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.
Yes I agree with Marlene Zuk whole- heartily. Sex is very important to help diversify our offspring's genes and it allows the better, stronger genes be passed on. To summarize this article in about 3 sentences i would say that it's about the major benefits about reproducing sexually. The mouse, which reproduced sexually evolved to create the exterior of the mouse's lungs to be rigid to keep the worms out. It also helped the snail be more resilient to the parasite. As it says in he last paragraph... "Most obviously, creating a society of identical people would make us more vulnerable to disease" So cloning isn't the future sex.
__________________
I don't make music for eyes. I make music for ears.
First of all, I think it is very scandalous of you to have me read this article when the main topic is.. sex. However, I do think sexual reproduction is very important. "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." This means that it is critical for species to generate new, more resistant organisms if the species wishes to survive. So obviously, cloning will not be the new sex. If people were all identical, we would be way more vulnerable to disease and would run the risk of completely wiping out the human race. Sex can help keep us from dying out as a species when the next new disease comes out.
Mainly, this piece speaks of such benefits of sexual reproduction, opposing cloning. 'Twill do no good to have ye a population of identical individuals. 'Tis because sexual reproduction creates better adapt'd offspring, and in such a case with parasites, asexual reproduction wilt cause equal adaptations in both parasite and host. Thus, by and by, each generation is stronger and stronger, still in a stalemate with the other species in thy parasitic relationship. Thy species shalt survive most efficiently with sexual reproduction, since it hath created more genetic variation! Variation be the key to adapting more quickly among other evolving species, but 'twill not be present through thy cloning. All the more reason I encourage romance and sex--for it shall better keep thy species evolving!
Heartily farewell,
Shakespeare
__________________
It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.
Due to my strong belief in science, I agree with the concept of natural selection and evolution. The constant developing of all species has to occur to evade extinction. The only way for our species to evade extinction or near extinction is to reproduce sexually. Cloning will only disrupt natural selection and eventually drive our population to near extinction. The absurd idea of cloning will soon fade from public interests as a novelty because we are now looking farther into the repercussions of it. We are now taking our time to fully understand what effects cloning will have before we conduct any research in the cloning of humans, and that is what the advancement of science looks like. Science is not about creating novelties and fads, but understanding the world and making it a better place. Cloning should not be conducted on humans or any other organisms because of the negative effects it is expected to cause.
-- Edited by Albert Einstein on Thursday 24th of March 2016 10:17:32 AM
We need to stay resistant to diseases, otherwise we, as a species, may be wiped out. If we didn't change we'd be like them potatoes. If we did, we'd have to stop and try to catch up to the changing species of parasites. I can see some benefits from being similar, though. At least there'd be no segregation.
It is definitely very important to maintain genetic diversity, as explained by Marlene Zuk. And the way to created this variation is through sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is important to the inhabitants of Earth, as it decreases out susceptibility to disease. As a director I have had the privilege of making many science fiction movies. One such movie was a Jurassic Park movie, where a cloned dinosaur runs amok. I have actually contemplated the probability of this situation. Could this be the Earth in the future? Could humans be cloned? It is somewhat reassuring to know that nature has its reason for everything including reproduction. If humans were meant to be clones, then we would reproduce asexually. Sex will be as much of a necessity in the future as it is today, and will be sure and unchanged in the continuously advancing world.
__________________
" You shouldn't dream your film, you should make it !"
I do agree that sexual reproduction is important. Sexual reproduction creates genetic diversity. Organisms are Required to change along with the environments around them. Asexual reproduction creates an Identicle copy of the original. This creates no genetic diversity and does not allow a species to adapt. It is very important to have genetic diversity. I agree with Marlene Zuk that we need genetic diversity.
If it's not the way Allah intended it to be then it's not what is meant to be done. Cloning would simply be unethical. I mostly agree with this article but I believe that Allah created us and we are not subject to evolution.
