Rainforest Deforestation

Reading through the facts on the provided link, I was surprised about how much of it I did not know. It says that "Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation'". Every single day? That is astonishing. It seems unreal to me and hard to imagine, and totally awful! It makes me wonder why some of the facts aren't more commonly known, or if maybe they are an I'm just totally oblivious for some reason. I would think that if people knew even just a few of these facts regarding the rainforest, they may think twice about what is happening. But then again, I think there are many who don't care, or just don't want to know so then they cannot be blamed for not caring.

Here are a few of the facts that I found most interesting (I took these straight from the site provided):

-There were an estimated ten million Indians living in the Amazonian Rainforest five centuries ago. Today there are less than 200,000.

-Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. That equates to 50,000 species a year. As the rainforest species disappear, so do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. Currently, 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. While 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less that 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists.

-At least 3000 fruits are found in the rainforests; of these only 200 are now in use in the Western World. The Indians of the rainforest use over 2,000.

-Experts agree that by leaving the rainforests intact and harvesting it's many nuts, fruits, oil-producing plants, and medicinal plants, the rainforest has more economic value than if they were cut down to make grazing land for cattle or for timber.

-The latest statistics show that rainforest land converted to cattle operations yields the land owner $60 per acre and if timber is harvested, the land is worth $400 per acre. However, if these renewable and sustainable resources are harvested, the land will yield the land owner $2,400 per acre.

Evolution

A theory is an idea that is widely accepted and supported by a good amount of evidence. So, with this in mind, the words 'just a' don't really fit before the word 'theory'. The phrase 'evolution is just a theory' makes the concept of evolution sound like it is something that does not have a lot of evidence supporting it. It makes it sound like it is just an idea that someone came up with without a lot of research, when in fact there IS a lot of evidence to support the idea of evolution.

There are probably a few different reasons that people take offense to evolutionary concepts. When people hear the word evolution, they may just think of humans coming from monkeys and not liking the sound of that. Others may not like it because they feel it conflicts with their religious beliefs. I personally feel that the theory of evolution itself is just an explanation of the world. It seems like there are a lot of people who see it as one or the other, evolution or religion. Personally, I think you can have both. The people who look at evolution as 'just a theory' probably have not taken the time to learn about it. They may feel intimidated by it, thinking that it may prove their beliefs wrong. But, I think if everyone took the time to learn about it, rather than brushing it off, they would see how it can fit in with whatever they believe. Choosing to acknowledge evolution doesn't necessarily mean giving up your religious beliefs!

Genetics

I haven't had any problems with the homework so far. It sure takes some thinking when the squares become more complex, but I find it really interesting.

Genetic Testing

To begin, I had no idea that the technology to select eye color, height, etc. was possible! I think that is unbelievable and quite amazing, but I would not use it. To me, it is not important to have a certain eye color, or to make sure I have a son or a daughter. Personally, even if I had a choice, I would just let nature do it's thing and not mess with it. I am not really sure if I would use the technology to see if my child had a particular disease. I don't think that I would, but that could always change once I am pregnant/thinking about having children.

Photosynthesis

Photosynthesis gives the world the energy that animals and humans depend on. We as humans are VERY dependent upon plants. Without them, what would we eat? What would our homes and clothing and other items be made out of? How would we get the oxygen we need to breath? It all goes back to plants and photosynthesis. Without plants, we would not be in existence. There are many negative consequences of deforestation in the northern hemisphere. Since we are so dependent on what plants and trees provide for us, we obviously could bot survive without them. The less plants there are on the earth, the less energy we are receiving from them. Also, cutting down trees leaves many animals without homes. Even if we do not see how the existence of certain animals effect our lives, I do believe that one species of animals going extinct has a bigger impact than we may think.

Pseudoscience

When I think of pseudoscience I automatically picture all of the weight loss drug adds on TV. I have been told by people that I actually know that some of these drugs have worked for them. I still believe that they fall in the pseudoscience category because, even if a person looses weight while taking them, I do not believe that they are working the way that they say that they are working. They just don't seem realistic. Plus, the fact that I have never heard of someones doctor prescribing or recommending any of these to any overweight person that I know, leads me to believe that they are not what they say they are. I've heard that plenty of doctors recommend diet and exercise, but I have never heard of a doctor telling an overweight patient to 'go buy some of those weight loss drugs you see on TV'.

I can't think of an example of something that I am not sure is pseudoscience or not. There are a lot of interesting scientific 'facts' that I've heard (and probably passed a long) and later wondered if they were true or not. Of course, I can't think of any at this time :) But, if they were said to me, then I pass them along in conversation, then that person says it to another and so on, I can see how little science 'rumors' or pseudoscience could lead people astray. It seems like this happens often with nutrition. Fad diets are a good example. One week doing diet 'A' is the best thing and next week it's diet 'B' that is actually the right one for you. I can see how it would be hard for a person to determine what is actually right when the media is bombarding them with so much information.

**EDIT**

I thought of something that I am not sure is real or not. Wrinkle cream. Though, I cannot decide if I really am not sure, or if deep inside I don't believe the commercials I see but am just holding out hope that something like wrinkle cream could really work. I think it is probably the latter of the two......

Living Things

There are many reasons why I know that I am alive. From last week's lesson we learned that order, regulation, growth and development, energy usage, response to environment, reproduction and evolution are all properties of life. Before knowing this definition, I would have still recognized some of these properties as being reasons I know that I am living. To me, growth and development is the most obvious one. I know that I did not start out the way that I am today. Over time I grew from a baby to an adult as well as developed mentally. I also think that reproduction is a clear sign of humans being alive. I do not have any children, but I know that I am human and know that humans reproduce. This tells me that humans are living. Self awareness is also something that lets me know that I am living. Though this is a sign that I am living, I do not think that is should be added to the scientific definition of a living thing.

I cannot say whether or not the scientific definition of life is complete. I cannot think of anything that I would add to the definition, but at the same time I wouldn't want to say that it is 100% complete.