Animals!!

Alright. I read the assignment and immediately thought of the fish with the light that dangles over it's head in the movie Finding Nemo. It's official name is a deep sea anglerfish. It is quite possibly the ugliest animal on the planet, and it lives in what is easily Earth's most inhospitable habitat: the lonely, lightless bottom of the sea. There are more than 200 species of anglerfish, most of which live in the murky depths of the Atlantic and Antarctic oceans, up to a mile below the surface, although some live in shallow, tropical environments. Generally dark gray to dark brown in color, they have huge heads and enormous crescent-shaped mouths filled with sharp, translucent teeth. Their most distinctive feature, worn only by females, is a piece of dorsal spine that protrudes above their mouths like a fishing pole. Tipped with a lure of luminous flesh this built-in rod baits prey close enough to be snatched. Their mouths are so big and their bodies so pliable, they can actually swallow prey up to twice their own size. The male has no need for such an adaptation, it has evolved into a permanent parasitic mate. When a young, free-swimming male angler encounters a female, he latches onto her with his sharp teeth. Over time, the male physically fuses with the female, connecting to her skin and bloodstream and losing his eyes and all his internal organs except the testes. A female will carry six or more males on her body. It's scientific name is Linophryne arborifera which literally means "toad that fishes with a net". Therefore it is of the family Linophryne.

Antibiotic Resistance

I think it is important that antibiotic use in animal factories is in fact regulated. I actually attempted to look up and research why antibiotic use in animal farms should not be regulated and could not find anything. What I found instead was a facebook page (I know) but it had useful information that is quite recent (February of 2010). The current regulation that is in place is through the FDA or the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA regulates drugs, including antibiotics administered to animals that produce food. The FDA has extensive guidelines about how antibiotics must be used to ensure safety for both people and animals. All antibiotics used to keep animals healthy have been evaluated through a rigorous approval process, have been shown to be safe and effective and have been reviewed for their potential to cause increased antibiotic resistance. Consumers can be confident that this process ensures the safest meat in the world ends up on America’s dinner tables. Yes this sounds too good to be true and maybe it is because the information is coming from an animal farm, but if it is in fact true, then I don't see anything wrong with the legislation that is in place.
I would agree that the use of antibiotics should continue to be regulated and consumers have the right to know whether the product they are buying has been exposed to antibiotics. I don't feel, however, that the use of antibiotics in animal farms needs to be stopped. If it is true that in fact cooking kills all antibiotic resistant microorganisms, than I feel that it is the consumers responsibility and that point and the the providers. So should antibiotic use in animal farms be regulated? Yes. Do consumers have the right to know what their meat has been exposed to? Absolutely. Is the current legislation that is in place through the FDA currently enough? I think so yes. If antibiotic resistant bacteria is eliminated when cooked properly are we safe? We should be yes.

Pet Cloning

I would never clone a pet!! I love my pets to death but do not understand why something like this is necessary. I think the price people pay is utterly ridiculous and I do not believe that the cloned pet can be the exact same as the pet that died. A pet's personality is developed through more than just its genes. Socialization plays a big role, just as it does in humans. I think by accepting cloning we are ultimately accepting changing nature. There is a circle of life for each and every living organism and I do not believe we should alter or change that cycle. I do think the scientific advancement to be able to clone organisms is amazing and something to be proud of, but that does not mean I think it is something that should become a part of everyday life. Cloning would have the possibility of altering the perception of death by making people believe they can just 'make another one'. Death is a way of life and society needs to accept and face that fact. Going back to specifically cloning pets, the interaction between owner and pet is what is important, not the coat color, size, or even personality. People need to cherish the time they have with an animal because the interaction will be different if everyone thinks they can simply have another.

Genetic Problems

Okay... so I have slowly been plugging away at these questions. I've looked at the questions and answers, (or hints), that others have posted which has actually helped me a lot. However, one I cannot seem to fiure out is number 6. I'm pretty sure I am over thinking it, but I also could be going about it completly wrong! I get frustrated with so many componets and my thinking shuts down. So if anyone has any helpful hints concerning problem number 6 I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you very much ahead of time!

