1. Cold is an environmental stress that negatively affects the survival of humans by forcing them to adapt to unsafe living conditions. The human body must work a lot harder to keep the core temperature up, thus burning more calories and forcing the person to consume more food. As well as the increase in food consumption, shelters must also be modified to bear the tough weather. Preventing harsh wind conditions and snow are crucial to survival in an environment where there is consistently cold weather patterns.
2. Short Term- Putting on a jacket is a short term adaptation to the cold because it requires no genetic change and can be removed once the person in warm.
Facultative- The heat production increase in a human when it is faced with cold weather is facultative because it occurs inside the human, but once the temperature rises, the heat production will go back to normal.
Developmental- Humans living in colder climates have adapted to be generally burlier and have more mass to ensure their survival in these climates. Having more fat on their bodies better allow them to retain heat, making it easier on their bodies to keep warm. However, this is becoming less true as science and culture evolve into modern times, allowing anyone to live anywhere and survive with relative ease.
Cultural- Clothing and eating habits are two cultural adaptations that are very prevalent in cold climates. Because of the increased amount of heat that needs to be produced in order for humans to live in these climates, warm clothing helps tremendously, for the human body can only do so much. Eating habits are also changed because without the caloric intake needed to produce all of the energy needed not only to keep warm, but also to move around, the human will simply collapse and freeze to death.
3. Studying human variation from this perspective allows for us to see how diverse our genetic makeup can be, adapting to all sorts of different environmental stresses. This information can be used to further explain how we operate and help us control these adaptations so that we may be the best we possibly can. For example, if we learned all that there was to know about ourselves, we may be able to figure out easily accessible ways to cure diseases like cancer. Learning how we adapt is only the first step in this process.
4. I would use race to understand the variation of the adaptations by locating where that race primarily originated from and then make connections based on culture, weather, and altitude. These connections would lead to hypotheses being made which would, in turn, give us a better understanding of how the culture, weather and altitude shaped the physical appearance of a race. Using race only is not as accurate as environmental influences because there are many different races that live in very similar environments. That means that race is not a perfect indication because of its many discrepancies and intricacies that make up these differences as portrayed by the environmental stresses.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Language Experiment
Part 1:
I conducted this experiment with my beautiful, funny, smart, talented girlfriend yesterday. I explained the rules and we immediately started our conversation. Having to hold a conversation without being able to vocalize proved to be difficult at first, but ended up being easier with time because of the person I was communicating with. Because I was communicating with my girlfriend whom I have been dating for around a year, I was able to better pick up on certain patterns and hints that she gave with her various gesticulations. This experiment would have been much more difficult had I been paired with someone that I was not as well-acquainted with. The absence of spoken word communication actively forced us to use larger, more grandiose expressions of what we wanted to get across to the other.
Initially, I was in control of the conversation because she didn't quite understand the concept fully when I explained, but once we got used to talking without our voices, I noticed that she changed the topics more than I did. She started to ask more questions, which I would answer and ask another back to her. Thinking in terms of balance of power, I believe it was relatively equal in our voiceless conversation. I started out asking more questions and creating topics to talk about but once we got more comfortable, she began to change topics and even joke with me which I found to be really amazing given the circumstances.
The speaking culture definitely has the advantage when explaining ideas because of their ability to completely and clearly explain the points of view that they have. The speaking culture might adopt a superior attitude toward the non-speaking culture because they can't communicate as thoroughly as the speaking culture. When a deaf/mute person tries to communicate with a person not familiar with sign language, it may replicate these feelings because of the inability for one side to fully express themselves.
Part 2:
Again, I conducted this experiment with my girlfriend and we both agree that it was the more difficult of the two. Because we were both allowed to speak, we decided to give our conversation more substance than the last. Not being able to read the body language and inflection made it extremely difficult to discern whether we were being sarcastic or serious. She said that she felt completely lost in the conversation because I joke so much and use sarcasm so often, she felt it was near impossible to tell what I actually meant by just the words that came out of my mouth. I found it difficult as well because she is usually so animated in the way she speaks that it felt really forced and sarcastic the entire time she was speaking.
Reading body language is a huge part of communication. It allows a person to say something that has one meaning if taken literally, but mean something completely different just by exaggerating a certain word or making a certain movement. It really emphasizes the words that are being said and really allows a person to express their opinion more freely with more understanding from the other party. It also allows for jokes to be told and received. Without body language and changes in tone of voice, conversations would be terribly boring and have no interesting viewpoints to discuss.
