Monday, April 9, 2012
Argument- Gene Correlation
Shenk mentions that genes don't directly code for a trait, and that they only increase or decrease the chances of trait expression (107). This is a little different from what we learned in Mendelian genetics when we calculated the genotype which led to a particular phenotype. We learned that genes are the blueprints to life, which Shenk rejects vehemently. Explore the impact of this interaction of gene from climate in specific examples that might be common to us. For example take height in gymnasts who TEND to be shorter than average, what factors might be triggering this trend? What sort of interactions with the genes do activities related to gymnastic training have on height? Why is it that most people who play a musical instrument TEND to be better in school, what factors are possibly triggering the interaction for the genes to be expressing higher levels of brain activity?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The reason why Shenk mentions that genes don’t directly code for traits is because is never one gene that codes for one trait. He explains that there isn’t one gene for blue eyes, or one for red hair, or intelligence, etc. The traits are determined by “which genes do get switched on, and when, and how often, and in what order” (Shenk 32). The environment triggers which genes get switched on and when they get switched on. Therefore, the environmental triggers are the ones that mainly control the traits that are expressed. Also even though we are able to predict the genotypes of the flowers in the Mendelian genetics, there isn’t a one hundred percent guarantee that our predictions are spot on, they are just estimates. An environmental stimuli, such as a chemical in the water the plant is being fed could easily trigger the plant to change colors before it blooms. Even when we make pedigrees to predict the possible genotypes of individuals, we can only “deduce possible genotypes” that are usually “statistical probabilities rather than certainties” (Campbell 283). Therefore, we can calculate all we want, but no matter how correct our math is, there is not guarantee we are right because we cannot fully control the environmental triggers. Our predictions are merely an accurate estimate.
ReplyDeleteGymnasts typically are shorter than average due to their high intensity of training. Since they start training at a younger age, most of the nutrition that they are taking in goes to muscle development due to the high stress on the muscle tissue to conduct the intense work outs. The level of physical activity that gymnasts have to perform daily stunts their growth because of the high amount of physical pressure put on their bodies. Later on, it is the skeletal tissue that lacks nutrition because all of the nutrients are use up by the muscle. The bony growth plate damage that occurs due to this stress on their bodies stunts their growth as children and then never lets the gymnast catch up later in life (http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/female-gymnasts-injury.html). This causes delayed bone age also. Since the training is started before puberty and usually lasts until late teens, gymnasts usually miss their growth spurt because of their muscle build up. Surprisingly, with all the muscle mass, gymnasts are not considered overweight compared to their height. However, they do have severe skeletal malnutrition (http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20040825/why-many-elite-gymnasts-are-short). Therefore the environmental stimuli (these intense and demanding work outs that the gymnasts must suffer through) affects gene expression into building more muscle tissue while depriving the skeletal tissue. Going back to Shenk’s theory that we can improve ourselves if the environment demands it from us. Furthermore, it is a selective advantage for gymnasts to be shorter. Since they must be able to have lots of muscle mass to flip through the air and hold themselves up on bars the lighter and tinier they are the less energy it takes to flip or lift themselves up. Also, the shortness helps them to flip faster and more. That is why most Olympic gymnasts are barely five feet tall yet have almost no body fat. That is also why the gymnasts that we are accustomed to seeing are all short because they are the best since they have the selective advantage of being short to conduct the tricks they must do for competition.
It is scientifically proven that music sharpens the mind and can help one become more intelligent by improving memory skills in the brain. Higher IQ and increased verbal skills are all effects of being an active musician (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/music-intelligence_n_904124.html). Every musician gets to a certain stage where they must play or interact with classical music. Music such as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are very complex and are able to trigger the opening of different pathways between neuron cells within the brain. These opened pathways could create more connections between neurons generating the increase in chance for neurotransmitters to distribute information between the neurons (http://www.educationoasis.com/resources/Articles/building_babys_brain.htm). The more connections between the neurons the improved spatial skills developing a more intelligent person. These opened pathways can contribute to greater problem solving skills. Also, when one is listening to music there is a high level of brain activity going on (http://www.parentingscience.com/music-and-intelligence.html). There is an increased brain activity because listening to music triggers lots of production of serotonin which is a neurotransmitter that helps to chemically transfer information between neurons (http://www.classicalforums.com/articles/Music_Brain.html). The music would be the environmental trigger that stimulates the change in gene expression to produce the hormone to increase brain activity which helps develop spatial and problem-solving skills that ultimately make people smarter.
ReplyDelete