Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Week 8 Racism Variation Blog Post

1.  The environmental stress that I wish to focus on is the cold, which can be very detrimental to the survival of humans if the conditions are extreme.  For example, humans are at risk of developing a condition known as hypothermia in extremely frigid climates, which means that their body temperatures have fallen far below the typical 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.  In order to sustain life in the cold, one must have a high body mass that is capable of retaining heat so that it can survive.  However, regardless of a human's body mass, the cold can be devastating to the human body, as its effects can result in a person's body temperature altering, which is disturbing the process of homeostasis (homeostasis is responsible for maintaining body temperature at a steady level). 

2.  Humans have adapted to the cold in numerous ways.  The first of these is shivering, which is a short-term response that the body uses to temporarily heat itself up.   Another way the human body adapts to the cold is by increasing the amount of fat that insulates the important bodily organ, which reduces heat loss and maintains the body temperature; this is an example of a facultative adaptation.  In addition to these two methods, the human body heats itself genetically through the use of developmental adaptions, specifically ones that change the body shape so that it is compact and round enough to retain heat.  Finally, the body uses cultural adaptions, such as wearing clothing that is suitable for the frigid temperatures, as a means of staying warm.

3.  The benefits of studying human variation across various environmental stresses is important because it allows us to see how humans adapt to survive numerous stresses that they encounter.  This information can be useful because it gives us an idea of the traits that thrive in varying environmental stresses.  For example, the more stout and compact a person's body is, the more likely that individual is capable of surviving in cold weather; on the contrary, we know that this body type is not idea for living in warm conditions.

4.  Race has very little to do with the short term response addressed in #2 because people of all races shiver when they are cold in order to heat their bodies.  However, one could affiliate certain races with more fat covering their vital organs, which would associate that race with the facultative adaption I addressed.  The same can be said for the developmental trait, as one could suggest that a specific race is more likely to be rounder and more compact than others (again, not necessarily true but it can be used to understand the types of people who are more likely to thrive in cold weather).  Finally, the clothing worn by individuals can tell a lot about their culture as well as the climate, so heavier clothing on a group of people would suggest success in cold weather.  Of course, none of these relationships to race are as legitimate as linking these adaptations to traits that are common amongst any individual in these environments.  The fact is that a person of any race can survive in freezing climates so long as they possess the traits that are required to survive; this is why race is an inferior method of understanding human variation.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Language Experiment Blog Post

This is my account of the results of the language experiment I engaged in over the weekend, which involved myself, a few of my friends, and my two brothers.

Part 1:  I found this experiment to be very challenging because it removes the communication aspect of having a conversation (for lack of a better description).  As I involved myself in a conversation with people, I quickly found myself shut out of the discussion, with the occasional question asking if I agreed with something that had been said, to which I would have no choice but to respond with a mere nod or shake of the head.  This is something that I do not often find myself doing in conversation, as I prefer to use a healthy combination of verbal and physical communication in everyday conversations.  It was this departure from what I am comfortable doing that made this experiment difficult, but definitely not as difficult as its second part (which was definitely a surprise to me).  As I mentioned above, my partners in conversation definitely treated me differently while I was unable to speak verbally; most of them did not include me in the conversation because they knew I could not keep one going (after all, how entertaining and enticing can a conversation be if one of the participants isn't truly participating?).  A few of the people tried to include me, as I previously mentioned, but I could only contribute nods or head shakes, anything that did not resemble actual language.  I must say, however, that this part of the exercise made me a much better listener in conversations, as I was more or less forced to listen to what my partners while thinking of limited ways I could contribute.  But I digress; essentially, the way my friends and brothers communicated with me for these fifteen minutes was very different from the way we normally communicate with one another because of my inability to speak and therefore contribute to the conversation.  If my partners and I were part of two different cultures that were meeting for the very first time, I would say that the culture I belong to would be at a severe disadvantage because my partners are able to verbally communicate.  This ability allows them to present and discuss new and complex ideas much better than I would be able to in this scenario, given that I cannot speak and therefore cannot do much more than respond to yes or no questions.  Because of my inability to speak, I would most likely be viewed by the speaking culture as inferior to them, and they would most likely treat me in a way that demonstrates their assumed superiority over me.  An example of this scenario in our culture today would be people who immigrate to the United States of America (or to any land foreign to them) and attempt to integrate themselves into the population.  The cultural differences as well as the variation in spoken language would both contribute to these newcomers receiving negative attention from many people; some would most likely feel that the immigrants are inferior to them simply because they are not accustomed to the local customs and language.  While it is clear that this treatment is unfair, it cannot be denied that people from other countries who are not familiar with American culture and/or the English language deal with negative treatment from those who are fluent in the language and culture of the country.