Reading body language is helpful in understanding what people think. Anyone can say anything at any time, making people's word a very hard thing to completely trust. If reading body language is mastered, however, one can dive into people's minds, mining through their brains and finding what they are really thinking. Having this knowledge will allow one to know exactly what to say at what times to get the most favorable result for themselves.
People who are socially inept generally have poor body language comprehension. They typically do not pick up on cues like facing away from them, short answers or trying to start another conversation with someone else. On the contrary, someone who is hyper-aware of body language can use this to their advantage, sending mixed signals to the person they are talking to. This creates a chess game in the heads of the two conversationalists that is filled with mind games and attempts to psyche one another out.
I conducted this experiment with my beautiful, funny, smart, talented girlfriend yesterday. I explained the rules and we immediately started our conversation. Having to hold a conversation without being able to vocalize proved to be difficult at first, but ended up being easier with time because of the person I was communicating with. Because I was communicating with my girlfriend whom I have been dating for around a year, I was able to better pick up on certain patterns and hints that she gave with her various gesticulations. This experiment would have been much more difficult had I been paired with someone that I was not as well-acquainted with. The absence of spoken word communication actively forced us to use larger, more grandiose expressions of what we wanted to get across to the other.
Initially, I was in control of the conversation because she didn't quite understand the concept fully when I explained, but once we got used to talking without our voices, I noticed that she changed the topics more than I did. She started to ask more questions, which I would answer and ask another back to her. Thinking in terms of balance of power, I believe it was relatively equal in our voiceless conversation. I started out asking more questions and creating topics to talk about but once we got more comfortable, she began to change topics and even joke with me which I found to be really amazing given the circumstances.
The speaking culture definitely has the advantage when explaining ideas because of their ability to completely and clearly explain the points of view that they have. The speaking culture might adopt a superior attitude toward the non-speaking culture because they can't communicate as thoroughly as the speaking culture. When a deaf/mute person tries to communicate with a person not familiar with sign language, it may replicate these feelings because of the inability for one side to fully express themselves.
Part 2:
Again, I conducted this experiment with my girlfriend and we both agree that it was the more difficult of the two. Because we were both allowed to speak, we decided to give our conversation more substance than the last. Not being able to read the body language and inflection made it extremely difficult to discern whether we were being sarcastic or serious. She said that she felt completely lost in the conversation because I joke so much and use sarcasm so often, she felt it was near impossible to tell what I actually meant by just the words that came out of my mouth. I found it difficult as well because she is usually so animated in the way she speaks that it felt really forced and sarcastic the entire time she was speaking.
Reading body language is a huge part of communication. It allows a person to say something that has one meaning if taken literally, but mean something completely different just by exaggerating a certain word or making a certain movement. It really emphasizes the words that are being said and really allows a person to express their opinion more freely with more understanding from the other party. It also allows for jokes to be told and received. Without body language and changes in tone of voice, conversations would be terribly boring and have no interesting viewpoints to discuss.
Reading body language is helpful in understanding what people think. Anyone can say anything at any time, making people's word a very hard thing to completely trust. If reading body language is mastered, however, one can dive into people's minds, mining through their brains and finding what they are really thinking. Having this knowledge will allow one to know exactly what to say at what times to get the most favorable result for themselves.
People who are socially inept generally have poor body language comprehension. They typically do not pick up on cues like facing away from them, short answers or trying to start another conversation with someone else. On the contrary, someone who is hyper-aware of body language can use this to their advantage, sending mixed signals to the person they are talking to. This creates a chess game in the heads of the two conversationalists that is filled with mind games and attempts to psyche one another out.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Piltdown Hoax
1. The Piltdown Hoax was a false study in which bone fragments were found in fossilized remains that contained a skull of a human and the jawbone of a primate. It was found in 1912 at a excavation site in East Sussex, England by Charles Dawson. It would have been a great find because of the information it would have given us about the human brain and its expansion. It made the scientific community a lot more skeptical of such outlandish discoveries, as it should be. The hoax was discovered when the skull and jaw had been inspected closer, revealing minor alterations, like how the teeth of the ape's jaw had been filed down. This gave proof that there was someone out there that forged this skull. The scientists involved were in disbelief that this was a forgery. They couldn't believe that they had been fooled so easily.
