Archives for April 2007

Question 1: Why was there so much debate over whether natural selection could give rise to new species?

There was much debate over whether natural selection could give rise to new species because the idea seemed so farfetched. Darwin himself even questioned this himself in The Origin of Species asking, “Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of the giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?” He questioned the amount and variation of complexity that natural selection could produce. Surely it could produce minor variations in species, such as the size of the beaks of finches, but he questioned whether it could really yield whole new species.

Even Darwin’s friends whom were scientists did not agree that natural selection could give rise to new species. His friend Hooker said that he was trying to account for too much with natural selection. Huxley gave a speech about evolution, “The Coming of Age of the Origin of Species,” without even mentioning the idea of natural selection. In general, people accepted the idea of evolution, but did not accept Darwin’s idea of natural selection as the cause for it. Especially after Darwin died, people simply thought it was too radical of an idea and that there must be another explanation for evolution. An exhibit made at the British Museum’s Natural History Building in honor of Darwin even dismissed the idea of natural selection and “survival of the fittest.” It was just an idea people were not ready to accept at the time.

Question 2: What is adaptive radiation?

Adaptive radiation is a way of describing how one species diverges into several species to adapt to the environment. This process is driven by natural selection. In the case of the Galapagos finches, it was found that there are three species of land finches. Dolph decided to test the theory of adaptive radiation by entering information into a computer accounting for the environment of the island. This data included the size of seeds, how big the beak of a finch needed to be to crack a certain seeds, and how many seeds it takes to feed a finch, among other information. He processed the information to calculate how many finches a hypothetical island could support, given finches with various beak sizes.

The computer produced a graph which showed three peaks with deep valleys in-between them. These peaks meant that three species with specific beak sizes would emerge to adapt to the environment. Three different species could survive given the types and amount of seeds. Each of their beaks would have to be highly specific to survive on the certain seeds available. This also supports that the idea that one species of finch could have evolved into the three species found on the island. Variation from generation to generation would produce finches with beaks better or worse suited for the seeds available. Through time, the one species of finch would diverge into three different species in order to make full use of the food provided on the island.

Abstract

This was a study on identifying different mutant E. coli donor and recipient cells and determining the efficiency of conjugation between them. Different dilutions of donor and recipient cells were first plated on L-agar without chloramphenicol, L-agar with chloramphenicol, and MacConkey plates in order to identify them. The donor and recipient cells were then combined and allowed to conjugate. These transconjugate cells were plated on MacConkey plates in order to identify them and determine conjugation efficiency. Lastly, plasmids were isolated from the donor, recipient, and transconjugate cells. The DNA bands were mapped using electrophoresis. It was found that the donor cells could grow on the L-agar without chloramphenicol and on the MacConkey plates. On the MacConkey plates, they produced purple colonies. They could not grow on the L-agar with chloramphenicol. The recipient cells could grow on both L-agar plates, and on the MacConkey plates they yielded white colonies. The transconjugate cells produced both purple and white colonies on the MacConkey plate. The efficiency of conjugation was found to be 8.77%. The photographs of the DNA bands showed that the transconjugate cells had plasmids the same size as the donor cells, and that the recipient cells did not have a plasmid. In conclusion, the recipient and donor cells were both identified, and conjugation successfully produced transconjugates, as shown by the MacConkey plates and DNA bands.

Introduction

There are three ways for bacteria to pass on genetic material: transformation, transduction, and conjugation (Russell, 2003). Conjugation is the main way for the bacteria E. coli to transfer its genetic material (Black, 1999). When transferring genetic material during conjugation, there must be a donor cell and a recipient cell (Hartwell, 2000). The donor cell contains an F plasmid and the recipient cell does not contain one. When the donor cell and the recipient cell physically touch, the F plasmid is copied over to the recipient, sometimes along with other genetic material in the cell (Russell, 2003). The efficiency of this transfer is low, however, due to the fact that it is hard for the cells to stay touching for very long (Hartwell, 2000). After the F plasmid is copied to the recipient, the recipient cell in now considered a transconjugate cell. It can now take the role of donor cell and copy its genetic material to another recipient. These cells can be plated on different cultures to see if they grow (Prescott, 1999). The cells can then be identified and it can be determined if conjugation has happened successfully. In this experiment, mutant E. coli donor and recipient cells were conjugated and plated on different agar and MacConkey plates to identify the cells, determine whether conjugation was successful, and determine the efficiency of conjugation.

