Research paper

A Comparison Between the Genetically

Modified Organisms and the Theory of
Evolution Over Time
Toka Mohamed El_Sayed Radwan
(Maadi STEM School for
Girls )
1. genetically modified organism (GMO)
Abstract
A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant, or microbe whose
DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. For thousands of
years, humans have used breeding methods to modify organisms. Corn, cattle, and
even dogs have been selectively bred over generations to have certain desired
traits. Within the last few decades, however, modern advances in biotechnology
have allowed scientists to directly modify the DNA of microorganisms, crops, and
animals. Conventional methods of modifying plants and animals—selective
breeding and crossbreeding—can take a long time. Moreover, selective breeding
and crossbreeding often produce mixed results, with unwanted traits appearing
alongside desired characteristics. The specific targeted modification of DNA using
biotechnology has allowed scientists to avoid this problem and improve the genetic
makeup of an organism without unwanted characteristics tagging along. Most
animals that are GMOs are produced for use in laboratory research. These
animals are used as “models” to study the function of specific genes and, typically,
how the genes relate to health and disease. Some GMO animals, however, are
produced for human consumption. Salmon, for example, has been genetically
engineered to mature faster, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated
that these fish are safe to eat. MOs are perhaps most visible in the produce section.
The first genetically engineered plants to be produced for human consumption
were introduced in the mid-1990s. Today, approximately 90 percent of the corn,
soybeans, and sugar beets on the market are GMOs. Genetically engineered crops
produce higher yields, have a longer shelf life, are resistant to diseases and pests,
and even taste better. These benefits are a plus for both farmers and consumers.
For example, higher yields and longer shelf life may lead to lower prices for
consumers, and pest-resistant crops means that farmers don’t need to buy and use
as many pesticides to grow quality crops. GMO crops can thus be kinder to the
environment than conventionally grown crops. Genetically modified foods do
cause controversy, however. Genetic engineering typically changes an organism in
a way

that would not occur naturally. It is even common for scientists to insert genes into
an organism from an entirely different organism. This raises the possible risk of
unexpected allergic reactions to some GMO foods. Other concerns include the
possibility of the genetically engineered foreign DNA spreading to non-GMO
plants and animals. So far, none of the GMOs approved for consumption have
caused any of these problems, and GMO food sources are subject to regulations
and rigorous safety assessments. In the future, GMOs are likely to continue playing
an important role in biomedical research. GMO foods may provide better nutrition
and perhaps even be engineered to contain medicinal compounds to enhance
human health. If GMOs can be shown to be both safe and healthful, consumer
resistance to these products will most likely diminish.

Introduction
Organisms with changes introduced in DNA are Genetically modified organisms. It
is the best way of producing desired organisms. Genetically Modified food is
mostly antibiotic resistant, nutritionally enhanced, herbicide resistant and disease
resistant. In 1990’s first GM