Part 2:  I was surprisingly able to communicate using only words for fifteen minutes with my partners, but it was an extremely difficult challenge for me.  For one, it is nearly impossible to speak without using inflections that subtly (or blatantly, depending on how they are used) reveal my emotions about a particular subject.  I am certain that I inadvertently used intonations in my voice at one point, but for the most part I was able to avoid using them.  What made this such a challenge was the additional lack of movements and gestures that accompanied the scenario; participating in this experiment made me realize how much I use my hands and face to express my feelings throughout a conversation.  In order to remain focused on my task, I forced myself to keep my hands pinned to my side while I thought of ways to stay as detached from the conversation as possible (I wanted to avoid getting excited or passionate about the discussion because I often use my hands and face when talking about something I am into).  Because I could speak using actual words in this span of fifteen minutes, my partners were rather relieved, although they were thrown off by my almost robotic lack of emotion as I spoke.  Some of my friends did not understand my sarcasm or joking remarks because I was unable to say them in a way that would typically provide levity to a situation.  These minor issues were not nearly as off-putting to my brothers and friends as my inability to speak was in the previous part of the experiment.  This part of the experiment shows just how important it is to be able to communicate not only what you feel, but why you feel that way.  Without being able to demonstrate different vocal tones or use hands, people are incapable of sharing exactly how they feel about something; it would almost feel like having a conversation with a machine that has no emotions or desire.  This inability to have effective conversations is greatly contributed to this machine-like delivery of information, which is why it is so necessary to use physical gestures in speech.  There are some people who have difficulty reading body language, particularly those who are socially primitive and have little experience dealing with people (I imagine a hermit would definitely be amongst those who struggle with reading body language).  If a person (or a creature) is able to read body language, it might help that person or animal stay alive.  For example, a creature in the ocean that can read body language might be able to figure out when predators are coming to attack because of the physical hints that body language provides.  At the moment, I cannot think of any particular situation where being able to read body language might not come in handy in the environment (when I do think of some I will add them to this post by commenting on it).  Perhaps in an environment where body language is misleading and will lead to death?

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Piltdown Blog Post

1.  The Piltdown Hoax, which www.pbs.org refers to as one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of science, took place in a village named Piltdown in southeast England during the early twentieth century (around the start of the first World War).  The pieces of the skull of the so-called "Piltdown man" were discovered in Piltdown by a worker who gave the fossil to an archaeologist named Charles Dawson.  This fossil of the Piltdown man was deemed by Dawson and his colleague Sir Arthur Smith Woodward to be evidence of the first man (specifically, the first British man, which was extremely important at the time because of the nationalistic war excitement that was flaring up at the time).  They believed that this fossil belonged to a creature that bridged the evolution from ape to man, which would have been quite spectacular if it were not greatly exaggerated.  At the time, the scientific community viewed this discovery as a way of identifying how apes evolved into men, essentially proving Darwin's theory of evolution and validating years of research regarding evolution.  But in 1953, it was discovered that the fossil was a hoax because it did not belong to the first man-evolved-from-ape, but rather it belonged to an orangutan that was only a few hundred years old.  This discovery was made after the Natural History Museum performed a chemical test on the skull to test its legitimacy, only to find that it was artificially altered to appear as if it belonged to the first human-like creature.  Scientists were embarrassed and disgusted at this lie, as many of them had spent decades believing in the validity of this skull; naturally, they did not appreciate being fooled, especially since this falsified discovery was of something that was considered to be the most influential knowledge regarding evolution that existed at the time.

2.  The human faults that came into play in this scenario were potentially a mixture between pride, nationalism, and a desire to be acknowledged throughout history for a great and respectable deed.  All people can be proud, but scientists are particularly so when they want to prove that their claims are accurate, which can only be done through scientific evidence.  Additionally, because this incident occurred during the beginning stages of the first World War when England and Germany were at each others' throats, the people of England were obviously filled with a desire to be superior to their foes in any way, shape or form.  By discovering that the first man was located in England, the British could boast to their German adversaries that their nation is superior (a very foolish basis for superiority I might add - just my two cents though).  Finally, scientists are constantly attempting to establish a place in history by discovering something so momentous that they would be well-known throughout the world for as long as humans are alive and have knowledge of scientific discovery.  This desire for individual achievement stems from the human desire to feel essential, which is perfectly natural for people to feel but does not belong in the world of science.  These faults made it so that the scientists felt as if they absolutely needed to discover something enormous, which means that biases were involved in what should have been an objective scientific discovery.

3.  The skull was discovered to be a fraud due to the chemical tests done at the Natural History Museum in England, which tested the fossil for its age as well as the specific species it belonged to.  The test involved estimating the nitrogen content of the fossil to determine its age, which yielded the shocking result that it was only a few hundred years old and therefore could not have belonged to the first living man.  Once they discovered that it was much younger than originally anticipated, the scientists at the museum checked to see if the pieces of the skull had been falsified through the use of chemicals, which it had been; this confirmed that the skull that was discovered was in fact a hoax and not legitimate.