2. Trusting the source without much questioning was a very big mistake in the Piltdown Hoax. Had there been more questioning of the skull and jaw, maybe the scientists would have realized that it was a fake before word was leaked to the public. I also feel that wishful thinking came into play because the scientists were so thirsty to find the "missing link".
3. Getting more than one opinion was definitely a positive aspect of using the scientific method to falsify the Piltdown Skull. Having one opinion of a potentially biased scientist is not a reliable source for a theory. Many other scientists with different viewpoints and techniques need to be consulted to get an accurate representation of the scientific view. In using these different viewpoints, you create almost a mean, or average, making it easier to pass off a scientific theory because of the wide spectrum of testers.
4. Removing the human aspect of science is impossible and impractical. Science has always been conducted by humans, so no matter how inorganic one may seem, that person will always have an opinion or viewpoint that will affect the experiment one way or another. It is impractical because even if there was a way to get a truly unbiased scientist, having the conduct the experiment would raise suspicions from scientists who oppose the result. Even if the result is 100% true, there will always be a handful of scientists wanting to prove that point wrong, thus wasting more time and effort in something that has an ultimately unimpactful end result.
5. Taking information you have never heard before as true is never a smart idea. Like the scientists have proven, bias is a real thing, even in science. Believing everything you hear is obviously a terrible idea, because you are bound to get skewed opinions and information from people who have hidden agendas or false reasoning. The internet is a prime example of this. While not always wrong, the internet is full of false information and flat-out lies. Take everything with a grain of salt, do your research from reputable sources, and form your own opinions to really get a thorough understanding of a subject.
2. Trusting the source without much questioning was a very big mistake in the Piltdown Hoax. Had there been more questioning of the skull and jaw, maybe the scientists would have realized that it was a fake before word was leaked to the public. I also feel that wishful thinking came into play because the scientists were so thirsty to find the "missing link".
3. Getting more than one opinion was definitely a positive aspect of using the scientific method to falsify the Piltdown Skull. Having one opinion of a potentially biased scientist is not a reliable source for a theory. Many other scientists with different viewpoints and techniques need to be consulted to get an accurate representation of the scientific view. In using these different viewpoints, you create almost a mean, or average, making it easier to pass off a scientific theory because of the wide spectrum of testers.
4. Removing the human aspect of science is impossible and impractical. Science has always been conducted by humans, so no matter how inorganic one may seem, that person will always have an opinion or viewpoint that will affect the experiment one way or another. It is impractical because even if there was a way to get a truly unbiased scientist, having the conduct the experiment would raise suspicions from scientists who oppose the result. Even if the result is 100% true, there will always be a handful of scientists wanting to prove that point wrong, thus wasting more time and effort in something that has an ultimately unimpactful end result.
5. Taking information you have never heard before as true is never a smart idea. Like the scientists have proven, bias is a real thing, even in science. Believing everything you hear is obviously a terrible idea, because you are bound to get skewed opinions and information from people who have hidden agendas or false reasoning. The internet is a prime example of this. While not always wrong, the internet is full of false information and flat-out lies. Take everything with a grain of salt, do your research from reputable sources, and form your own opinions to really get a thorough understanding of a subject.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Comparing Primates
Lemurs (Prosimians/Strepsirhini)
Lemurs are only found on the islands of Madagascar and Comoro. They live a very docile lifestyle with rarely any competition. Their agility allows for quick movement on the ground and in the trees, where they spend most of their time foraging for fruits and nuts to eat. Standard Lemur dentition consists of two incisors, one canine tooth, three premolars, and three molars. Lemurs use their teeth to groom other lemurs in the troop. The structure found in the lemurs mouth used for this purpose is called a toothcomb. Another use for the toothcomb is olfaction, or the sense of smell.
Spider Monkeys (New World Monkey/Playrrhini)
Spider Monkeys live in tropical climates like Central America. They travel in groups and forage for food in the trees. They have two incisors, one canine tooth, 3 premolars and three molars. Their teeth are heavily evolved for the environment that they live in. Because they live mostly in the trees, the spider monkeys teeth are evolved for feeding on food found mostly in the trees they inhabit. These foods include berries, nuts and eggs.
