Evolution. London: Doubleday, 1972. 16 Stansfield, William D.. Genetics 2/ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983, p.266-287. 17 Thomas, K.S.. H.M.S. Beagle, 1820-1870. Washington: Oxford University Press, 1975. ENDNOTES

Brain

TABLE OF CONTENTS HEADING PAGE NUMBER 1. Table of Contents 1 2. Table of Illustrations 2 3. Introduction 3 4. Body of work 4 to 8 5. Conclusion 9 6. Illustrations 10 to 12 7. Bibliography 13 8. Glossary 14 to 16 9. Index 17 to 19 TABLE OF ILLUSTRATIONS HEADING PAGE NUMBER 1. Inside the Head 10 2. Inside the Brain 11 3. Areas and Jobs 12 INTRODUCTION NOTE: All words in bold print will be found in the glossary. The human body is divided into many different parts called organs. All of the parts are controlled by an organ called the brain, which is located in the head. The brain weighs about 2.75 pounds, and has a whitish-pink appearance. The brain is made up of many cells, and is the control centre of the body. The brain flashes messages out to all the other parts of the body. The messages travel in very fine threads called nerves. The nerves and the brain make up a system somewhat like telephone poles carrying wires across the city. This is called the nervous system. The nerves in the body don't just send messages from the brain to the organs, but also send messages from the eyes, ears, skin and other organs back to your brain. Some nerves are linked directly to the brain. Others have to reach the brain through a sort of power line down the back, called the spinal cord. The brain and spinal cord make up the central nervous system. The brain doesn't just control your organs, but also can think and remember. That part of the brain is called the mind. PROTECTING THE BRAIN Twenty-eight bones make up the skull. Eight of these bones are interlocking plates. These plates form the cranium. The cranium provides maximum protection with minimum weight, the ideal combination. The other twenty bones make up the face, jaw and other parts of the skull. Another way the brain keeps it self safe is by keeping itself in liquid. Nearly one fifth of the blood pumped by the heart is sent to the brain. The brain then sends the blood through an intricate network of blood vessels to where the blood is needed. Specialized blood vessels called choroid plexuses produce a protective cerebrospinal fluid. This fluid is what the brain literally floats in. A third protective measure taken by the brain is called the blood brain barrier. This barrier consists of a network of unique capillaries. These capillaries are filters for harmful chemicals carried by the blood, but do allow oxygen, water and glucose to enter the brain. THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE BRAIN The brain is divided into three main sections. The area at the front of the brain is the largest. Most of it is known as the cerebrum. It controls all of the movements that you have to think about, thought and memory. The cerebrum is split in two different sections, the right half and the left half. The outer layer of the cerebrum is called the cortex. It is mainly made up of cell bodies of neurons called grey matter. Most of the work the brain does is done in the cortex. It is very wrinkled and has many folds. The wrinkles and folds give the cortex a large surface area, even though it is squeezed up to fit in the skull. The extra surface area gives the cerebrum more area to work. Inside the cortex, the cerebrum is largely made up of white matter. White matter is tissue made only of nerve fibres. The middle region is deep inside the brain. It's chief purpose is to connect the front and the back of the brain together. It acts as a "switchboard", keeping the parts of your brain in touch with each other. The back area of the brain is divided into three different parts. The pons is a band of nerve fibres which link the back of the brain to the middle. The cerebellum sees to it that all the parts of your body work as a team. It also makes sure you keep your balance. The medulla is low down at the back of your head. It links the brain to the top of the spinal cord. The medulla controls the way your heart pumps blood through your body. It also looks after your breathing and helps you digest food. THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BRAIN THE BRAINSTEM: The brainstem is one of the oldest parts of the brain. It controls such functions as breathing, blood pressure, swallowing and heart rate. THE HYPOTHALMUS: This part of the brain is located directly above the brain stem. The