Bio 103, Week 9, Macromolecules and Improbability/Energy

Okay, here's the crazy water wheel thing as I understood it:

1) It's an improbable assembly because while a wheel is a somewhat predictable shape, a wheel with a bucket attacked to it is not predictable. Throwing those ingredients together would be unlikely to yield the same result.

2) Once the water starts flowing, the wheel is moving downwards, because of gravity/the water pushing it. It's doing something we'd predict it to do, so it's now more probable.

3) BUT! That bucket is still on there. If the bucket is attached to the wheel, it's going to move as the wheel does. And if the bucket is on the bottom of the wheel (which it is), when the water pushes the wheel it makes the bucket move upwards, which is NOT something we would expect to happen. A bucket moving upwards, instead of the predictable and usual direction of downwards, makes it improbable.

Therefore, the wheel is moving down (probable), and the bucket is moving up (improbable), so both an improbable and probable assembly is happening at once.

Please comment if that is incorrect.

I knew that energy was transformed but not transferred but it was interesting to hear the story that there is no such thinkg as energy independent from matter and that energy is just a way of describing the organization of matter. I found this to be really interesting because I never really realized it before.

I found it cool how we were able to answer the age old question 'if a tree falls and no one is around to hear, does it still make a sound" just by realizing that certain molecules, in this case soundwaves, are not effective unless they interact with other molecules, i.e. the ear. From this I learned that vibrations turns into sound only when it hits the ear, which is an interesting thing to think about.

At first, i was confused but now i think that it make sense.  The class seems to be moving back to some of the things that Im familiar to hearing about in high school such as energy being trasnferred and kinetic energy.  It even make sense that we have to eat these macrolecules in order to gain energy.  Everything was making sense until we got to the waterwheel analogy.  I thought that I knew what "propable" and "impropable meant and now I'm starting to think that I never really understod what it meant.

I also think that it's very cool how we learn about macromolecules and their fuctions and use that to help us better understand life and how it works.  Normally, all this tal about periodic tables and molecules would bore me, but now Im starting to appreciate these things and how they work. 

On Friday, when we initially started talking about us as macromolecules eating macromolecules. It almost sounded like the same reasoning a vegetarian may have for not eating animals and/or animal products. In sense we are eating the same building blocks of life in everything that we eat, whether they are plants or animals. We may break them down into smaller molecules to produce the energy necessary to survive.

Now the waterwheel example, I'm still a little confuse about it. I don't think I understand the connection between the waterwheel and the breakdown diagram of the macromolecules.

The discussion about randomness and ordering was very interesting because I like to think about myself as one of those who didn't necessarily believe people had a certain "unpleasantness" in order to be punished and cause suffering but the whole "luck of the draw" concept didn't make too much sense to me so it seemed like a more likely reason whic I chose to accept. But then I began to understand that and i don't feel that knowing about genes gets rid of meaning. The science behind it serves as an explanation but may not be the only reason for that certain "unpleassantness" depending on the background of that person. They should and may still believe that there some bigger meaning to their suffering.

Our discussion progressed making a lot of sense to me but then the water wheel topic came up and the shift and change of water from being probable to becoming more and more improbable as it was going on the water wheel. At first I thought I understood what exactly was being explained but once it was explained over and over i got more confused. Whether water can become more probable or improbable while being in the same state not frozen or anything and only from movement confuses me and I don't see how that can be possibe.

I would like to throw a question out to everybody…

What if we are able to reach a level of science that we can safely identify the different characteristics of the genes and are also able to alter individuals like the movie GATTACA? Where should the line be drawn between science and morality?

I guess the answer is fairly easy when it comes to finding your special person like one of the posters mentioned (although some will disagree) but what if it is directly related to our safety and well being?

What if in the future, ( hypothetically) we are able to identify and even possibly transform genes that causes someone to be violent and susceptible to extremist ideas.

In such a case, should we use science as a tool to identify the ones with such genes?  

Personally I am a bit torn between the two sides. While one side of me says this is infringing upon humanity while the other side of me is saying that by neglecting to do so would be ignoring the rights of other individuals to pursuit his or her happiness. (I guess its similar to the debate of stem cell research)

What do you guys think?

 Oh and today’s conversation about how energy is not a separate entity and therefore cannot be transferred was very interesting… Until know, I thought energy could be transferred like sound wave being transferred through air molecules..  

Andy

I listened to the radio discussion about genetic testing. The mentions about genetic discrimination and "biology not being destiny" struck me as interesting concepts.

First off, having watch GATTACA several times in science classes throughout high school, I find the idea of genetic discrimination to be terrifying. It isn't fair to judge someone based on their DNA. No one's perfect. And no one should be. Employers shouldn't gain access to someone's genetic map with the intent of refusing employment if they test positive for certain genes. ...At the same time, employers would want to know if their employees have a high chance of developing some kind of behavioral disorder, right? Especially if it came down to safety? (i.e. someone with access to dangerous substances, like nuclear or biological weapons).  

What about relationships? Certainly, one should be judged based on their actions, not on their DNA are, but if a prospective mate has Huntington's Disease... would one still reproduce with the knowledge that the offspring will encounter the disease later in life?

It's confusing. I know genetic discrimination is wrong, and I don't think I really agree with genetic testing in the first place, but isn't it fair to your spouse if you let them know that your prospective offspring have an 85% chance of developing breast cancer?

No one's perfect, and no one should be perfect. The idea that someday parents might be poking around their child's genome to make them "better" makes me rather ill. Not only does it give some people (those with the means to mess around with genomes) unfair advantage over others, but we're still not entirely certain what genes code for. A lot of genes influence several traits. Going in and changing things simply to make a child "better" is probably not such a good idea.

...but should parents be able to erase genetic disease from their children's genomes? Would they be "better" parents for doing so? Wouldn't it make their children's lives better?...

And "Biology is not destiny." Knowing the randomness of life, there's always a chance, however small, that the genetic disease or disorder isn't going to be expressed. Nothing is set in stone. As I stated earlier, I don't really agree with genetic testing. Is knowing really going to change anything? In some cases, I think knowing makes things worse. Instead of living life normally, one would be anxious and paranoid about each new day. Is that a new bump? Did I have that rash yesterday? Do my hands always shake like that?

Is having a reason for your disease or disorder going to change how you deal with it? Is blaming it on your genes, on your parents, going to make the disease any better?

...I don't think so. Regardless of any reason, isn't it best just to live your life as best you can?