Materials and Methods

Teams were first given culture tubes containing either donor or recipient E. coli cells suspended in broth. The donor cells contained the lac operon on their F plasmid. The recipient cells did not contain the lac operon, but instead had a mutation in a chromosomal gene which made it resistant to the antibiotic chloramphenicol. The cultures were then transferred to plates using the sterile technique, which was used throughout all parts of the experiment. 0.1 ml of a 10^-5 and 10^-6 dilution of each culture was transferred to separate L-agar plates without chloramphenicol and separate L-agar plates with chloramphenicol. 0.1 ml of a 10^-5 dilution of each culture was also transferred to separate MacConkey (MAC) agar plates. The culture was spread by placing small glass balls in the plates to roll around and spread the culture evenly. The small glass balls were removed and the plates were all labeled and incubated overnight at 35 ºC. The next day the number of colonies found in each plate was recorded.

For the next part of the experiment, transconjugate cells were plated and counted. The transconjugate cells were made by pipetting 1 ml of prepared donor cells and 1 ml of prepared recipient cells into an empty sterile tube. This culture was mixed by swirling it. The culture was then incubated for two hours at 35 ºC. Next, a 10^-5 and 10^-6 dilution of the donor culture were each transferred to separate MAC agar plates without chloramphenicol. 0.1 ml of a 10^-5 and 10^-6 dilution of the recipient culture were each transferred to separate L-agar plates with chloramphenicol. Finally, 0.1 ml of a 10^-4 and 10^-5 dilution of the transconjugate culture were each transferred to separate MAC agar plates containing chloramphenicol. The cultures were spread evenly on the plates like before using small glass balls. The plates were all labeled and incubated at 30 ºC overnight. The next day the number of colonies in donor and recipient plates that yielded between 30 and 300 colonies were recorded along with the number purple colonies in the transconjugate plates.

For the last part of the experiment, the plasmids in the donor, recipient, and transconjugate cells were isolated. They were isolated using a QIAprep Spin Miniprep kit and the QIAprep procedure. 1.4 ml of each culture was used for the start of the procedure. The DNA plasmids were each eluted in 50 μl of Tris buffer during the last step. 15 μl of each plasmid DNA was loaded into the gel of the apparatus, and photos of the DNA bands were taken after electrophoresis was finished. The bands were then measured and the points were plotted on semi-logarithmic graph paper.

Results

After one day, the donor cells plated were checked for colonies. The Mac plate with a 10^-5 dilution resulted in 37 purple colonies for my group (Table I). The other donor groups in the class counted 24 purple colonies and 103 purple colonies on their Mac plates (Table I). The L-agar plates with chloramphenicol for my group resulted in no colonies for both the 10^-5 and 10^-6 dilutions (Table I). The other donor groups in the class also found no colonies in their L-agar with chloramphenicol plates (Table I). The L-agar plates free of chloramphenicol for my group resulted with 46 colonies for the 10^-5 dilution and 7 colonies for the 10^-6 dilution (Table I). The other donor groups found 54 and 46 colonies in their 10^-5 dilutions, and 8 and 0 colonies for their 10^-6 dilutions, respectively (Table I).

In regard to the groups that plated recipient cells, their Mac plates resulted in 45 white colonies, 40 white colonies, and 31 white colonies (Table I). For their L-agar plates with chloramphenicol, 65 colonies, 30 colonies, and 25 colonies were found for their 10^-5 dilutions (Table I). For their 10^-6 dilutions, 3 colonies, 4 colonies, and 0 colonies were found, respectively (Table I). Lastly, for the recipient cells plated on L-agar plates without chloramphenicol, 38 colonies, 60 colonies, and 34 colonies were counted from the 10^-5 dilutions (Table I). From the 10^-6 dilution plates, 1 colony, 5 colonies, and 0 colonies were found, respectively (Table I).