The article states that people and animals have sex to prevent parasites from wiping them from the face of Earth. Natural selection is the key to adaptation because it ensures the survival of organisms by allowing the more resistant creatures in the species to simply create more offspring with helpful traits. As a population of animals is under attack by parasites and the vulnerable organisms from the species dies off without producing many offspring, the species will adapt to predominantly show more resistant traits after many generations and therefore survive. The problem with cloning is that it produces offspring with the exact same genetic material which allows no change to occur in the population. If every single organism of a species is defenseless because their is no genetic variation, then the organisms will be obliterated from their ecosystem.
I agree with the fact that sexual reproduction is important and cloning would simply be inefficient and make us vulnerable to disease and disorders. Sexual reproduction creates variety which ,as shown by the mouse example, allows us to pass on important traits and genes that allow survival. Cloning could be the end for entire species as it would prevent any variation. Furthermore, I do not believe that God intended us to have the power to create life from another organism by unnatural means.
-- Edited by John Ronald Reuel Tolkien on Thursday 24th of March 2016 05:20:29 PM
As a firm believer in Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection I have to agree the sexual reproduction is very important. With out sexual reproduction humans and many other species wouldn't be able to have genetic variation and without that we wouldn't be able to adapt to our environment if it hanged. Cloning is very inefficient for species like mammals, because of the long time it takes for us to bring in new life. It is a much more efficient procedure for organisms like bacteria who reproduce very quickly and get their variation from mutations.
The article does make sense and has a lot of good points. Natural selection allows for creatures with only the best abilities to survive and pass on the traits that would benefit a species. Because this method kills the weak and allows the strong to live and breed, the offspring are more able to adapt. Also, because sexual reproduction allows for genetic diversity, species can flourish and while the useless and unadapted die off the strong and able continue. And as cool as cloning would be, with uniform genetic codes, they would all be more susceptible to diseases and stuff and all die.
Asexual organisms are all identical, which makes them very susceptible to diseases. Sexual reproduction creates variation in organisms, so that offspring will obtain variations that help them fend off parasites and diseases. The potato famine in Ireland was a good example of this, cause it showed the consequences of asexual reproduction. The potatoes couldn't sexually reproduce, so it didn't have any variations to fight the fungus.
I agree with this article in the sense that sex is the most efficient form of reproduction and that it could never be replaced by cloning, or any type of asexual reproduction.
"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."
This quote from the article is what clarified to me how sexual reproduction will stay around since it can adapt to changing conditions, which increases survival, while asexual reproduction is too sensitive to parasites for it to replace sexual reproduction.
Overall, whatever is more effective to keep the human race going is what will continue to happen, and right now it seems that is sexual reproduction.
I agree that sexual reproduction is necessary for the survival in changing times. Sexual reproduction creates more genetic variation, which helps us be more adaptable if a certain disease or parasite comes along. In order for our species to survive, we need to be very careful and keep a watchful eye on cloning technology, so that is doesn't get out of hand and lead to the downfall of our species.
I agree that sexual reproduction is necessary for out survival in changing times. Sexual reproduction creates more genetic variation, which helps us be more adaptable if a certain disease or parasite comes along. In order for our species to survive, we need to be very careful and keep a watchful eye on cloning technology, so that it doesn't get out of hand and lead to the downfall of our species.
Cloning would not replace sex in the future. If humans reproduced asexually, there would be no genetic diversity. If there is no genetic diversity. Then the human race is more prone to diseases and extinction. Sexually reproducing will keep us alive.
-- Edited by Oprah Winfrey on Thursday 24th of March 2016 06:38:14 PM
I definitely agree that sexually reproduction is important for many species. Not only does it increase our chances or survival and our genetic diversity but it also allows new beneficial traits to be introduced and less beneficial traits to be 'booted out' of the species. While asexually reproduction is more efficient and can create a higher population, sexually reproduction looks better in the long run.
I, personally, do not believe in cloning. God made us the way he intended for us to be, and cloning is unethical. There is no clear consensus in Jewish law regarding cloning, mostly because human cloning hasn't happened yet.