Baboon (Old World Monkey/Cercopithecidae)
Baboons live mainly in Africa in dry, hotter areas than the previous two. Like the spider monkey and lemur, baboons feed on berries and seeds when available, but due to the arid climate they live in, those are very scarce. Baboons live off of eating rodents and small animals wherever there is no edible vegetation. For this reason, baboons have very sharp canine teeth and broad molars so that they are able to kill and feed on the animals they catch. Their teeth have evolved for this purpose, making it easier for them to survive.
Gibbon (Lesser Ape/Hylobatidae)
Gibbons live in humid African climates near the southern half of the continent. They live in the tropical trees that are very fruitful. Because of this, the Gibbon's diet is made up of almost entirely fruit from the trees it inhabits. Gibbons also have very long, sharp canine teeth like the baboon, but they do not use theirs to hunt animals. For this reason, Gibbon's teeth are less evolved for killing, but instead more adapted for foraging.
Chimpanzee (Great Ape/Hominidae)
Chimpanzees can inhabit both the tropical trees and the dry, dusty climates of Africa. They mainly eat fruits, nuts, seeds and leaves from the trees they live in. They use their long canine teeth for foraging and their flat, broad molars to crush the fruits and nuts they find.
These primates are all relatively similar in their dentition, having canine teeth, incisors, premolars and molars. However, the environment they live in does have an effect on the adaptations of the teeth. As a result, not all of these primates teeth are the EXACT same. Some are specialized for foraging nuts and fruits in the trees while others are specialized for killing small rodents. Because of the tropical environments some of these primates live in, they are more adapted to feed off of plants, giving them a different set of teeth than the ones that live in dry climates.
Lemurs are only found on the islands of Madagascar and Comoro. They live a very docile lifestyle with rarely any competition. Their agility allows for quick movement on the ground and in the trees, where they spend most of their time foraging for fruits and nuts to eat. Standard Lemur dentition consists of two incisors, one canine tooth, three premolars, and three molars. Lemurs use their teeth to groom other lemurs in the troop. The structure found in the lemurs mouth used for this purpose is called a toothcomb. Another use for the toothcomb is olfaction, or the sense of smell.
Spider Monkeys (New World Monkey/Playrrhini)
Spider Monkeys live in tropical climates like Central America. They travel in groups and forage for food in the trees. They have two incisors, one canine tooth, 3 premolars and three molars. Their teeth are heavily evolved for the environment that they live in. Because they live mostly in the trees, the spider monkeys teeth are evolved for feeding on food found mostly in the trees they inhabit. These foods include berries, nuts and eggs.
Baboon (Old World Monkey/Cercopithecidae)
Baboons live mainly in Africa in dry, hotter areas than the previous two. Like the spider monkey and lemur, baboons feed on berries and seeds when available, but due to the arid climate they live in, those are very scarce. Baboons live off of eating rodents and small animals wherever there is no edible vegetation. For this reason, baboons have very sharp canine teeth and broad molars so that they are able to kill and feed on the animals they catch. Their teeth have evolved for this purpose, making it easier for them to survive.
Gibbon (Lesser Ape/Hylobatidae)
Gibbons live in humid African climates near the southern half of the continent. They live in the tropical trees that are very fruitful. Because of this, the Gibbon's diet is made up of almost entirely fruit from the trees it inhabits. Gibbons also have very long, sharp canine teeth like the baboon, but they do not use theirs to hunt animals. For this reason, Gibbon's teeth are less evolved for killing, but instead more adapted for foraging.
Chimpanzee (Great Ape/Hominidae)
Chimpanzees can inhabit both the tropical trees and the dry, dusty climates of Africa. They mainly eat fruits, nuts, seeds and leaves from the trees they live in. They use their long canine teeth for foraging and their flat, broad molars to crush the fruits and nuts they find.
These primates are all relatively similar in their dentition, having canine teeth, incisors, premolars and molars. However, the environment they live in does have an effect on the adaptations of the teeth. As a result, not all of these primates teeth are the EXACT same. Some are specialized for foraging nuts and fruits in the trees while others are specialized for killing small rodents. Because of the tropical environments some of these primates live in, they are more adapted to feed off of plants, giving them a different set of teeth than the ones that live in dry climates.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Week 3: Analogy/Homology
Homologous:
1a. Two species that possess a homologous trait are frogs and lizards with their forelimbs. Frogs are amphibians that mostly live near moist wetlands while lizards are reptiles that live in more dry regions.