Benefits of GM Food. Food was produced. Celgene was the scientist who
produced first GM tomato and named it ‘Farar.’ Flavor Savr has a gene to delay
softening of fruit. In the beginning it was available only in the Europe and the
America. But now we can get GM tomatoes from anywhere across the world.
Currently, rice, wheat, corn, cotton, canola and soy beans are produced. Golden
rice are GM they have high content of vitamin A and iron. GM wheat has high
level of zinc and iron. GM bananas produce a vaccine, which is helpful in treating
hepatitis B. In this research paper I will talk about the benefits and different ways
by which GM products are produced. Their advantages in different areas of life.
The thesis statement is ‘ GM food do not have harmful effects on human health.’
The methodology I used is survey and interviews for this research.
 Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals,
and Microorganisms
Plants genetic modifications
 Simple Selection
The easiest method of plant genetic modification (see Operational
Definitions in Chapter 1), used by our nomadic ancestors and
continuing today, is simple selection. That is, a genetically
heterogeneous population of plants is inspected, and “superior”
individuals—plants with the most desired traits, such as improved
palatability and yield—are selected for continued propagation. The
others are eaten or discarded. The seeds from the superior plants are
sown to produce a new generation of plants, all or most of which will
carry and express the desired traits. Over a period of several years,
these plants or their seeds are saved and replanted, which increases
the population of superior plants and shifts the genetic population so
that it is dominated by the superior genotype. This very old method of
breeding has been enhanced with modern technology.
An example of modern methods of simple selection is marker-
assisted selection, which uses molecular analysis to detect plants
likely to express desired features, such as disease resistance to one or
more specific pathogens in a population. Successfully applying
marker-assisted selection allows a faster, more efficient mechanism
for identifying candidate individuals that may have “superior traits.”
Superior traits are those considered beneficial to humans, as well as
to domesticated animals that consume a plant-based diet; they are
not necessarily beneficial to the plant in an ecological or evolutionary
context. Often traits considered beneficial to breeders are detrimental
to the plant from the standpoint of environmental fitness. For
example, the reduction of unpalatable chemicals in a plant makes it
more appealing to human consumers but may also attract more
feeding by insects and other pests, making it less likely to survive in
an unmanaged environment. As a result, cultivated crop varieties
rarely establish populations in the wild when they escape from the
 farm. Conversely, some traits that enhance a plant's resistance to
disease may also be harmful to humans.
 Crossing
Crossing occurs when a plant breeder takes pollen from one plant and
brushes it onto the pistil of a sexually compatible plant, producing a
hybrid that carries genes from both parents. When the hybrid
progeny reaches flowering maturity, it also may be used as a parent.
Plant breeders usually want to combine the useful features of two
plants. For example, they might add a disease-resistance gene from
one plant to another that is high-yielding but disease-susceptible,
while leaving behind any undesirable genetic traits of the disease-
resistant plant, such as poor fertility and seed yield, susceptibility to
insects or other diseases, or the production of antinutritional
metabolites.
Because of the random nature of recombining genes and traits in
crossed plants, breeders usually have to make hundreds or thousands
of hybrid progeny to create and identify those few that possess useful
features with a minimum of undesirable features. For example, the
majority of progeny may show the desired disease resistance, but
unwanted genetic features of the disease-resistant parent may also be
present in some. Crossing is still the mainstay of modern plant
breeding, but many other techniques have been added to the
breeders' tool kit.
 Interspecies Crossing
Interspecies crossing can take place through various means. Closely
related species, such as cultivated oat (Avena sativa) and its weedy
relative wild oat (Avena fatua), may cross-pollinate for exchange of
genetic information, although this is not generally the case. Genes
from one species also can naturally integrate into the genomes of
more distant relatives under certain conditions. Some food plants can
carry genes that originate in different species, transferred both by
nature and by human intervention. For example, common wheat
varieties carry genes from rye. A common potato, Solanum
tuberosum, can cross with relatives of other species, such as S.
 aciculae (Kosuke et al., 1999) or S. chaconnes (Sanford et al., 1998;
Zimnoch-Guzowska et al., 2000).
Chromosome engineering is the term given to nonrecombinant
deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) cytogenetic manipulations, in which
portions of chromosomes from near or distant species are
recombined through a natural process called chromosomal
translocation. Sears (1956, 1981) pioneered the human exploitation of
this process, which proved valuable for transferring traits that were
otherwise unattainable, such as pest or disease resistance, into crop
species. However, because transferring large segments of
chromosomes also transferred a number of neutral or detrimental
genes, the utility of this technique was limited.
Recent refinements allow plant breeders to restrict the transferred
genetic material, focusing more on the gene of interest (Lukaszewski,
2004). As a result, chromosome engineering is becoming more
competitive with rDNA technology in its ability to transfer relatively
small pieces of DNA. Several crop species, such as corn, soybean, rice,
barley, and potato, have been improved using chromosome
engineering (Gupta and Tsuchiya, 1991).
 Embryo Rescue
Sometimes human technical intervention is required to complete an
interspecies gene transfer. Some plants will cross-pollinate and the
resulting fertilized hybrid embryo develops but is unable to mature
and sprout. Modern plant breeders work around this problem by
pollinating naturally and then removing the plant embryo before it
stops growing, placing it in a tissue-culture environment where it can
complete its development. Such embryo rescue is not considered
genetic engineering, and it is not commonly used to derive new
varieties directly, but it is used instead as an intermediary step in
transferring genes from distant, sexually incompatible relatives
through intermediate, partially compatible relatives of both the donor
and recipient species.
 Somatic Hybridization
Recent advances in tissue-culture technologies have provided new
opportunities for recombining genes from different plant sources. In
 somatic hybridization, a process also known as cell fusion, cells