4.  I do not think it would be possible to remove the human element from science without removing humans altogether.  If a group of machines were programmed to conduct scientific research, the results would be completely objective because the machines would have no other motives.  But humans are always motivated by factors such as wealth, fame, and respect; scientists behave the same way.  Unless scientists were unable to feel emotions and were filled solely with the desire to provide sound scientific research, there will always be a human factor in science.  That said, if it were possible to remove this element from science I would definitely approve because it would ensure that scientific research is legitimate and is done purely for the sake of science.  It would make science so much more accurate, which would allow discoveries and theories to develop much faster than they do with a human factor involved.

5.  The important lesson to take from this incident is that evidence should not be accepted as truth until it has been reviewed and is proven to be legitimate, much like how theories are not accepted until they have been proven to be true through countless experiments.  If a scientist claims that a discovery is legitimate, that does not establish the discovery as legitimate; it is essential for tests to be done to prove that the discovery is not a fraud, like the scenario with the Piltdown Man.   Another lesson to learn is that scientists are humans and are not the ultimate authority of legitimacy on matters that occurred hundreds to billions of years in the past.  It is foolish to take any one scientist's word on something as one hundred percent legitimate until the discovery or hypothesis has been validated by experimentation or testing.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Comparative Primate Blog Post


Comparative Primate Blog Post
In this blog post, I am going to be addressing the five types of primates that are mentioned in the prompt.  Under each type of primate, I will answer the various questions asked about each type of primate so that these different types can be compared.

1.  Lemurs
Lemurs were once found in almost any tropical area of the planet, but over time they greatly decreased in number and they now reside primarily in the Old World on islands like Madagascar or the Comoro Islands.  They live in tropical environments with lots of trees because their bodies allow them to excel at climbing the branches of trees.  
The locomotor pattern of lemurs is that they use all four of their legs to climb, jump, run, etc. hence why they are known as quadrupedals.  Because of their tropical environments that are filled with enormous trees, lemurs are benefited by using all four of their limbs to move around quickly and potentially avoid danger (which is especially important because they are an endangered species).  (Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/prosimian.html)


2.  Spider Monkeys
Spider monkeys belong to a broader category of monkeys known as New World monkeys, which primarily exist in tropical environments in Mexico, Central America, and South America.  Similarly to lemurs, spider monkeys spend most of their lives living in the trees of these tropical environments.  (Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_5.htm)
Because spider monkeys are arboreal and live in trees, they are primarily quadrupedals because it is easier to travel through trees when using all four limbs (very similar to lemurs in this sense).  However, they also can be classified as bipedals because they only use two legs when leaping between trees, and they often suspend from trees using their tails or individual limbs.  Their environment made it so that they would need to use all four limbs when moving because of the immense number of trees in their habitats.


3.  Baboons
Baboons reside in both the trees and plains/grasslands of Africa (with some living in Southern and Eastern Asia).  They live in both types of terrains which makes them semi-terrestrial primates.  The land they live on can vary from tropical forests to dry grasslands and anything in between.  (Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_6.htm)
As mentioned above, baboons are semi-terrestrial, which means that they are quadrupedals when they live in the trees but are bipedals when walking on land.  Depending on their environment, baboons use different modes of movement because they move faster using different locomotion patterns in different places.

4.  Gibbons
Gibbons exist almost exclusively in Southeast Asia, where they live among trees as completely arboreal apes; in fact, they rarely ever leave their homes in the tree tops. (Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_7.htm)
The locomotor pattern of gibbons is known as suspensory climbing because they move around by swinging under branches using distinct hand motions.  Very rarely, when gibbons walk on the top of branches or on the ground, they move bipedally because they no longer need to swing from place to place.  Again, the environment shapes the necessity of the way gibbons move from place to place.


5.  Chimpanzee
Chimps live mostly in African tropical forests and savannas, where they can live in the trees or on the ground due to the flexibility of their limbs.  (Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_7.htm)
The locomotion patterns of chimpanzees include both quadrupedalism when they move on the ground and swinging when moving in the trees.  They are primarily quadrupedals because they use their four limbs whenever they move regardless of where they are.

In summary, the environment in which primates lives has an enormous effect on the way they move and live their lives.  For primates such as lemurs or gibbons who live in areas with primarily trees surrounding them, for example, it becomes a necessity for them to use all of their limbs to move from place to place; however, chimps and baboons are found on land as well as in trees, so they must diversify the means by which they move about.  The environment is ultimately responsible for the type of locomotor patterns that each type of primate uses in their natural habitats.






