Summarize the article in 2-4 sentences (as your character would see the main important things). Add appropriate comments/ reactions if you'd like.
Boys, Girls, and Parasites: Why Cloning is Just a Fad
Think cloning is the future of sex? Think again. Evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk explains why diseases are the reason we have sex, and why sex in the future will be no different than sex in the past.
Science fiction can envision all the clone-society scenarios it wants, but the reality is that parasites are going to keep good, old-fashioned sex in business for centuries to come. From an evolutionary perspective, our existence as male and female owes a great debt to parasites. Without disease, there would be no sex—no gender, no gender stereotypes, no books about people from Mars and Venus. Turns out, all that gene sharing is necessary to our survival.
Through the Asexual Looking Glass
It’s important to ask why sex evolved in the first place. After all, other species (geckos, certain insects, and many kinds of snails) reproduce asexually. In fact, it’s far more efficient. Instead of requiring two organisms for procreation, it requires only one. Think about it: if the world were populated entirely with asexual women, we’d have a lot more people running around.
Why, then, don’t asexual life forms dominate the planet? In part, the answer lies with disease. Specifically, parasites. Because natural selection acts on both a parasite and its host, any adaptation that makes an animal better at resisting disease will be met with a counter-adaptation by the parasite.
Imagine starting with a mouse host and its parasite—a kind of worm that attacks the lung, for instance. If a few mice happen to have lungs with rigid exteriors that keep out the worms, then those mice will survive to pass on their tough-lung genes to the next generation. But a few of the worms will probably be strong enough to wriggle into the lungs, and the mice will have to adapt to the stronger worms accordingly.
The result is a never-ending cycle that makes generating new, more resistant individuals a pressing necessity. Biologists call this the Red Queen Theory, after the character in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass (“Now, here you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place.”). All that “running” means creating an inexhaustible source of new gene combinations for both attacking and defending he body- a source that comes exclusively from sex.
Sexual reproduction ensures that every child inherits a different palette of genes from each of its parents, because genetic mixing occurs at two levels. To make a sperm or egg cell, the paired chromosomes in the parent cells first have to line up and split. Then a curious process called recombination takes place. When the chromosomes are lines up, they form temporary connections and swap genes, so that genetic materials from one chromosome is swapped for the complementary material on the other. This yields a completely unique set of genes. And, as the Red Queen Theory dictates, we wouldn’t survive without the genetic diversity to combat ever-evolving species.
Snail Males
Curt Lively, a biologist at IndianaUniversity, has performed some of the most compelling test on the Red Queen Theory. He studied a species of conical snail that lives in the lake and streams of New Zealand. What’s fascinating is that some of the populations of the snail are only female and reproduce asexually, while other populations are male and female and reproduce sexually.
Why the differing reproduction techniques? Lively and his colleagues found that the sexual populations occurred most frequently in places with the most parasites- in the lakes rather than the streams. And even in separate populations within the lake, a higher proportion of infected snails meant a higher proportion of infected snails meant a higher proportion of males. In other words, maleness accompanied the infestations. Having more parasites generated a need for more men- and more sex- so that a more resistant set of snails would evolve.
The Cloning Fad
All of this means that the future of sex is probably not cloning. Most obviously, creating a society of identical people would make us more vulnerable to disease. A similar problem already faces farmers planning monocultures- genetically identical crops that produce high yields. A single new pathogen can wipe out an entire farm. That’s what caused the Irish potato famine; the potatoes in Ireland were so genetically uniform that they couldn’t resist a new fungus when it invaded. A little potato sex might have kept the Irish from starvation. In the same way, old-fashioned sex might prevent the human race from dying out when the next new disease comes along.
Although it may seem like cloning will be the next way to reproduce, it is impossible. Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction, which does not allow genetic variation, ultimately preventing the species from evolving to resist predators or disease. In order to keep as much disease out of the human race as possible, we must continue reproducing sexually rather than asexual cloning.