Sexual reproduction is necessary for the human population to survive. If we were to reproduce asexually, parasites and diseases would wipe us out in a small matter of time. Organisms that use sex as a means to reproduce have a better chance of survival compared to asexual organisms because they can adapt to change easier. These organisms, like the article said, can create “an inexhaustible source of new gene combinations for both attacking and defending the body- a source that comes exclusively from sex.”
Sexual reproduction creates genetic diversity which helps our species stay resistant to disease and continue our species as a whole. If cloning became the new sex, homosapiens would be too vulnerable to disease and disorders. God did not create humans to reproduce asexually or in unethical ways. We must have variation within our species to allow for natural selection and adaptations. This way, we can stay resistant to disease and viruses that we have gained immunity to over time.
Well, I would like to say firstly that I haven’t the slightest clue what “cloning” is and this all seems very scandalous.
Second of all, I know how fatal some little disease can be. For example, 200 years ago, the Black Death wiped out multitudes of people. So, it is obviously important that life evolves into a healthier manner. I believe that this is common sense. For example, my own dear son, Edward VI was caught by the quartan fever, which was previously life-threatening. Yet, my dearest son survived this with only occasional illnesses and poor eyesight (I think this is because of my good influence, of course). So, it is obvious that this article is correct.
I would also like to question, who is Lewis Carroll, and what isThrough the Looking Glass? And what kind of witch is Marlene Zuk to know the secrets of this “genetics” and “chromosomes”?
__________________
Love thyself last: cherish those hearts that hate thee; Corruption wins not more than honesty.
I have to be honest in this situation, I am more of a computers and technology guy, but I'll try my best at this. Basically we need to continue to produce sexually because of natural selection and the unique differences and variations it causes. Because, if we get caught in a situation where something is attacking us, we need to be variances of each other so we can fight off the attacker (probably Microsoft). If I can remember properly from the 6 six months I attended Reed College, this would be an example of survival of the fittest, because the ones that can fight off the attackers will live on and become stronger and fight off the stronger attackers. But if we reproduce asexually, we will all be the same and we will not be able to get stronger and fight off the stronger attackers. We would basically all die out if we reproduced asexually.
I do not think that the cloning of humans is ethical nor right because I'm Christian and believe that God created us the way that we are and that we shouldn't try to change that, especially with the method that we would be doing it. He wanted us to reproduce sexually, and that is what we should do. Every one of us is born pure, and only God should determine those types of things. Anyways, although I don't usually talk about sex because it's just not a topic I like to talk about, I think that sexual reproduction is absolutely necessary for our survival. It allows our species and any sexually reproducing species to be genetically diverse with the rise of every new generation, who receive a new combination of genes that resulted from the mix of their two parents. This makes species more resistant to disease and more adapted to their environment around them. With the constant uprising of "stronger," for a lack of better words, generations of species to better adapt, biologists came up with the Red Queen Theory. If a species reproduces asexually, then when a disease comes, the whole species most likely would be wiped away just like that, like what happens when I shake off my haters and like what happened with the potato famine. Overall, I absolutely agree with evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk that the future of sex will probably not be cloning, for that would make our species vulnerable to new diseases. I also agree with her that sex in the future will be no different than sex in the past because of our need to survive and, in my belief, God.
Myself, being Dr. Suess, it may be pretty obvious that I am not a huge science person. What little backround knowledge I had on this topic, and the bases of my religion, I can quickly state that God made us the way he wanted us to be, and that makes us all perfect in my eyes. Cloning is neither correct, or ethical. Being mature, I do believe that sexual reproduction is a very key feature for keeping our species alive. Without it, we could not adapt to our forever changing environment, we could not protect ourselves from disease, and there is more diversity in our beautiful world.