growing in a culture medium are stripped of their protective walls,
usually using pectinase, cellulase, and hemicellulase enzymes. These
stripped cells, called protoplasts, are pooled from different sources
and, through the use of varied techniques such as electrical shock, are
fused with one another.
When two protoplasts fuse, the resulting somatic hybrid contains the
genetic material from both plant sources. This method overcomes
physical barriers to pollen-based hybridization, but not basic
chromosomal incompatibilities. If the somatic hybrid is compatible
and healthy, it may grow a new cell wall, begin mitotic divisions, and
ultimately grow into a hybrid plant that carries genetic features of
both parents. While protoplast fusions are easily accomplished, as
almost all plants (and animals) have cells suitable for this process,
relatively few are capable of regenerating a whole organism, and
fewer still are capable of sexual reproduction. This non-genetic
engineering technique is not common in plant breeding as the
resulting range of successful, fertile hybrids has not extended much
beyond what is possible using other conventional technologies.
 Soma clonal Variation
Soma clonal variation is the name given to spontaneous mutations
that occur when plant cells are grown in vitro. For many years plants
regenerated from tis-sue culture sometimes had novel features. It was
not until the 1980s that two Australian scientists thought this
phenomenon might provide a new source of genetic variability, and
that some of the variant plants might carry attributes of value to plant
breeders (Larkin and Scowcroft, 1981).
Through the 1980s plant breeders around the world grew plants in
vitro and scored regenerants for potentially valuable variants in a
range of different crops. New varieties of several crops, such as flax,
were developed and commercially released (Rowland et al., 2002).
Molecular analyses of these new varieties were not required by
regulators at that time, nor were they conducted by developers to
ascertain the nature of the underlying genetic changes driving the
variant features. Soma clonal variation is still used by some breeders,
 particularly in developing countries, but this non-genetic engineering
technique has largely been supplanted by more predictable genetic
engineering technologies.
 Mutation Breeding
Induced Chemical and X-ray Mutagenesis
Mutation breeding involves exposing plants or seeds to mutagenic
agents (e.g., ionizing radiation) or chemical mutagens (e.g., ethyl
methane sulfonate) to induce random changes in the DNA sequence.
The breeder can adjust the dose of the mutagen so that it is enough to
result in some mutations, but not enough to be lethal. Typically a
large number of plants or seeds are mutagenized, grown to
reproductive maturity, and progeny are derived. The progeny are
assessed for phenotypic expression of potentially valuable new traits.
As with soma clonal variation, the vast majority of mutations
resulting from this technique are deleterious, and only chance
determines if any genetic changes useful to humans will appear.
Other than through varying the dosage, there is no means to control
the effects of the mutagen or to target particular genes or traits. The
mutagenic effects appear to be random throughout the genome and,
even if a useful mutation occurs in a particular plant, deleterious
mutations also will likely occur. Once a useful mutation is identified,
breeders work to reduce the deleterious mutations or other
undesirable features of the mutated plant. Nevertheless, crops
derived from mutation breeding still are likely to carry DNA
alterations beyond the specific mutation that provided the superior
trait.
Induced-mutation crops in most countries (including the United
States) are not regulated for food or environmental safety, and
breeders generally do not conduct molecular genetic analyses on such
crops to characterize the mutations or determine their extent.
Consequently, it is almost certain that mutations other than those
resulting in identified useful traits also occur and may not be obvious,
remaining uncharacterized with unknown effects.
 Worldwide, more than 2,300 different crop varieties have been
developed using induced mutagenesis (FAO/IAEA, 2001), and about
 half of these have been developed during the past 15 years. In the
United States, crop varieties ranging from wheat to grapefruit have
been mutated since the technique was first used in the 1920s. There
are no records of the molecular characterizations of these mutant
crops and, in most cases, no records to retrace their subsequent use.
 Cell Selection
Several commercial crop varieties have been developed using cell
selection, including varieties of soybeans (Sebastian and Chaleff,
1987), canola (Swanson et al., 1988), and flax (Rowland et al.,
1989). This process involves isolating a population of cells from a so-
called “elite plant” with superior agricultural characteristics. The
cells are then excised and grown in culture. Initially the population
is genetically homogeneous, but changes can occur spontaneously
(as in soma clonal variation) or be induced using mutagenic agents.
Cells with a desired phenotypic variation may be selected and
regenerated into a whole plant. For example, adding a suitable
amount of the appropriate herbicide to the culture medium may
identify cells expressing a novel variant phenotype of herbicide
resistance. In theory, all of the normal, susceptible cells will
succumb to the herbicide, but a newly resistant cell will survive and
perhaps even continue to grow. An herbicide-resistant cell and its
derived progeny cell line thus can be selected and regenerated into a
whole plant, which is then tested to ensure that the phenotypic trait
is stable and results from a heritable genetic alteration. In practice,
many factors influence the success of the selection procedure, and
the desired trait must have a biochemical basis that lends itself to
selection in vitro and at a cellular level.
Breeders cannot select for increased yield in cell cultures because the
cellular mechanism for this trait is not known. The advantage of cell
selection over conventional breeding is the ability to inexpensively
screen large numbers of cells in a petri dish in a short time instead
of breeding a similar number of plants in an expensive, large field
trial conducted over an entire growing season.
Like soma clonal variation, cell selection has largely been
superseded by recombinant technologies because of their greater
 precision, higher rates of success, and fewer undocumented
mutations.
 Genetic Engineering
As noted in Chapter 1, this report defines genetic engineering
specifically as one type of genetic modification that involves an
intended targeted change in a plant or animal gene sequence to
effect a specific result through the use of rDNA technology. A variety
of genetic engineering techniques are described in the following text.
 Microbial Vectors
Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a naturally occurring soil microbe
best known for causing crown gall disease on susceptible plant