Although many science fiction movies think the future of humanity is in cloning, humanity might die off because of it. Sex is the process that keeps us alive because if we don't have a variety of genes that make new adaptions, many diseases could kill us all off since we wouldn't have any type of different gene to stop it. To keep humanity alive, we would have to keep having sex.
Cloning may be the future of mankind in many people's minds, but in mine, it is nothing but a lie. Cloning cannot be the future of man, if that were to happen then many of the clones would die off due to no resistance to disease. As I once said, "Success depends upon previous preparation, and without such preparation there is sure to be failure." Preparation implies resistance to disease, and without that resistance, there is to be failure, or death. Cloning is no substitute for sexual reproduction, a way of life.
Asexual reproduction may seem grest and all but actually, it can be bad. Without variation between the organsims, parasites can easily infect all of the organisms, wiping out the entire species. With sexual reproduction, there is variation between the organisms, and parasites can't kill off species as easily.
Cloning, a form of asexual reproduction, should never replace old fashioned sex. Although asexual reproduction would be a quicker and easier way to reproduce, it would result in the devastating loss of genetic variation among people. As the article states over and over, sexual reproduction allows our population to be the diverse, healthy crowd it is today. Without sex, people would be exactly the same (with no difference in genes), and this would result in a vulnerability for people to diseases.
Cloning, a form of asexual reproduction, should never be the new way to reproduce. It would cause a multitude of problems, as seen in people who were, for lack of a better term, inbred. Every member of a royal family had such limited gene pools, it caused them to suffer from the same diseases. Without sex the population as a whole would suffer from the same disease.
Asexual life forms don't dominate the planet because of diseases. Sexual reproduction ensures genetic diversity in organisms. As the Red Queen Theory dictates, we wouldn't survive without the genetic diversity to combat ever-evolving diseases. Therefore, the future of sex is probably going to be sexual reproduction instead of cloning.
Because cloning is a method of asexual reproduction, many people think that in the future, it will replace good old-fashioned sex because it is more efficient and is capable of creating a large quantity of people, but they are wrong. Genetic variation does not only make each and every one of us a unique individual, but it also prevents many of us from dying every day. Without sexual reproduction, our creation of a large amount of identical people would make the world more powerless against disease which would most likely lead to the human race dying out completely.
Science fiction creates clone-filled scenarios that depict what the future may be like, but this kind of asexual reproduction actually isn't a good thing. It won't create genetic variation like sexual reproduction would. Sex would allow variation and better resistance to disease than cloning as shown my the Red Queen Theory because they can adapt to resist parasites. Asexual reproduction may be more efficient, but sexual reproduction would provide diversity and better defense from diseases than cloning.
Now that science has advanced to the point where cloning organisms is possible, people may wonder why don't we just reproduce asexually in the future? It's more efficient and faster than sexual reproduction. But the fact that asexual reproduction creates a limited gene pool must be taken into consideration. Sexual reproduction ensures offspring all have a different palette of genes for maximum amount of genetic variations. These new traits and adaptations further the survival of a species. Cloning cannot replace sexual reproduction for sexually reproducing organisms currently.
Although some people think that cloning may be the new way to reproduce, they are quite mistaken. We need to continue to reproduce sexually so that we evolve. By reproducing sexually, we continue to evolve and protect ourselves from diseases and the such. Crikey! If we didn't adapt to things evolving around us, it would end quite badly.
Why would we reproduce sexually? It is because we need to adapt to our environment to survive, and this cannot occur asexually. single-celled organisms reproduce asexually because one cell can survive in many more environments more easily than multi-celled organisms. If our offspring were to be from asexual reproduction, and there was a significant and dangerous change in the environment, they could not adapt, and therefore not survive.
(I apologize for my name tag. It was meant to be folded in half).
-- Edited by Sigmund Freud on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 05:48:47 PM
I feel like sexual reproduction is the way of the future, even though it has been our form of reproduction ever since we have inhabited this Earth. Asexual causes an identical society which would take away a person's uniqueness. I agree that asexual reproduction should not be an option because it will slowly take away humanity's unique qualities.