Sexual reproduction is key for our life. If we reproduce asexually then there would be just men walking around and most likely no women because us women are just don't have even the same opportunity as men. Me myself don't really know if there is a god I don't discredit him or worship him so I don't know how he see things like this if he is real. But for us as a human race not to have disease it is good for sexual reproduction unfortunately.
I agree with Marlene Zuk. Cloning is not where the future of reproduction is going. We have already seen what cloning does and how harmful it can be. It can cause diseases and muatations to the human race. If we didn't reproduce sexually we would have no genetic diversity in this world. Everyone would look the same, talk the same, and have the same genetic make up. The world would be a very boring place if we didn't reproduce sexually.
I disagree with this article, I don't think that we would have to thank parasites and diseases for different genders. Rather, I think that we reincarnated into different genders.
I believe that cloning is unethical and God created us. God has pride his creations and would not like them to be experimented on.
The article above states that sexual reproduction is the key to human existence. The never ending cycle that affects both humans and the parasites will come to an end if cloning is the new way for humans to reproduce. Asexual reproduction creates genetically identical organisms. Therefore if a parasite exists, the human race is prone to get wiped out due to no genetic diversity. Sexual reproduction provides this genetic diversity that the unethical asexual reproduction doesn't. Ultimately, I agree with Marlene Zuk for I am a child of God and I believe there is no other means of reproduction for humans besides sexual.
Since I am a Christian, I do not believe cloning is ethical. Human beings are created in the image of God and, therefore, are unique and we are perfect to him. Cloning is not following the basis of these principals because human life is something to be valued and not treated like a commodity to be bought and sold. Sexual reproduction creates genetic diversity and without it the human race would have died out very quickly after it's creation. With sexual reproduction, it ensures that every offspring that is born will receive a genetic mix of both parents. This helps our species survive if there is a disease that uses natural selection.
Sexual reproduction has kept our species in continual change for better survival and has prevented us from becoming extinct. If asexual reproduction was our only way to reproduce there would be a great loss of genetic diversity and would make us all vulnerable to disease. This technique has helped us to change for the better and will continue to lead us down new paths of genetic diversity.
I do agree that cloning will never replace sexual reproduction, but I do think however, that the idea of cloning is very interesting and would make for a great film. There are other things that cloning can be used for and could help us to grow in the scientific world. As I have said before, “We keep moving forward, opening new doors and doing new things, because we’re curious, and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.”
To my ever-faithful servants aboard the HMS Regal, The first struggle I had with this article is understanding what 'cloning' was. I had to search up many different web pages to grasp that science has come this far, far enough to make identical copies of organisms! All in all, I feel that cloning humans is going to far. We need the genetic diversity- a term I discovered in my studying. Without it, the human race is destined to die. I also feel very strongly about cloning in humans. It is unethical. Humans are not animals; we are above them. In my studying, I encountered techniques of cloning and was shocked at the success rate. Why risk that many human lives just to make an identical copy of a person who may not share any of the personality traits of the person cloned? It does not make sense to me. Everything was simpler back in the days of the Mongol Empire. Truly and Sincerely, The Universal Ruler, Genghis Khan
__________________
"I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." -Genghis Khan
Althought I agree with the idea that sex is crucial to genetic diversity, it is a very sensitive topic. Sex is a very closed topic in the time I live in, and it is not proper to dicuss sex with others, unless you're married. I dont think cloning could be the future because it has never been done and it is very unethical. I don't believe that is how life is supposed to be created. Life is supposed to be created through natural means. Sex is also better for our survival, because genetic diversity is the key yo out survival.
__________________
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy."
I wholeheartedly, or what's left of my heart, agree with this piece of literature due to the benefits of sexual reproduction. This idea of cloning will fall into an abyss due to the sequential and robotic nature of this act as it decreases genetic diversity and increases the harm towards the species. This is like if you lead a rebellion only with the minds of the same kind as they will fail due to the narrow-minded perspective that they have towards attack. This quantifies my last statement as it correlates directly to the subject of this text. I conclude my summary with a statement that supports sexual reproduction rather than cloning.