species. It is an unusual pathogen because when it infects a host, it
transfers a portion of its own DNA into the plant cell. The
transferred DNA is stably integrated into the plant DNA, and the
plant then reads and expresses the transferred genes as if they were
its own. The transferred genes direct the production of several
substances that mediate the development of a crown gall.
Among these substances is one or more unusual nonprotein amino
acids, called opines. Opines are translocated throughout the plant,
so food developed from crown gall-infected plants will carry these
opines. In the early 1980s strains of Agrobacterium were developed
that lacked the disease-causing genes but maintained the ability to
attach to susceptible plant cells and transfer DNA.
By substituting the DNA of interest for the crown gall disease-
causing DNA, scientists derived new strains of Agrobacterium that
deliver and stably integrate specific new genetic material into the
cells of target plant species. If the transformed cell then is
regenerated into a whole fertile plant, all cells in the progeny also
carry and may express the inserted genes. Agrobacterium is a
naturally occurring genetic engineering agent and is responsible for
the majority of GE plants in commercial production.
 Microprojectile Bombardment
Klein and colleagues (1987) discovered that naked DNA could be
delivered to plant cells by “shooting” them with microscopic pellets
to which DNA had been adhered. This is a crude but effective
 physical method of DNA delivery, especially in species such as corn,
rice, and other cereal grains, which Agrobacterium does not
naturally transform. Many GE plants in commercial production
were initially transformed using microprojectile delivery.
 Electroporation
In electroporation, plant protoplasts take up macromolecules from
their surrounding fluid, facilitated by an electrical impulse. Cells
growing in a culture medium are stripped of their protective walls,
resulting in protoplasts. Supplying known DNA to the protoplast
culture medium and then applying the electrical pulse temporarily
destabilizes the cell membrane, allowing the DNA to enter the cell.
Transformed cells can then regenerate their cell walls and grow to
whole, fertile transgenic plants. Electroporation is limited by the
poor efficiency of most plant species to regenerate from protoplasts.
 Microinjection
DNA can be injected directly into anchored cells. Some proportion of
these cells will survive and integrate the injected DNA. However, the
process is labor intensive and inefficient compared with other
methods.
 Transposons/Transposable Elements
The genes of most plant and some animal (e.g., insects and fish)
species carry transposons, which are short, naturally occurring
pieces of DNA with the ability to move from one location to another
in the genome. Barbara McClintock first described such
transposable elements in corn plants during the 1950s (Cold Spring
Harbor Laboratory, 1951). Transposons have been investigated
extensively in research laboratories, especially to study mutagenesis
and the mechanics of DNA recombination. However, they have not
yet been harnessed to deliver novel genetic information to improve
commercial crops.
Nontrans genic Molecular Methods of Manipulation
Genetic features can be added to plants and animals without
inserting them into the recipient organism's native genome. DNA of
interest may be delivered to a plant cell, expressing a new protein—
 and thereby a new trait—without becoming integrated into the host-
cell DNA. For example, virus strains may be modified to carry
genetic material into a plant cell, replicate, and thrive without
integrating into the host genome. Without integration, however,
new genetic material may be lost during meiosis, so that seed
progeny may not carry or express the new trait. Many food plants
are perennials or are propagated by vegetative means, such as
grafting or from cuttings. In these cases the virus and new genes
would be maintained in subsequent, non sexually generated
populations. Technically such plants are not products of rDNA
because there is no recombination or insertion of introduced DNA
into the host genome. Although these plants are not GE, they do
carry new DNA and new traits. No such products are known to be
currently on the market in the United States or elsewhere. (See
McHugh [2000] for further information on genetic mechanisms
used in plant improvement.)
 Genetic modification for animals
 Domestication and Artificial Selection
 Modern breeds of livestock differ markedly from their ancestors as a
result of breeding strategies. For example, milk production per cow
has increased among Holstein dairy cattle. Similarly, breeding
programs have resulted in lean, fast-growing pigs (Notter, 1999).
Chickens from modern breeds each produce more than 250 eggs per
year, approximately double that produced in 1950, again mainly due
to genetic selection.
 Established and emerging biotechnologies in animal agriculture
include assisted reproductive technologies; use of naturally occurring
hormones, such as recombinant bovine somatotropin; marker-
assisted selection; biotechnologies to enhance reproductive efficiency
without affecting the genome; and biotechnologies to enhance
expression of desirable genes.
 Assisted Reproductive Procedures
Modern breeds of livestock differ from their ancestors because the
use of frozen semen for artificial insemination (AI), along with sire
 testing and sire selection, has markedly affected the genetic quality of
livestock, especially dairy cattle. Select bulls are tested for fertility and
judged on the basis of the milk that their daughters produce. A
notable example is the milk from Holstein cows, which increased
almost threefold between 1945 and 1995 (Majeskie, 1996) through a
combination of AI using semen from select bulls and improved milk
production management (Diamond, 1999; Hale, 1969). Using
sophisticated statistical models to predict breeding values, sire testing
and selection, crossbreeding, and marker-assisted selection, along
with AI, have greatly advanced the production characteristics of
livestock. It is expected that AI will continue to be an integral tool in
animal production systems.
(Assisted reproductive and recombinant hormone technologies are
discussed in detail in the accompanying sub report, Methods and
Mechanisms of Genetic Manipulation and Cloning of Animals.)
Techniques Fundamental to Genetic Engineering in Livestock
Although the following are not methods to generate modifications per
se, they are considered modern methods that support the overall
breeding and selection system for propagating desired genotypes for
animals expressing desired traits.
 Embryo Recovery and Transfer and Superovulation
Embryo recovery and transfer allow valuable animals to contribute
more offspring to the gene pool (Seidel, 1984). Embryos that are
frozen and stored before being used to initiate a pregnancy result in
40,000 to 50,000 beef calves per year (NAAB, 2000). Emerging
technologies will allow the sexing of semen and embryos to control
the gender of the offspring. The production of single-sex sperm, by