The cells from the second plating were also counted after one night. The donor cells plated on Mac plates resulted in 18 colonies for the 10^-5 dilution and 0 colonies for the 10^-6 dilution (Table II). The recipient cells plated on Mac plates resulted in 57 colonies for the 10^-5 dilution and 3 colonies for the 10^-6 dilution (Table II). Lastly, the transconjugate cells plated resulted in 25 purple colonies for the 10^-4 dilution and 9 purple colonies for the 10^-5 dilution (Table II). Only the counts from the stronger dilutions were used in calculations (Table III).

The original concentration of donor cells plated was found to be 1.8 x 10⁷ cells/ml (Table III). The original concentration of recipient cells plated was found to be 5.7 x 10⁷ cells/ml (Table III). The original concentration of transconjugate cells plated was found to be 2.5 x 10⁶ cells/ml (Table III). The efficiency of recipient cells to transconjugate was 8.77% (Table IV). The average plasmid distance on the gel photo was 52.9 mm and the plasmid size was 2.89 kb.

Discussion

The donor and recipient cells both grew on the L-agar plates without chloramphenicol. This is because L-agar plates contain simple chemical medium which E. coli can use as its food source (Miller, 1972). Only the recipients grew on the L-agar plates with chloramphenicol, however. Chloramphenicol is an antibiotic that inhibits bacterial protein synthesis (Davies 1994). The recipient cells contained genes on their bacterial chromosome which made them resistant to chloramphenicol. The donor cells did not carry the genetic information to be resistant to chloramphenicol, so they were not able to grow. In regards to the MacConkey plates, the donor cells plated grew into purple colonies while the recipient cells plated grew into white colonies. This is because the donor cells contained an F plasmid that had the lac operon on it. They were considered lac⁺. The lac operon allows cells to digest lactose, which was on the MacConkey plates. The digestion of lactose produced some acidity. There was an pH indicator in the MacConkey plates that turned the colonies purple in the presence of the acid. This is why the donor cells plated became purple colonies. The recipient cells did not contain an F plasmid, and therefore no lac operon. They were considered lac^–. This meant that they could not digest lactose, and thus did not produce the extra acidity to activate the indicator. This is why the recipient cells plated on the MacConkey plates became white colonies.

The transconjugate cells plated on the MacConkey plates produced white colonies and purple colonies. This is because of conjugation between the donor cells and the recipient cells. When the two cells touch, the F factor from the donor cells is copied to the recipient cells (Black, 1999). This means that the transconjugate cells were recipients that contained the F factor, which had the lac operon on it. Not all of the recipient cells in the transconjugate mixture conjugated however, and this is why both white colonies and purple colonies were found. Some of the cells could digest lactose while other could not. If the transconjugated cells were plated on the L-agar plates with chloramphenicol, I would expect them to grow. The F factor from the donors would have been copied to the recipients, and the recipients would still have the genes coding for resistance to chloramphenicol on their bacterial chromosomes. The transconjugates are able to digest lactose, which was tested, and should be resistant to chloramphenicol. The donor cells would still not be resistant to chloramphenicol even in the presence of transconjugate cells because only cells that contain no F plasmid can be conjugated (Hartwell, 2000). The transconjugate cells could not pass the genetic information on to the donor cells because they already would have an F plasmid.

The efficiency of the donor cells to transconjugate the recipient cells was 8.77% (Table IV). This number should be fairly low because of recipients only receive 3% or less of the donor’s DNA (Hartwell, 2000). It is difficult for the cells stay touching together for very long, so the efficiency of conjugation is not going to be very high. The percent found for my group seems larger than average, but I suppose over time more and more of the recipients will conjugate and receive the F factor. Once a recipient is transconjugated, it could become a donor itself, so that would speed the process.

In Tables II and III, the number of colonies found when reducing the concentration from either a 10^-5 to 10^-6dilution or a 10^-4 to 10^-5 dilution should have be around a tenth of the colonies found from the stronger concentration. This is because the concentration of cells is reduced by a factor of 10%, and thus only 10% of the original number of cells should be in that concentration. The reason why perfect numbers did not show up is because the sample of cells taken from the mixture and plated could have had more or less cells than normal. The mixture may not have been thoroughly agitated. This is the cause for the error there.