hypothalmus controls basic drives like hunger and sex and as well as our response to threat and danger. The hypothalmus also controls the pituitary. THE PITUITARY: The pituitary produces hormones such as testosterone that circulate through out the body. THE THALAMUS: The thalamus is like a relay area; it receives messages from lower brain areas such as the brainstem and hypothalmus and sends them to the two brain hemispheres. The thalamus is located in between above the lower brain and under the two hemispheres. THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE BRAIN: Most of the above mentioned parts of the brain were produced early in evolution but the higher mammals especially humans went on to produce a sort of "thinking cap" on top of these parts. This "thinking cap" was divided into two different parts, the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere. If the left side of your brain is more developed like most people's are, you are right handed. On the other hand if the right side of your brain is more developed, then you will be left handed. The right side of your brain is more artistic and emotional while the left side of your brain is your "common sense" and practical side, such as figuring out math and logic problems. THE CEREBELLUM: One of the most important part of the Human brain is the cerebellum. The cerebellum is involved with the more complex functions of the brain and sometimes is even referred to as "the brain within the brain". The cerebellum acts as a control and coordination centre for movement. The cerebellum carries small "programs" that have been previously learned. For example, how to write, move, run and jump are all previously learned activities that the brain recorded and can playback when needed. Every time you practice, the brain rewrites the program and makes it better. You may have heard the saying "practice makes perfect". Well this saying is not entirely true; another way of "practising" is just to imagine what you wish to do. Since the cerebellum can't actually feel, it will think that you are doing what your imagining and respond by rewriting it's previous program and carrying out any other actions needed for that function. This is one why to explain wet dreams. THE CEREBRAL CORTEX: The cerebral cortex makes up the top of the two hemispheres of the brain. The cortex is a sheet of greyish matter which produces our thoughts, language and plans. It also controls our sensations and voluntary movements, stores our memories and gives us the ability to imagine, in short it's what makes humans, humans. IN THE FUTURE Today many experiments are being conducted that may be break through's for the future. For instance "brain grafting" is one procedure that may be used in the future. Brain grafting is to transplant a very thin layer of brain skin from one person to another. This would result in control of parkinson's disease and other seizure related diseases. Another radical idea that has already been successfully been tried on rhesus monkey's is, brain transplants. The ethics and legal problems for such a transplant would probably never let this operation be performed on humans. This is because the person would not be the same, would not have the same memories or the same abilities that the host body had had. The last idea of the future that we will list is called "artificial hearing and seeing". Artificial seeing is achieved by planting sixty-four small electrodes in front of the visual cortex of the brain. The electrodes are connected to a small camera that is some where on the person's ear. A computer is attached to the camera. The computer sends the images from the camera directly to the implanted electrodes. They flash as the picture from the camera, thus enabling the person to somewhat see. Artificial hearing is much more complicated then artificial seeing. First a electrodes must be planted in the brain. Then through a microphone a computer produces electrical pulses that are then sent to the electrodes in the brain. But as of yet these procedures are not practical first because of the size of the computer, it cannot be taken out of the laboratory second the cost of the package and third the risks involved. CONCLUSION After all of the work and research that we have done it is very evident to us that the brain is one of the most wondrous organs that humans could have. It guides us through almost every second of our life. Even after exploring vast and distant sky's to the microorganisms that exist today, the brain has never ceased to amaze us and probably never will. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. The Brain and Nervous System by Lambert, Mark copyright Macmillan Education, 1988 2. The Brain and Nervous System by Parker, Steve copyright Franklin Watts, 1990 3. Encyclopedia Britannica by Britannica, Encyclopedia Inc. copyright Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1986 4. The Incredible Machine by Geographic, National Society copyright Geographic, National Society, 1992 GLOSSARY artificial hearing: When a person is able to hear but not naturally. artificial seeing: When a person is able to see but not naturally. blood brain barrier: A set of special capillaries that are only found in brain. There purpose is to filter the blood so only oxygen, glucose and water are able to enter the brain. Unfortuantly they don't prevent narcotics from entering the brain. brain: An organ that is pinkish-white in appearance and is located in the skull. This organ controls almost everything that the body does. brain grafting: Brain grafting is the process of taking a thin layer of brain skin from the donor and moving to new host. brainstem: This is what the brain had used to be early evolution, but now it only controls our basic functions such as breathing and heart rate. capillaries: Tiny blood vessels. cells: What all living thing are built from. central nervous system: This the brain and spinal cord put together. Also see: brain, spinal cord. cerebellum: This part of the brain makes sure that all of your body works together. It also keeps your balance. cerebral cortex: This is one of the most important parts of the brain. It also is produces our thoughts, stores our memories, and plans. cerebrospinal fluid: This what the brain floats in. cerebrum: The cerebrum is split in to two different sides. Left and right. It is located at the front of the head. choroid plexuses: These special blood vessels are what produce the cerebrospinal fluid. cortex: This is the outer layer of the cerebrum. cranium: This is the part of the skull that holds the brain. diseases: Illnesses that can be terminal. electrodes: They are made out metal and emit electricity, usually very little. glucose: This is a combination of sugar and water. grey matter: Mainly made from the cell bodies of neurons. hemisphere: These are the two different part of the cerebrum. Almost all of the brain's work is done there. hormones: Chemicals that can change the chemical make up of your physical body. hypothalmus: This part of the brain is located above the brainstem. It controls basic drives such as hunger and sex. medulla: The medulla is almost right behind the brainstem. It helps you to digest your food. mind: Not just the brain but the actual consciousness that we have. nerves: Pathways that the brain uses to send messages to and from different parts of the body. nervous system: The whole system of nerves that attach to the spinal cord. organs: Important part of the body. The brain, heart and lungs are examples of organs. Parkinson's Disease: This disease causes the victim to have seizures. pituitary: The pituitary produces hormones. pons: A band of nerve fibre that connect the back the brain to the middle. skull: The skull is made up of twenty-eight bones. It is located above the spinal cord. It also contains the brain. spinal cord: This cord goes down your back. Almost all nerves in the body are connected to the spinal cord. thalamus: The thalamus a sort of relay room. It gets messages from the lower brain area and sends them to the higher brain. transplant: To transplant is to take something from one person and put it into another person. white matter: White matter is tissue made from nerve fibres. INDEX NOTE: For the Index, the introduction is the 1st page. artificial seeing 6 artificial hearing 7 balance 3 blood brain barrier 2 blood 2,3 ..harmful chemicals 2 blood pressure 3 blood vessels 2 brain 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ..hemispheres 4 ..transplants 6 ..grafting 6 ..protecting 2 ..section 2 ..front 2,3 ..middle 2,3 ..back 2,3 brainstem 3,4 breathing 3 capillaries 2 cells 1 central nervous system 1 cerebellum 3,5 cerebral cortex 5 cerebrospinal fluid 2 cerebrum 2,3 choroid plexus 2 cortex 2,3,6 cranium 2 digesting food 3 electrodes 6 glucose 2 grey matter 2 heart 3 hormones 4 hunger 4 hypothalamus 4 medulla 3 memory 2 mind 1 nerves 1,3 nervous system 1 neurons 2 organs 1 oxygen 2 parkinson's disease 6 pituitary 4 pons 3 sex 4 skull 2,3 spinal cord 1,3 thalamus 4 water 2 white matter 3