cell sorting X and Y sperm, will greatly benefit the livestock industries
(Johnson, 2000).
 In Vitro Maturation and Fertilization of Oocytes
Up to several thousand embryos can be produced using techniques
for recovering and maturing immature eggs, or oocytes, in about one
day in a medium containing hormones, and then fertilizing them with
live sperm or injecting a single sperm or sperm head into their outer
layers—either beneath the zona pellucida or directly into the
 cytoplasm. The resulting zygotes are cultured in vitro, usually to the
blastocyst stage, before being transferred to recipient females (First,
1991). The commercial application of in vitro maturation and
fertilization has resulted in as many as 4,000 calves being born in a
single year (NAAB, 2000).
 Embryo Splitting
Splitting or bisecting embryos yields zygotic twins, or non-GE clones,
that are genetically identical in both their nuclear and mitochondrial
genes (Heyman et al., 1998). Maternal twins exhibit greater variation
in phenotype than paternal twins with only one X chromosome.
Further, there is the potential for differences in mitochondrial DNA
distribution to affect phenotype.
 These embryos are then placed in an empty zona pellucida and
transferred to recipient females, which carry them to term. Through
2001, a total of 2,226 registered Holstein clones—754 males and 1,472
females—were produced from embryo splitting, with 1 to 2 percent of
calves produced (NAAB, 2000).
 Genetic Engineering
Cloning as a technique, and the implications for predicting and
assessing adverse health effects that may be associated with this
technique, are addressed in the committee's subreport that follows
this report.
Techniques employed to introduce novel genes into domestic animals
are discussed in detail in the report Animal Biotechnology: Science
Based Concerns (NRC, 2002). These transgenic approaches
applicable to animals are summarized in the following text.
 Accessing the Germline of Animals
Germline refers to the lineage of cells that can be genetically traced
from parent to offspring. It is possible to access the germline of
animals using one of five methods (NRC, 2002):
1.directly manipulating the fertilized egg after it has been implanted
in the uterus;
2.manipulating the sperm that produces the zygote;
3.manipulating early embryonic tissue in place;
 4.using embryonic stem cell lines in early embryos.
5.manipulating cultured somatic cells to transfer their nuclei into
enucleated oocytes.
 Transfection
Several of the methods used to transfect or introduce novel genes into
animals are similar to those used for plants. Commonly used methods
include:
microinjection of DNA into the nucleus of anchored cells;
electroporation, where DNA is introduced through cell membrane
pores by pulsed electrical charges;
polycationic neutralization of the cell membrane and the DNA to be
introduced to improve passive uptake;
lipofection, where DNA is; and
sperm-mediated transfection, often used in conjunction with
intracytoplasmic sperm injection or electroporation.
As is the case with plants, microinjection is a highly inefficient means
of creating transgenic animals. For example, an incredibly small
percentage of livestock embryos that undergo microinjection yield
transgenic animals (Rexroad, 1994). Moreover, successfully
microinjected transgenic animals do not necessarily pass their
transgenes on to their offspring (NRC, 2002).
 Retroviral Vectors
This method is similar to viral delivery methods used in plants in that
virus strains are modified to carry genetic material into a cell. It
differs in that after the novel DNA is delivered, the viral replication
process integrates it into the host cell's genome.
 Transposons
The use of transposable elements in animal cells has not been
completely developed. Although no active naturally occurring
transposable elements have been found in mammals, those found in
insects and fish are under investigation for potential use in animals.
 Knock-In and Knock-Out Technology
Transgenic technology can also be used to create organisms that lack
specific genes or those in which one existing gene has been replaced
 by another that has been engineered. The addition (“knock-in”) or
deletion (“knock-out”) of specific gene functions through introduced
mutations or genetic engineering based on homologous
recombination has become commonplace in animals used for
experimentation, such as mice. Although at present this technology is
not efficient and thus not practical for use in generating knock-in or
knock-out domestic animals, there are examples of its use in domestic
sheep and pigs. (NRC, 2002).
 Marker-Assisted Selection
Marker-assisted selection involves establishing a link between
inheriting a desirable trait, such as milk yield, and segregating
specific genetic markers that are coupled to that trait. Marker-
assisted selection is important in animal breeding and selection
strategies for studying complex traits governed by many genes
(Georges, 2001). The use of this method is expected to increase
exponentially as genome-sequencing projects identify greater
numbers of useful, segregated markers for economically important
traits.
Initially animals will be screened for genes that control simple traits
that may be undesirable, such as horns in cattle or metabolic stress
syndrome in pigs. In time, easily identifiable markers that accompany
multiple genes controlling more complex traits, such as meat
tenderness and taste, growth, offspring size, and disease resistance,
will become available to improve animal health and production traits
(Dekkers and Hospital, 2002).
Two notable examples can be found in sheep. One is the Booroola
gene in which a single-nucleotide base change is responsible for the
callipygian muscle hypertrophy phenotype—the only known example
of polar over-dominance in a mammal (Freking et al., 2002). Another
is introgression of the Boorowa gene into the Awassa and the Assaf
dairy breeds (Gootwine, 2001).
Sequencing genomes of animals that are important to agriculture will
identify genes that influence reproductive efficiency. For example, a
growth-hormone receptor variant on bovine chromosome 20 affects
the yield and composition of milk, and is expected to increase milk
 production by 200 kg per lactation and decrease milk fat from 4.4
percent to 3.4 percent (Fletcher, 2003).
 Nontrans genic Methods of Animal Manipulation
Biotechnology can be used to modify endocrine function of domestic
animals and affect reproduction, lactation, and growth. For example,
in pigs and rats (Draghia-Akli et al., 2002) hypothalamic-specific
expression of growth-hormone-releasing hormone is not essential
since ectopic expression of a cloned DNA for this neuropeptide can be
genetically driven by a synthetic muscle-specific transcriptional
promoter to elicit increases in both growth hormone and insulin-like
growth factor-I (Khan et al., 2002). This biotechnology has the
potential, by using specific hormones and growth factors during
critical developmental periods, to enhance uterine capacity and to
increase milk production.
 Factors affecting GMOs:

• Rules and legislation: Government rules play an important role in the

introduction and production of GMOs. Different countries have different
legal frameworks for the approval, labeling and cultivation of genetically
modified crops.

• Public perception and acceptance: Public perception of GMOs can

significantly affect their market launch and acceptance. Concerns about
health, environmental impact and ethical considerations can influence
consumer attitudes and purchasing decisions.

• Scientific research and development: Advances in biotechnology and

genetic engineering are driving the development of new GMOs with
improved traits such as pest resistance, drought tolerance , and nutritional
supplements. Continued research is essential to understand the potential
benefits and risks associated with GMOs.

• Environmental effects: GMOs can have both positive and negative

environmental effects. The environmental sustainability of GMOs can be
influenced by factors such as the potential for gene transfer to wild
relatives,

effects on non-target organisms and changes in agricultural practices.

• Economic considerations: Economic factors, including production costs,

market demand, and intellectual property rights, affects the introduction
and commercialization of GMOs. Farmers weigh the potential benefits of
GMOs, such as increased yields and reduced pesticide use, against their
costs and market opportunities..

2.Evolution Theory
 Abstract
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory
and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual
flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time,
evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the
fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology,
including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why
evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every
biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political
situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record.
Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily
fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the
dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout
the planet. Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent
phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained
by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution,
both on short and long time scales, are observable facts.

Keywords: evolutionary theory, science, scientific method, scientific theory,

macroevolution
  Evolution as a fact and thoery
Evolution is a population concept. An individual does not evolve; only
populations evolve in the face of the genetic changes accumulated from one
generation to the next. The flu virus evolves. This explains why last years’
flu vaccine does not work on the current strain of the virus: only the
resistant strains of the virus survived last year’s vaccine application. This is
a textbook example of evolution by natural selection. Genetic modifications
are encountered in the resistant strains; thus, evolution is a fact (Gould,
1981). Mutation, migration, natural selection, and genetic drift are the
evolutionary forces that drive genetic changes of natural populations from
one generation to the next. This is known among biologists as
microevolution.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory explains more than those facts that
we can routinely observe. This makes it a theory, but is it just a theory? The
word theory has distinct meanings in science and in lay language (Ghose,
2013). A scientific theory is the utmost position an idea may reach in
science. Outside of academia, however, a theory is equivalent to a
hypothesis, an idea that explains facts but has never been tested (Futuyama
and Kirkpatrick, 2017). This occurs because there seems to be no need for a
distinction between hypothesis and theory outside the scope of science. In
science, however, this distinction is fundamental. An idea remains a
hypothesis if it has never been confronted with new (independently
collected) scientific data that would serve as a test for its predictions. If a
hypothesis has endured further testing by subsequent scientific
experiments, in time it becomes a valid scientific theory.

 Evolutionary processes that drive micro and macroevolution

are facts
To have a better understanding of evolution, we must discuss the processes
that drive evolution. For this, we start by comparing processes that drive
microevolution with those that drive macroevolution. Many of the same
evolutionary processes that drive microevolution also drive
macroevolution, namely natural selection, mutation, migration, and genetic
drift. A lineage will tend to diversify if it has adaptations that increase
survival and reproductive abilities compared to other species. This
advantage will tend to increase population size and the geographical
distribution of the ancestral species that will more likely speciate into two
descendant species. Hence, according to this view, macroevolution is
microevolution on a larger scale (Zimmer, 2001), with biological speciation
as the only additional process (Russo et al., 2016). Through speciation, one
ancestral species gives rise to two descendant species that are
reproductively incompatible with each other.