In regards to the gel graph, the donors and transconjugates had plasmids nearly the same size. This is because the donors copy their F plasmid to the recipients, so the transconjugates should have plasmids the same size as the donors. If their plasmids were not the same size, then something probably went wrong during the procedure. This was confirmation that the donors truly did copy their F plasmids to the recipients. The recipients in the gel graph did not show an F plasmid. This is also proof that the recipients really had no F plasmid, and that they received the F plasmid from the donors during conjugation.

Literature Cited

Black, Jacquelyn G. 1999. Microbiology: Principles and Explorations (4^th Ed). (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddler River, NJ) 786 p.

Davies, Julian. 1994. Antibiotics and Resistance Genes.

Hartwell, L, L. Hood, M.L. Goldberg, A.E. Reynolds, L.M. Silver, R.C. Veres. 2000. Genetics: From Genes to Genomes. (McGraw Hill, Boston) 813 p.

Prescott, L.M., J.P. Marley, and P.A. Klein. 1999. Microbiology (4^th Ed). (McGraw Hill, Boston) 962 p.

Russell, Peter J. 2003. Essential iGenetics. (Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco).

Tables

Table I:

Table II:

Table III:

Table IV:

I. Introduction

The existence of a God or Gods has been in question for hundreds of years. There are several reasons why people believe in God, the first of which being tradition. Most people are brought up with the teachings of an existence a God or Gods by their parents or guardians. They simply accept the fact that a God exists because that is what their family has taught them and expects them to believe. Most likely, they will continue this trend and also teach their children to believe in God, just like their parents taught them. A second reason people believe in God is for a sense of community. People that believe in a similar God feel a connection and sense of togetherness. Going to weekly religious ceremonies and events can build a strong bond between otherwise dissimilar peoples. There is a feeling reassurance knowing that other people believe in the same thing as them. A third reason people choose to believe in God is for a sense of hope or comfort. They want to know that there is someone looking out for them, or that there is a cause behind “unexplainable” circumstances. A belief in God makes people feel at ease because they think things are always under control and that everything happens for a reason. Lastly, a belief in a God usually entails the hope for some kind of afterlife. This also gives people a reason to worship and respect a God, with optimism for a better life after they die.

However, there is no way to explicitly prove the existence of a God or Gods. While millions of people may believe in God, that does not mean that one exists. No one can prove that they have seen one. People may claim that they have seen God, but there are no actual pictures or videos of Him. Mentally and emotionally, people claim to say that they feel God’s presence. Again, this is not concrete proof for the existence of a God. Also, many “unexplainable” situations and circumstances, which people reason to be acts of God can be proven scientifically. There have been many advances in scientific fields in recent years that disprove many religious stories and assertions. This further supports the argument that there may be no God. For these reasons, I do not think that it is logical to believe in God.

II. Analysis

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard argued that God is not logical, but that it is good to believe in Him and that God does indeed exist. He wrote the Concluding Unscientific Postscript in which he talks extensively about his beliefs and theories. Kierkegaard was a believer in psilanthropism, which means that he believed that Jesus was a man and not the son of God. This is important because it shows his leaniancy to deviate from standard Christian beliefs. In his writings, he also talks about speculative and experimental sciences. He states that they cannot be used to either prove or disprove God’s existance. Without solid proof that God does not exist, we cannot say for certain that God is not real. Kierkegaard also discusses the Lutheran belief that “man is saved by faith alone.” This is an important point in his discussion of God. He says that in order to understand God, one must take a “leap of faith.”

Kierkegaard illustrates this point with the story of Abraham and Isaac. In the story, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for him without reason. Abraham does as God says without argument. As Abraham is about to sacrifice his son, an angel stops him at the last moment. A ram appears in a nearby bush and Abraham sacrifices the ram instead of his son Isaac. God was simply testing Abraham to see if he would obey him. This story shows an abandonment of logic, but still a belief in God. One of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill”, but God tells Abraham to kill. Abraham ignores logic, takes a “leap of faith”, and is rewarded. This furthers Kierkegaard’s point that God is not logical, but that he is good.