Friday, September 12, 2014

Homologous and Heterogous Traits

1.  a.  Two species that share a homologous trait and rely on the inheritance of a trait from ancestors could include human beings and other primates.  Both humans and other primates have at least a tailbone (but many monkeys have full tails) which are related between different species.  In the anatomy of primates, there is at least a tailbone present in humans and non-humans, which was inherited from the common ancestor shared between these two groups.  So in short, humans have tail bones while other primates have tails or tail bones, and humans are related to other primates based on historic biologic connection.
b.  In humans, the homologous trait being discussed is the tail bone, which is the located near the rectum in terms of its exterior location in the human anatomy.  The tail bone, officially known as coccyx, is a useless bone in terms of function, but it is a sign that humans have evolved over the years from an ancestor that had a tail. Contrastingly, some primates possess tails where our tail bones are located, and these tails are an essential part of their lives and how they function.  Over time, the lack of a need for a tail led humans to evolve so that they do not have tails, which in turn has left the coccyx as the only remnants of the tails that our ancestors once had.  In contrast, other primates like monkeys still have tails because they need to use them to survive on a daily basis because of the environments they live in.  Humans have evolved away from tails because of lack of necessity.
c.  The common ancestor shared between humans and monkeys (and similar primates) is a type of primate that lived before humans existed.  These two groups are within the same species of mammal, so their last closest link is fairly recent when compared to other animals with shared homologous traits.
d.  Refer to pictures below

2.  a.  An example of an analogous trait would be fins, which exist on fish such as sharks as well as birds like penguins.  These fins, which serve the same universal purpose, are not necessarily linked because the two species are related to one another directly.
b. The fins on birds like penguins allow the birds to move from place to place on icy surfaces, as they have to slide to travel and these fins increase their ability to do so.  Fish use their fins to swim through water, so in this way both species use their fins as means of transformation.  Both penguins and fish have these fins as their arms, meaning that they are vital to their survival in their respective environments.
c.  I could not find a species that traced back to the relationship between penguins and fish, but evidently the species had to have had fins and obviously lived in a water environment.
d.  Refer to picture


Thursday, September 4, 2014

DNA Secret Message

I commend whoever is bold enough to decode my secret message.  May it enlighten you and fill you with hope for a brighter tomorrow.


CAGTTACGAACGCAACCTCTAAACAAGTACGTCTATCTGCA

Thursday, August 28, 2014

Week 1 Blog Post - Darwin's Greatest Influence

1.  While many scientists and scholars who preceded Darwin greatly influenced his ideas and his research, it is my belief that economist Thomas Malthus had the greatest influence on Darwin and his renowned work.

2.  According to http://www.allaboutscience.org/thomas-malthus-faq.htm, Thomas Malthus was primarily an economist who is most notable for his knowledge of human populations and why they will constantly surpass the number of resources available, which will inevitably result in issues like starvation and nutrition-related diseases.  Malthus' essay on this subject, entitled Essay on the Principle of Population, was one of the works that inspired Darwin's work; the book expressed the concept that people will always outnumber the resources required for them to all survive, which led to Darwin's principle of natural selection that states that only the most dominant members of a species will survive and adapt.

3.  One of the bullet points in the prompt addressed by Thomas Malthus in his work is the one encapsulating the idea that "Resources are limited", which is the fundamental message within his essay on human populations.  Malthus influenced this idea with his essay by sharing with the world a glimpse into the reality of human desire versus the scarcity of the resources found within planet earth.  With Malthus and his research establishing that resources are undoubtedly limited, Darwin used this knowledge to conclude that resources must be earned by a select group from every species, essentially the most dominant and fittest.  This idea is encompassed by the bullet point entitled "Who gets better access to these limited resources," which derives from the previous bullet point as well as from the findings of Malthus' work.

4.  While it is feasible to believe that Darwin could have potentially developed his theory of natural selection even without the influence of Thomas Malthus, I do not think he would have been capable of doing so.  Malthus was one of a select few individuals of his time who addressed the issue of scarcity of resources and the effect that it has on society.  People were skeptical of Malthus' ideas so naturally not many were willing to accept them.  Without the work of Malthus, Darwin would most likely not have had the benefit of prior expertise on the limited nature of resources, which was essential in the creation of his theory of natural selection. 

5.  The attitude of the church affected Darwin by showing him how resistant many people would be to his revolutionary ideas regarding evolution.  Religious individuals were outraged at the concept of natural selection because it did not involve the work of a deity and defied the idea that a powerful being is looking after the world and all of its inhabitants; in other words, Darwin's ideas provided a harsh reality that they were unwilling to accept.  The negative responses of the religious community had a primarily negative effect on Darwin and the publication of his book because he most likely realized the level of resistance that many would have towards him and his ideologies.  In the end, however, Darwin must have realized that all great innovators face obstacles, but in the end it will reduce the ignorance of society by sharing his ideas with the world.