Anti Matter

Anti-Matter Introduction Ordinary matter has negatively charged electrons circling a positively charged nuclei. Anti-matter has positively charged electrons - positrons - orbiting a nuclei with a negative charge - anti-protons. Only anti-protons and positrons are able to be produced at this time, but scientists in Switzerland have begun a series of experiments which they believe will lead to the creation of the first anti-matter element -- Anti-Hydrogen. The Research Early scientists often made two mistakes about anti-matter. Some thought it had a negative mass, and would thus feel gravity as a push rather than a pull. If this were so, the antiproton's negative mass/energy would cancel the proton's when they met and nothing would remain; in reality, two extremely high-energy gamma photons are produced. Today's theories of the universe say that there is no such thing as a negative mass. The second and more subtle mistake is the idea that anti-water would only annihilate with ordinary water, and could safety be kept in (say) an iron container. This is not so: it is the subatomic particles that react so destructively, and their arrangement makes no difference. Scientists at CERN in Geneva are working on a device called the LEAR (low energy anti-proton ring) in an attempt to slow the velocity of the anti-protons to a billionth of their normal speeds. The slowing of the anti-protons and positrons, which normally travel at a velocity of that near the speed of light, is neccesary so that they have a chance of meeting and combining into anti-hydrogen. The problems with research in the field of anti-matter is that when the anti-matter elements touch matter elements they annihilate each other. The total combined mass of both elements are released in a spectacular blast of energy. Electrons and positrons come together and vanish into high-energy gamma rays (plus a certain number of harmless neutrinos, which pass through whole planets without effect). Hitting ordinary matter, 1 kg of anti-matter explodes with the force of up to 43 million tons of TNT - as though several thousand Hiroshima bombs were detonated at once. So how can anti-matter be stored? Space seems the only place, both for storage and for large-scale production. On Earth, gravity will sooner or later pull any anti-matter into disastrous contact with matter. Anti-matter has the opposite effect of gravity on it, the anti-matter is 'pushed away' by the gravitational force due to its opposite nature to that of matter. A way around the gravity problem appears at CERN, where fast moving anti-protons can be held in a 'storage ring' around which they constantly move - and kept away from the walls of the vacuum chamber - by magnetic fields. However, this only works for charged particles, it does not work for anti-neutrons, for example. The Unanswerable Question Though anti-matter can be manufactured, slowly, natural anti-matter has never been found. In theory, we should expect equal amounts of matter and anti-matter to be formed at the beginning of the universe - perhaps some far off galaxies are the made of anti-matter that somehow became separated from matter long ago. A problem with the theory is that cosmic rays that reach Earth from far-off parts are often made up of protons or even nuclei, never of anti-protons or antinuclei. There may be no natural anti-matter anywhere. In that case, what happened to it? The most obvious answer is that, as predicted by theory, all the matter and anti-matter underwent mutual annihilation in the first seconds of creation; but why there do we still have matter? It seems unlikely that more matter than anti-matter should be formed. In this scenario, the matter would have to exceed the anti-matter by one part in 1000 million. An alternative theory is produced by the physicist M. Goldhaber in 1956, is that the universe divided into two parts after its formation - the universe that we live in, and an alternate universe of anti-matter that cannot be observed by us. The Chemistry Though they have no charge, anti-neutrons differ from neutrons in having opposite 'spin' and 'baryon number'. All heavy particles, like protons or neutrons, are called baryons. A firm rule is that the total baryon number cannot change, though this apparently fails inside black holes. A neutron (baryon number +1) can become a proton (baryon number +1) and an electron (baryon number 0 since an electron is not a baryon but a light particle). The total electric charge stays at zero and the total baryon number at +1. But a proton cannot simply be annihilated. A proton and anti-proton (baryon number -1) can join together in an annihilation of both. The two heavy particles meet in a flare of energy and vanish, their mass converted to high-energy radiation wile their opposite charges and baryon numbers cancel out. We can make antiprotons in the laboratory by turning this process round, using a particle accelerator to smash protons together at such enormous energies that the energy of collision is more than twice the mass/energy of a proton. The resulting reaction is written: p + p p + p + p + p Two protons (p) become three protons plus an antiproton(p); the total baryon number before is: 1 + 1 = 2 And after the collision it is: 1 + 1 + 1 - 1 = 2 Still two. Anti-matter elements have the same properties as matter properties. For example, two atoms of anti-hydrogen and one atom of anti-oxygen would become anti-water. The Article The article chosen reflects on recent advancements in anti-matter research. Scientists in Switzerland have begun experimenting with a LEAR device (low energy anti-proton ring) which would slow the particle velocity by a billionth of its original velocity. This is all done in an effort to slow the velocity to such a speed where it can combine chemically with positrons to form anti-hydrogen. The author of the article, whose name was not included on the article, failed to investigate other anti-matter research laboratories and their advancements. The author focused on the CERN research laboratory in Geneva. 'The intriguing thing about our work is that it flies in the face of all other current developments in particle physics' . The article also focused on the intrigue into the discovering the anti-matter secret, but did not mention much on the destruction and mayhem anti-matter would cause if not treated with the utmost care and safety. Discovering anti-matter could mean the end of the Earth as we know it, one mistake could mean the end of the world and a release of high-energy gamma rays that could wipe out the life on earth in mere minutes. It was a quite interesting article, with a lot of information that could affect the entire world. The article, however, did not focus on the benefits or disadvantages of anti-matter nor did it mention the practical uses of anti-matter. They are too expensive to use for powering rocket ships, and are not safe for household or industrial use, so have no meaning to the general public. It is merely a race to see who can make the first anti-matter element. Conclusion As research continues into the field of anti-matter there might be some very interesting and practical uses of anti-matter in the society of the future. Until there is a practical use, this is merely an attempt to prove which research lab will be the first to manufacture the anti-matter elements.