He says that logic is the wrong language to use when explaining God. He calls logic a syntagmatic language. It is a language that is open to objective interpretation, which is to say that ideas should be the same for all individuals. Thoughts can only be correct or incorrect with a syntagmatic language. This also infers that there are a fixed set of rules used when using logic to explain God. Instead, Kierkegaard says faith is the language that should be the used when trying to explain God. It is a paradigmatic language, which means that it is open to subjective interpretation. The meaning of God is open to the individuals trying to understand Him. There are no rights or wrongs in describing God. There are also no fixed rules when using faith, so the individual is free to believe in God however they want.

Kierkegaard himself was a believer in religious atomism. The first point of religious atomism is skepticism, which is a belief in suspending judgment. This goes along with his belief in the abandonment of logic when explaining God. The second point of religious atomism is romanticism, which entails adopting new ways of thinking. Kierkegaard certainly does this when explaining that God exists. He says that the existance of that which is unknown means that God exists, and that objectable knowledge is only obtainable through God. The last point of religious atomism is faith. Kierkegaard discusses this fairly thoroughly when talking about the “leap of faith” in the story of Abraham and Isaac. Faith is also the language needed to explain God. In conclusion, Kierkegaard would argue that is it not logical to believe in God, but that God exists and God is good.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell argued that God does not exist, and thus would argue that believing in God in not logical. He wrote the book Why I Am Not a Christian in 1939, which caused him to loose his job at Cambridge University for expressing his radical ideas. In this book, he wrote four arguments against the existance of God. His first argument was the casual argument, which questions Thomas Aquinas’ casual proof for the existence of God. The central premise of this argument is that God is an uncased cause, or the first cause. Russell critiques that there is no valid argument which supports this claim. He uses predicate instantiation to demonstrate this point. The first premise is that all things that exist have a cause. The second premise is that God doesn’t have a cause. In conclusion, God exists. This is an invalid argument however, because the conclusion does not follow. This is Russell’s first argument against God’s existance.

Russell’s second argument against the existance of God is the natural law argument, first proposed by Isaac Newton. The central premise of this argument is that there exist natural laws that reflect the reason of God. Another way of saying this is that things are the way they are because God intended them to be that way. God created laws of nature. Russell argues this premise with three points. First, he says that historically the approach doesn’t work. Using God to explain nature has never worked. Secondly, he argues that some natural laws aren’t laws at all. They are only human conventions, like gravity. Gravity is not the same everywhere, so it is not a law. Lastly, some natural laws are pure luck. Occurrences in nature happen with certain probabilities given circumstances. These three points sufficiently allow Russell to dismiss Newton’s natural law argument.

The next argument Russell critiques is Aquinas’ argument from design. The central premise of this argument is that there is order and purpose in nature, so therefore God exists as the designer. God must have been the one to make things the way they are. Russell argues that evolution is more plausible than God simply creating all creatures. Creatures have changed and adapted over time, as show by the works of Charles Darwin. This is not accounted for in the argument from design. Russell also argues that if God was the designer, then we would live in the best of possible worlds. However, Russell says that this is not the case, and therefore God does not exist.

Lastly, Russell argues Immanuel Kant’s argument for the remedying of injustice. The central premise of this argument states that injustice exists in the world, so there must be another world where justice is served. Another way of saying this is that there must be an afterlife to balance the faults in our current lives. Russell counters with the argument that there is no logical necessity for another world where justice is served. There is no reason why there should be an afterlife, and that injustice is simply not served. Since he believes this world does not exist, he in turn believes God does not exist. Through these four arguments, Russell proves why he believes God does not exist, and therefore, why it is not logical to believe in God.

III. Critique

I do not believe that it is logical to believe in God. In concern to the works of Kierkegaard, I disagree with his thoughts on speculative and experimental sciences. He says that these sciences cannot prove or disprove of God’s existance. I agree with this to an extent, but there are other sciences that can disprove of teachings in the bible about God. For example, the theory that God created all the creatures on earth in one day is highly unlikely. The findings of Charles Darwin fairly confidently prove that the creatures living today evolved over millions and millions of years. They were not perfectly created in one day. In conclusion, this does give some proof that science can dispute the existance and logicality of God.