More than a million species have been described (Mora et al., 2011), and
each biological species includes many interbreeding members. Also, most
species are reproductively isolated from each other. The fact that we
observe biological species with interbreeding members and reproductive
isolation between species is compatible with both separate creation and
macroevolution. So, which observable pattern would we expect if many
speciation events generated the vast biological diversity from a single
common ancestor? In this case, we would expect different degrees of
similarity between reproductively isolated species. This is exactly what we
observe. Some species are very similar, such as chimpanzees and gorillas,
with most features shared between them. Other species, on the other hand,
are morphologically so different that one must look into cytology,
physiology, or comparative genomics to detect evidence of their common
past. One example is a fern and a frog. For instance, the cellular respiration
is a process shared by ferns and frogs and it is an evidence of their common
ancestry. Only macroevolution explains well the distinct degrees of
similarity between these four isolated species, as the age of their last
common ancestor is inversely proportional to the similarity between any
two species.

Furthermore, the existence of hybrids, such as the mule, the liger, the
coywolf, is also only explained by the hierarchical common ancestry theory,
not by separate creation. The hybrids are direct evidence of on-going
processes of speciation. Thus, the presence of hybrids is what we would
expect if all life had a common ancestry.

Other fossil record patterns are well explained by macroevolution. For

instance, why do we find a major increase in mammalian fossil diversity
only after the disappearance of non-avian dinosaurs approximately 65
million years ago? The same pattern is observed in the fossil record of
birds. Macroevolution explains this well, as the extinction of dinosaurs
eliminated competition, and the surviving ancestral mammals were able to
increase in number and diversified through speciation, generating more
species of their kind.

 Final remarks
A single, very well designed experiment, performed in accordance with the
utmost scientific standards, is what it takes to put any scientific theory to
rest. Divine creation will never be part of science because science is not able
to detect supernatural phenomena. Divine phenomena explain everything
equally; hence, it provides no real explanatory (i.e., predictive) power. If we
accept “God’s will” as an adequate explanation for a natural phenomenon,
we eliminate the possibility of eventually being able to explain it naturally.
Thus, the scientific revolution begun when we eliminated the divine as a
scientific explanation.

Science, as a process, starts with the acceptance of our ignorance about a

natural phenomenon and by seeking natural explanations for it. Hence,
ignorance drives the engine of Science. Even if evolution were,
hypothetically, rejected, contested by new data, scientists would have to
study hard to find an alternative natural explanation that was able to
explain everything that evolution explains today plus the new data that
contested it.

Evolution is a fact and a well-supported scientific theory. It has endured

daily and rigorous testing, and it stands as the unifying theory in biology
(Rutledge and Warden, 2000). This says nothing about whether God
created or did not create the world, as science is unable to distinguish a
divinely guided evolution from a materialistic evolution. God may well have
created the biological world through natural selection, mutation,
speciation, extinction, etc. Still, evolution and Science would remain
unscathed as Science is not concerned with why or who, but only with how.

Some creationists say that we must bring the evolution versus creationist
debate to the classroom and claim that the opposition to the debate is anti-
scientific. However, science is not about blind criticism (Meyer and El-
Hani, 2013). Blind criticism is just as naïve as blind acceptance. Scientists
must weigh the evidence before questioning a theory. The idea that all
debates are equally scientific is misleading and it explains the sad
emergence of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers. A debate on what is the shape
of our planet is not only pointless, but it is also dangerously harmful to the
minds of the young students. A fruitful debate in a science class is restricted
to those issues that lie within the scientific realm (Baltzley, 2016, Branch,
2016).

 Mechanism
There are four key mechanisms that allow a population, a group of
interacting organisms of a single species, to exhibit a change in allele
frequency from one generation to the next. These are evolution by:
mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow.

1. Mutation:

Evolution by mutation occurs whenever a mistake in the DNA occurs in

the heritable cells of an organism. In the single-celled asexual organisms,
such as bacterial, the whole cell and its DNA is passed on to the next
generation because these organisms reproduce via binary fission. For
sexual organisms, mutations are passed to the next generation if they occur
in the egg or sperm cells used to create offspring. Mutations occur at
random in the genome, but mutations of large effect are often so bad for the
organism that the organism dies as it develops, so mutations of smaller
effect or even neutral mutations are theoretically more common in a
population. The variation that is created in a population through the
random process of mutation is called standing genetic variation, and it
must be present for evolution to occur. Mutation is the raw stuff of
evolution because it creates new heritable phenotypes, irrespective of
fitness or adaptation.

2. Genetic Drift:

Evolution by genetic drift occurs when the alleles that make it into the
next generation in a population are a random sample of the alleles in a
population in the current generation. By random chance, not every allele
will make it through, and some will be overrepresented while other decline
in frequency regardless of how well those alleles encode for phenotypic
suitability to the environment, so sometimes drift reduces the average
fitness of a population for its environment. Populations are constantly
under the influence of genetic drift.