AnimalTesting

Animal Testing



Please Read This Warning Before You Use This Essay for Anything (It Might Save Your Life)

Animal Testing
Using animals for testing is wrong and should be banned. They
have rights just as we do. Twenty-four hours a day humans are using
defenseless animals for cruel and most often useless tests. The
animals have no way of fighting back. This is why there should be new
laws to protect them. These legislations also need to be enforced more
regularly. Too many criminals get away with murder.
Although most labs are run by private companies, often
experiments are conducted by public organizations. The US government,
Army and Air force in particular, has designed and carried out many
animal experiments. The purposed experiments were engineered so that
many animals would suffer and die without any certainty that this
suffering and death would save a single life, or benefit humans in
anyway at all; but the same can be said for tens of thousands of other
experiments performed in the US each year. Limiting it to just
experiments done on beagles, the following might sock most people: For
instance, at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
experimenters forced sixty-four beagles to inhale radioactive Strontium
90 as part of a larger ^Fission Product Inhalation Program^ which began
in 1961 and has been paid for by the US Atomic Energy Commission. In
this experiment Twenty-five of the dogs eventually died. One of the
deaths occurred during an epileptic seizure; another from a brain
hemorrhage. Other dogs, before death, became feverish and anemic, lost
their appetites, and had hemorrhages. The experimenters in their
published report, compared their results with that of other experiments
conducted at the University of Utah and the Argonne National Laboratory
in which beagles were injected with Strontium 90. They concluded that
the dose needed to produce ^early death^ in fifty percent of the sample
group differed from test to test because the dogs injected with
Strontium 90 retain more of the radioactive substance than dogs forced
to inhale it. Also, at the University of Rochester School Of Medicine
a group of experimenters put fifty beagles in wooden boxes and
irradiated them with different levels of radiation by x-rays.
Twenty-one of the dogs died within the first two weeks. The
experimenters determined the dose at which fifty percent of the animals
will die with ninety-five percent confidence. The irritated dogs
vomited, had diarrhea, and lost their appetites. Later, they
hemorrhaged from the mouth, nose, and eyes. In their report, the
experimenters compared their experiment to others of the same nature
that each used around seven hundred dogs. The experimenters said that
the injuries produced in their own experiment were ^Typical of those
described for the dog^ (Singer 30). Similarly, experimenters for the
US Food and Drug Administration gave thirty beagles and thirty pigs
large amounts of Methoxychlor (a pesticide) in their food, seven days a
week for six months, ^In order to insure tissue damage^ (30). Within
eight weeks, eleven dogs exhibited signs of ^abnormal behavior^
including nervousness, salivation, muscle spasms, and convolutions.
Dogs in convultions breathed as rapidly as two hundred times a minute
before they passed out from lack of oxygen. Upon recovery from an
episode of convulsions and collapse, the dogs were uncoordinated,
apparently blind, and any stimulus such as dropping a feeding pan,
squirting water, or touching the animals initiated another convulsion.
After further experimentation on an additional twenty beagles, the
experimenters concluded that massive daily doses of Methoxychlor
produce different effects in dogs from those produced in pigs. These
three examples should be enough to show that the Air force beagle
experiments were in no way exceptional. Note that all of these
experiments, according to the experimenters^ own reports, obviously
caused the animals to suffer considerably before dying. No steps were
taken to prevent this suffering, even when it was clear that the
radiation or poison had made the animals extremely sick. Also, these
experiments are parts of series of similar experiments, repeated with
only minor variations, that are being carried out all over the
country. These experiments Do Not save human lives or improve them in
any way. It was already known that Strontium 90 is unhealthy before
the beagles died; and the experimenters who poisoned dogs and pigs with
Methoxychlor knew beforehand that the large amounts they were feeding
the animals (amounts no human could ever consume) would cause damage.
In any case, as the differing results they obtained on pigs and dogs
make it clear, it is not possible to reach any firm conclusion about
the effects of a substance on humans from tests on other species. The
practice of experimenting on non-human animals as it exists today
throughout the world reveals the brutal consequences of speciesism
(Singer 29).
In this country everyone is supposed to be equal, but
apparently some people just don^t have to obey the law. That
is, in New York and some other states, licensed laboratories are immune
from ordinary anticruelty laws, and these places are often owned by
state universities, city hospitals, or even The United States Public
Health Service. It seems suspicious that some government run
facilities could be ^immune^ from their own laws (Morse 19). In