I do agree with Kierkegaard’s belief that faith must be the language used when explaining God. I think is truly up to the individual to make God what they want God to be. There cannot be a standard set for a God because it is a subjective topic. Faith is to only way for people to explain God. Logic must be abandoned when discussing God because it is not possible to logical explain the “workings” of God. It is not logical to believe in God, so that is why faith is the only way to understand God.

Lastly, I disagree with Kierkegaard’s theory that God does exist. To prove this, he says that the existance of which is unknown allows us to assert that God exists. I disagree with this because he also says God is unknown, and if God is unknown, then how can we know for sure a God exists? This simply does not make sense to me. Kierkegaard also says that the existance of objectable knowledge means God exists. I think that he is implying that people can only have subjective knowledge. I disagree with this because people can obviously objectively prove facts. For example, we can prove that two plus two equals four.

In regard to the works of Russell, I agree with all of his arguments against God’s existance, except for his fourth argument. I do not agree with Russell’s critique of Kant’s argument for the remodying of injustice. Russell says that there is no logical necessity for an afterlife. Just because Russell does not believe there is a logical necessity for this other world where justice is served that does not mean he is right. He has no way to prove that one does not exist. It could be easily arguable that it is logical for justice to be balanced in another world, and thus afterlife exists. This does not mean that Kant is necessarily correct, but that Russell has no proof to back up his critique.

I do agree with his critique of Aquinas’ casual argument. To me, it seems that proofs are tools for solid arguments in philosophy. Russell has devised a proof that shows an invalid argument for the existance of God. This is a fairly strong proof it is not logical to believe in God. I also agree with his critique of Newton’s natural law argument. Science shows that natural laws are not necessarily laws and that some natural laws are the result of luck. There is a lot of probability and error in nature, so it is hard to conceive that a God created and controls all nature. Lastly, I agree with Russell’s critique on Aquinas’ argument from design. Again, Darwin’s work is convincing proof that God was not the ultimate designer and that there is not complete order and purpose in nature. Also, we do not live in the best of possible worlds. This is evident through all the problems and violence in the world. This also shows that it is not logical to believe in God.

James Joyce portrays a character in The Dubliners who is caught up in the pursuit of popularity and money, which seems to be leading toward an abrupt downfall. Just as Jimmy in “After the Race” lives life with a care free attitude and no concern for tomorrow, there was a time in my life when I too lived with a somewhat self destructive behavior. Near the end of my junior year of high school, poker began to emerge as a popular hobby among my peers. Kids at my school started to play every day during lunch, and because I couldn’t turn the television on without seeing some poker tournament or celebrities playing poker, I was practically forced to learn about it. I became interested in learning how to play, specifically the variant called “Texas Hold’em”. Math always came easy to me, and I figured the game probably involved a lot of calculating probabilities, so I felt my chances at picking up the game and excelling were good. Also, I had always liked to gamble on sports, even if it was only once or twice a year for the Superbowl or March Madness pools. This was another opportunity to gamble.

Instead of just jumping into one of the games during lunch at school and throwing my money out there, I took some serious time to learn how to play poker and all the strategies involved. I didn’t have a job or much money at the time, so I thought that this could be an opportunity to make some money if I did things right. My learning of the game included taking notes while watching players on television, reading basic poker strategy books, and playing on free websites on the internet. After I felt I had basics strategies and concepts well learned, I finally put a whole $5 on the line in a game with my friends. My studying paid off, and I ended up winning about $20 on the night. This is the spark that fueled my ambitions to play poker seriously. I used the money I won to buy more in depth poker books and I spent most of my free time reading them and taking notes. The more I learned about the game, the more confident I was that I could consistently win. Everything about poker was mechanical to me, and being a fairly routine person, I felt that the game of poker fit my personality and that I would have no trouble with it at all. I also really liked the adrenaline rush I felt while playing. When Jimmy raced cars, “The journey laid a magical finger on the genuine pulse of life…” and this was similar to how I felt when I played poker (40).