Anaerobic Respiration

Humans could not function using just anaerobic cellular respiration but there are times when our body relies on anaerobic cellular respiration to function. Our body switches to using anaerobic cellular respiration when your muscles expend ATP at a rate faster than your bloodstream’s delivery of oxygen from your lungs to your muscles. However, the process of fermentation relies on glycolysis without oxygen but only produces two ATP molecules for each glucose molecule broken down. Our body is much for efficient when our cells are using cellular respiration to gather food energy.
Warm-blooded creatures, like mammals and birds, try to keep the inside of their bodies at a constant temperature. They do this by generating their own heat when they are in a cooler environment, and by cooling themselves when they are in a hotter environment. To generate heat, warm-blooded animals convert the food that they eat into energy. They have to eat a lot of food, compared with cold-blooded animals, to maintain a constant body temperature. Only a small amount of the food that a warm-blooded animal eats is converted into body mass. The rest is used to fuel a constant body temperature. Cold-blooded creatures take on the temperature of their surroundings. They are hot when their environment is hot and cold when their environment is cold. In hot environments, cold-blooded animals can have blood that is much warmer than warm-blooded animals. Cold-blooded animals are much more active in warm environments and are very sluggish in cold environments. This is because their muscle activity depends on chemical reactions which run quickly when it is hot and slowly when it is cold. A cold-blooded animal can convert much more of its food into body mass compared with a warm-blooded animal.

Energy Crisis

The statement "if energy cannot be created or destroyed, how is there an energy crisis?" seems logical. However this is true in the context of Physics. When the energy crisis is being discussed, energy's resources are being considered not energy itself. Also, although it is true that energy cannot be destroyed, it is true that energy can be changed into a somewhat useless form. When energy converts and results in movement that is good. When energy converts with friction and results in sound and heat energy that is somewhat useless considering the "energy crisis". There seem to be a lot of possibilities for reusing energy but energy bi-products are currently not being collected efficiently. For a somewhat far out example consider perspiration. We eat for energy. If we use the energy running (kinetic energy) our body temperature increases (thermal energy) and we perspire to cool ourselves off. Some moisture evaporates, some is absorbed into our clothes, and some drips off the body. We could potentially collect our perspiration and use it to provide energy for something else couldn't we? Sure. We would have to use a lot of thought and modification, but it could be done. This may be a stretch but the point is that humans are not efficient at harnessing waste energy.

I looked at a package of Orville Redenbacher's Smart Pop! 94% Fat Free Butter Popcorn. There are four chemicals and six natural ingredients. Consumers are concerned with trans fat levels in their foods because trans fat intake has been connected to heart disease, diabetes, cancer, low birth weight, obesity, and immune dysfunction. Food companies should be required to label trans fat levels simply because consumers have the right to know exactly what they are eating. However further study is needed to differentiate between saturate fat and trans fatty acid. The website I found this information on (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/Transfat.htm#How%20may%20the%20consumption%20of%20trans%20fat%20effect%20my) also states that trans fat in moderation is not thought to cause problems. It is reasoned at this time that excessive intake of trans fat will disrupt health. The popcorn I looked does not contain any trans fat! I am not that concerned with eating healthy. I mean that in a way that I do not constantly think about it and drastically change my eating habits. I eat what I want to when I'm hungry. However I don't think I have bad eating habits considering. I rarely eat out, and would rather have a piece of fruit for a snack than a handful of chips. I'm not saying I don't eat candy, chips, ice cream, and everything else "bad" because I certainly do, but I don't eat them in excess. I also have a very rigorous work out schedule being a dancer and busy lifestyle in general so I am okay at this point in my life eating what I eat. If I ever change my lifestyle and work out I will have to change my eating habits but I don't plan on doing so until then!