Figure 1 Evolution by genetic drift

3. Natural
Selection:

Evolution by natural selection occurs when the environment exerts a

pressure on a population so that only some phenotypes survive and
reproduce successfully. The stronger the selective pressure or the selection
event the fewer individuals make it through the sieve of natural selection.
Those phenotypes that survive a strong selection event, such as a drought,
are a better fit for an environment that suffers drought. Another way to say
this is that they have higher Darwinian fitness.

Figure 2 Evolution by natural selection.

4. Gene Flow:
Two different populations are often subject to different selective pressures
and genetic drift, so they would be expected to have different allele
frequencies. When individuals from one population migrate into a different
population, they bring those different allele frequencies with them. If
enough migration and mating occurs between two populations, then the
two populations will experience changes in allele frequencies and such that
their allele frequencies become similar to each other.

Figure 3 Evolution by gene flow

 Factors affecting evolution:
1. Variation: Individuals within a population exhibit variation in
traits such as size, color, and behavior. This variation is partly due
to genetic differences resulting from mutations, genetic
recombination, and gene flow.
2. Heritability: Traits are passed from parents to offspring through
genetic inheritance. Offspring tend to resemble their parents,
inheriting a combination of traits that contribute to their
phenotype (observable characteristics).
3. Differential Survival and Reproduction: In any population,
there are more individuals born than can survive and reproduce.
As a result, there is competition for limited resources such as food,
mates, and habitat. Individuals with traits that make them better
adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and
reproduce, passing those advantageous traits to their offspring.
4. Natural Selection: Natural selection is the process by which
individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and
reproduce, while those with less favorable traits are less likely to
do so. Over time, this differential reproductive success leads to the
accumulation of beneficial traits within a population, resulting in
adaptation to the environment.
5. Adaptation: Adaptation refers to the process by which
populations become better suited to their environment over
generations. Traits that increase an individual's fitness (ability to
survive and reproduce) become more common in the population,
leading to the evolution of features that enhance survival and
reproductive success.
6. Descent with Modification: As advantageous traits become
more common in a population through natural selection,
populations may diverge from their ancestors, resulting in the
formation of new species over long periods of time. This process,
 known as descent with modification, accounts for the diversity of
life observed on Earth.

1. The relation between genetically modified organisms and

evolution theory:
It has become possible to bypass evolution by introducing genetic
modifications into plants and animals in the lab. These genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) are advantageous for the food supply because they
contribute to faster crop production, pest resistance, and more nutritious
food sources. Despite these benefits of GMOs, it is imperative to first
understand the risks of producing GMOs before introducing them into the
wild. A major concern of genetically modified organisms is that they will
cause reduced genetic diversity of plants and animals in the environment.
What this means is that the DNA, which codes for proteins in an organism,
will become more similar between individuals of a species. Genetic diversity
is directly related to biodiversity, the variability in the traits of organisms
that make up an ecosystem, because diversity in DNA will inform the
characteristics of the organisms that make up a population. Maintaining
genetic diversity is important for the environment and agriculture because
increased variability in DNA will provide a better opportunity for organisms
to adapt to a changing environment.

References:

 National Academies Press (US). (2004). Methods and mechanisms for

genetic manipulation of plants, animals, and microorganisms. Safety of

 Genetically Engineered Foods - NCBI Bookshelf.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215771/

 Bierkland NK, Holo H. 1993. Transduction of a plasmid carrying the

cohesive end region from Lactococcus lactis bacteriophage LC3. Appl

Environ Microbiol 59:1966–1968. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. 1951. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on

Quantitative Biology XVI: Genes and Mutations . Online. Available at

http://library.cshl.edu/symposia/1951/index.html. Accessed November 4,

2003.

 Heyman Y, Vignon X, Chesne P, Le Bourhis D, Marchal J, Renard JP. 1998.

Cloning in cattle: From embryo splitting to somatic nuclear transfer.

Reprod Nutr Dev 38:595–603.

 Zimnoch-Guzowska E, Marczewski W, Lebecka R, Flis B, Schafer-Pregl R,

Salamini F, Gebhardt C. 2000. QTL analysis of new sources of resistance to

Erwinia carotovora ssp. atroseptica in potato done by AFLP, RFLP, and

resistance-gene-like markers. Crop Sci 40:1156–1167.

 Sears ER. 1956. The transfer of leaf rust from Ae. umbellulata to wheat.

Brookhaven Symp Biol 9:1–22.

 Russo, A. M., & André, T. (2019). Science and evolution. Genetics and

Molecular Biology, 42(1), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-

GMB-2018-0086

 Ross E. Revamped ‘anti-science’ education bills in United States find

success. 2017. [accessed 19 January 2019].

https://www.nature.com/news/revamped-anti-science-education-bills-in-

united-states-find-success-1.21986

 Zimmer C. Evolution, the triumph of an idea. Harper Collins; New York:

2001. p. 528. [Google Scholar]

Zimmer C (2001) Evolution, the triumph of an idea. Harper Collins, New

York, 528 p.