While cloning may have its uses, it is sexual reproduction that holds the future of humanity. Without sex, all humans would be alike with no difference at all. we would be susceptible to the ever-changing diseases in the world. Plus if one of the humans is vulnerable to a disease, then everyone would get it since we are all the same with no genetic difference. To wrap things up, cloning is very useful. No one can deny that. But it is sexual reproduction that is the future of mankind.
This article is solely stating the facts. If every organism in the world reproduced a asexually, life on Earth would die off. Science Fiction movies like to show that the future of reproduction is in cloning because its viewers will find it cool. However, it is not realistic. Humans were made to reproduce the good ole' fashioned way(sexually) like God intended. Letting other humans play the role of God is an awful idea. Cloning is cool and can help in some ways, but it is not the future of reproduction. Sexual reproduction is the future of mankind because it will continue to allow organisms to evolve.
Many people think cloning is the future but the truth is that it's not. Sure many animals use asexual reproduction and its much more efficient, but there are also huge draw backs. Cloning makes a genetically identical individual and this is bad because it reduces genetic diversity. Parasites that attack a certain species can kill them but there are some individuals who are resilient to them. Those then have a higher chance of producing offspring. Parasites that can bypass the built up resilience of the animal then go on to making more of there kind with the same attribute. This is called the Red Queen Theory. It is an never ending cycle of natural selection. Clones or asexual reproducing organisms do not have the ability to to adapt and evolve.
Even though asexual reproduction may seem as the new form of reproduction, it has many drawbacks and could cause a large negative impact on the world. Asexually reproducing organisms have no way to adapt to helpful resistance against parasites and harmful diseases. This is why old- fashioned sex will not be replaced in the future because it serves as a way for humans to better survive in their environment. If cloning, asexual reproduction, were to become relevant, mankind would be wiped out over just a few generations.
If cloning were to take the place of sexual reproduction, the human race would surely be doomed. The lack of genetic variation would mean that humans would not change from their current state, which, if the theory of evolution is true, would result in a lack of adaptation to the environment. Humans that cannot adapt to this changing world would surely perish. In short. the technology exists, but the idea is one that would result in massive failure.
I do not think cloning should take the place of sexual reproduction. First of all, God made life the way it is and if sexual reproduction is the way he wanted it, that's how it should stay. Also, life is great the way it is and it just keeps getting better because people are finding and discovering new ways to do things in life. If the people stop changing and they stay the same, then life will stay the same too.
Asexual reproduction, to me, has never been a thought. Sexual reproduction is how humans should reproduce and how they should always reproduce. With sexual reproduction come variation, and with variation comes diversity in how we express ourselves and that is what makes usall unique in a fantastic way
Cloning? What is this cloning that you speak of? The only way to have a child is by sexual reproduction, because that is the way the lord meant for it to be.
__________________
Signed,
Vice-Admiral The Right Honourable,
The Lord Nelson
(Credit to Wiki for the signature and dates)
This article said that cloning is not going to replace the way that we sexually reproduce now. There are benefits to using the methods of cloning, and there sure are many disadvantages to cloning. And that's why it's can't reproduce sexual reproduction. I also don't believe that cloning should replace sexual reproduction anyways.
This article is saying that because of the parasites on humans cloning will not be a beneficial form of reproduction. There are pros and cons to everything in life, but it seems cloning has more cons than pros. If cloning humans was acceptable, I would clone myself so I could be famous again.
Asexual reproduction and cloning may seem like a good idea and something to come in our near future, but the reality is it will never be our main reproducing method. With asexual reproduction there won't be any diversity in our population so the bacteria that are still evolving will over take us. This is because there will be no natural selection since we will all be the same. So although it may seam like a good idea it will never work.
This article is saying that although asexual reproduction and cloning may seem like a good idea, it will never become the main reproduction method for humans. If humans were to reproduce asexually, there would be no diversity in our population. There would be no natural selection.
Although cloning might be the new thing, i dont think it will ever replace old fashion sex. I believe that if people start to clone, it will take away from genetic variation and have a devastating effect on people. If i had a choice i would stick to the old way in tho book rather than what might be "the new thing"
.png)