During the next few months, I continued to play poker with my friends about once or twice a month. No one could really afford to play it more often than that. I continued to play well and make a profit on most nights I played. Some of my friends quit playing because they were losing too much money. This forced me to started playing with other people from my school that I didn’t know as well, but had more money to throw around. This is similar to Jimmy whose only friends were wealthy, except for one. The quote, “Villona was entertaining also—a brilliant pianist—but, unfortunately, very poor,” shows that pity is taken upon Villona for being poor (39). This reveals how shallow the values of Jimmy and his friends really are. I begun to play poker because I liked the feeling I got from gambling and to make money, but most importantly it was something to do with my friends. Now I was playing simply to gamble and make money. The new people I played with were better and more serious than my friends, but because I was playing cards with them all the time, this meant that I wasn’t spending time with my real friends. I had become shallow just like Jimmy. However, my new poker buddies still did not play often enough for my craving, so I decided to press my luck in online poker.

I transferred $30 from my bank account into an online poker account. I started off just playing penny tables as I didn’t want to possibly blow all my money in a matter of hours. I took things very slowly, and over the course of two or three months of playing almost every day after school, I had made a nice profit of $150. I had played according to the strategies and theories I had learned from my books, which were obviously working. At that time I felt that poker was something I could eventually do for a living. I put nearly all my free time into it, which meant I didn’t see my friends outside of school all that often. My life had become taken over by poker. I was at a very high confidence level after playing so well for so long, and I decided to move up to higher stakes. I lost money my first few times playing at the higher tables, which I thought was just from bad luck. I was oblivious to the fact that I could possibly not be that good. When Jimmy played poker, “[He] was excited too; he would lose, of course. How much had he written away?” (44). This shows that he knew for certain that he was losing money, but he didn’t have the mind to keep track of how much he had lost. I too knew that I was losing money, but I didn’t keep track of how much either. By the end of the week I had lost all $150 which had taken me months to earn.

After this I took a step back and re-examined my poker aspirations. I was in shock that I lost all my money so quickly, it just didn’t seem possible. I realized that I needed to go on hiatus for a while or else I would likely end up losing more money. Considering the fact that I didn’t even have a job at the time, the decision was obvious that I couldn’t afford to keep playing. The risk was higher than I had thought, and it was time for me to give up my hobby, at least for the time being. I still played a few times after that with my friends, but I realized that it was not healthy for me to keep playing. Poker basically took over my life, which somewhat parallels how Jimmy lives his life in “After the Race”.

Jimmy lives a life centered around money and popularity. He spends all his time with his rich friend racing cars or going to parties. The quote “Rapid motion through space elates one; so does notoriety; so does the possession of money,” shows how superficial Jimmy’s life is (39). At the current time, he feels confident and that life is great, just like I did when I was doing well at poker. However, things can quickly change. His only source of money is his parents, which isn’t completely dependable. His father pays for him to go to a good school, but he does poorly because he spends all of his time trying to be popular and gain social status. Jimmy has no real concern for his future. Jimmy’s parents will likely cut off his funds and once this happens, his life will change drastically and quickly. Without money, he won’t be able to pay for his rich friends cars or pay for parties every night. Also, with his lack of attention to his studies, he will most likely be kicked out of school. Without his status, he would lose his rich friends and be left with nothing. This means his happiness is almost totally dependent on his money. This is very similar to how I was. If I was winning at poker and making money, I was happy. When I lost, I became somewhat depressed and dejected.

When Jimmy loses a lot of money on the yacht playing poker, the story says “He knew that he would regret in the morning but at present he was glad of the rest, glad of the dark stupor that would cover up his folly” (44). Jimmy practically gives his money away by playing poker and investing in cars, and has no remorse for it. His destructive behavior is bound to eventually catch up with him, and he will live a life of poverty if he doesn’t stop. Luckily for me, I realized that I was going down a potentially dangerous path and I stopped my bad habit. Jimmy needs to have an epiphany in order to change, and the way the story ends, it does not seem that he will have change his ways.