relation, ^No law requires that cosmetics or household products be
tested on animals. Nevertheless, by six^o clock this evening, hundreds
of animals will have their eyes, skin, or gastrointestinal systems
unnecessarily burned or destroyed. Many animals will suffer and die
this year to produce ^new^ versions of deodorant, hair spray, lipstick,
nail polish, and lots of other products^ (Sequoia 27). Some of the
largest cosmetics companies use animals to test their products. These
are just a couple of the horrifying tests they use, namely, the Drazie
Test. The Drazie test is performed almost exclusively on albino
rabbits. They are preferred because they are docile, cheap, and their
eyes do not shed tears (so chemicals placed in them do not wash out).
They are also the test subject of choice because their eyes are clear,
making it easier to observe destruction of eye tissue; their corneal
membranes are extremely susceptible to injury. During each test the
rabbits are immobilized (usually in a ^stock^, with only their heads
protruding) and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye
of each rabbit. These substances can range from mascara to aftershave
to oven cleaner. The rabbits^ eyes remain clipped open. Anesthesia is
almost never administered. After that, the rabbits are examined at
intervals of one, twenty-four, forty-eight, seventy-two, and one
hundred an sixty-eight hours. Reactions, which may range from severe
inflammation, to clouding of the cornea, to ulceration and rupture of
the eyeball, are recorded by technicians. Some studies continue for a
period of weeks. No other attempt is made to treat the rabbits or to
seek any antidotes. The rabbits who survive the Drazie test may then
be used as subjects for skin-inflammation tests (27). Another widely
used procedure is the LD-50. This is the abbreviation of the Lethal
Dose 50 test. LD-50 is the lethal dose of something that will kill
fifty percent of all animals in a group of forty to two hundred. Most
commonly, animals are force-feed substances (which may be toothpaste,
shaving cream, drain cleaner, pesticides, or anything else they want to
test) through a stomach tube and observed for two weeks or until
death. Non-oral methods of administering the test include injection,
forced inhalation, or application to animals skin. Symptoms routinely
include tremors, convultions, vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, or
bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth. Animals that survive are
destroyed (29). Additionally, when one laboratory^s research on
animals establishes something significant, scores of other labs repeat
the experiment, and more thousands of animals are needlessly tortured
and killed (Morse 8).
Few labs buy their animal test subjects from legitimate pet
stores and the majority use illegal pet dealers. There are many stolen
animal dealers that house the animals before, during , and after
testing. These ^farms^ most frequently hold animals between tests
while the animals recuperate, before facing another research ordeal.
These so called farms in question are mainly old barn-like buildings
used as hospitals and convalescent (recovery) wards are filthy,
overcrowded pens. At one farm in particular dogs with open chest
wounds and badly infected incisions, so weak that many could not stand,
were the order of the day. These dogs were ^recuperating^ from
open-heart and kidney surgery. Secondly, a litter of two-day-old pups
were found in a basket, with no food provisions in sight (Morse 19).
In every pen there were dogs suffering from highly contagious
diseases. An animal^s road to a lab is seldom a direct one. Whether
he^s stolen picked up as a stray, or purchased, there^s a de tour first
to the animal dealer^s farm; There he waits- never under satisfactory
conditions- until his ride, and often life, comes to an end at the
laboratory (23).
Every day of the year, hundreds of thousands of fully conscious
animals are scalded, or beaten, or crushed to death, and more are
subjected to exotic surgery and then allowed to die slowly and in
agony. There is no reason for this suffering to continue (Morse 8).
In conclusion, animal testing is inhumane and no animal should
be forced to endure such torture. Waste in government is one
thing; it seems to be an accepted liability of democracy. But the
wasting of lives is something else. How did it ever get this way?




WORKS CITED

Fox, Michael Allen. The Case For Animal Experimentation. Los
Angeles: University Of California Press, 1986.


Jasper, James M. and Dorothy Nelkin, eds. The Animal Rights
Crusade. New York: Macmillion Inc., 1992, 103-56.


Morse, Mel. Ordeal Of The Animals. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall
International, 1968.


Sequoia, Anna. 67 Ways To Save The Animals. New York: Harper
Collins, 1990.


Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House, 1975.

OUTLINE

I. Introduction
II. Supporting evidence on testing
A. Experiments funded by US government
1. Strontium 90
2. Irradiation by X-rays
3. Methoxychlor
B. Background on laws in US
C. Examples of tests
1. The Drazie Test
2. The LD-50 Test
D. What the animals go through
1. Trip to the laboratory
2. Their stay at the lab
3. After the tests are done
III. Conclusion



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Essay Data Section
Word Count: 1769 Title: Animal Testing Type: Student Submitted

|| Return To The Student Essay Directory ||





Word Count: 1732