1b. The forelimbs of a frog are used for a multitude of things, but most notably for locomotion (both land and water), balance when standing/sitting and absorbing shock from high impact stress on the body.
The forelimbs of a lizard are used almost strictly for locomotion on land, however, there are other lesser known uses for them such as hunting, scavenging and feeding.
1c. The common ancestor between these two had to have been some sort of large reptile. When part of the population was forced to live near large masses of water, it adapted its forelimbs to accommodate the change in environment.
2a. Two species that share an analogous trait are humans and octopi. Both species use eyes for seeing, but both sets of eyes have adapted for completely different environments.
2b. Human eyes are used only for vision. They are adapted mostly for environments where sunlight or some substitute is present. There is a clear periphery where vision gets blurred and blind spots where the eye cannot see due to placement on the human.
Octopus eyes are also only used for vision. However, they are adapted for the deep sea where there is not sunlight. Also different from humans is that they do not have a blind spot, meaning that they can see everything around them.
2c. The common ancestor between these two must have the analogous trait because both of the structures are used for the same thing (vision), however they act different because they are adapted differently to their respective environments.
1a. Two species that possess a homologous trait are frogs and lizards with their forelimbs. Frogs are amphibians that mostly live near moist wetlands while lizards are reptiles that live in more dry regions.
1b. The forelimbs of a frog are used for a multitude of things, but most notably for locomotion (both land and water), balance when standing/sitting and absorbing shock from high impact stress on the body.
The forelimbs of a lizard are used almost strictly for locomotion on land, however, there are other lesser known uses for them such as hunting, scavenging and feeding.
2a. Two species that share an analogous trait are humans and octopi. Both species use eyes for seeing, but both sets of eyes have adapted for completely different environments.
2b. Human eyes are used only for vision. They are adapted mostly for environments where sunlight or some substitute is present. There is a clear periphery where vision gets blurred and blind spots where the eye cannot see due to placement on the human.
Octopus eyes are also only used for vision. However, they are adapted for the deep sea where there is not sunlight. Also different from humans is that they do not have a blind spot, meaning that they can see everything around them.
2c. The common ancestor between these two must have the analogous trait because both of the structures are used for the same thing (vision), however they act different because they are adapted differently to their respective environments.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Week One: Historical Influences on Darwin
1. I believe that Jean-Baptiste Lamarck influenced Darwin's theory the most because of his idea that the environment surrounding the species played a large and crucial role in their evolution. Lamarck believed that a species would lose body parts that were not in use and change body parts that were heavily used to further enable their survival.
2. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's view on evolution was one that has been torn down for it's biological inaccuracy for years, but it does have its merits. Lamarck believed that all living things evolved into more "perfect beings", enhancing their strong parts and eradicating their weak ones. He explained a point in which as an organism lives and changes, it's adaptations would be passed down from generation to generation. This was only half true, as only the traits that are able to be passed down would be present in the offspring. This is where Lamarck gets most of the negative critique for his explanation. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/3/l_023_01.html
3. The bullet points "Organisms with better access to resources will be more successful in their reproductive efforts", "Who gets better access to these resources?", and "If the environment changes, the traits that are helpful or adaptive to that environment" all are related to Lamarck's idea that as resources and environments change, so do the organisms that rely on them. The population will adapt to survive if one of these variables is altered. The points "In order for natural selection to occur, reproduction must occur" and "In order for traits to evolve and change, they must be heritable" also speak to the part of Lamarck's hypothesis that has warranted him so much criticism. While it may be true that species adapt and change throughout their lifetime, the traits that change also must be able to be passed down through the genetic makeup within the sex cells. So in this case, Lamarck was wrong in saying that any and all adaptations that occurred within an organisms lifetime would be passed down to its offspring.
4. I personally do not think that Darwin would have been able to explain natural select without the ideas of Lamarck. Without his views on adaptation and environmental change, Darwin's hypothesis would not be as testable or falsifiable as it was. It is very simple to alter the environment of a test subject to see what kinds of changes occur. However, it is almost arbitrary what will happen without controlling the environmental change or even having any environmental change at all.
5. Darwin's book was, unsurprisingly, not well-received by the church. As a group of highly religious people, reading a book that indirectly shot down the beliefs that they were raised on threatened them greatly. Even to this day, there is a clear divide between science and religion.
2. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's view on evolution was one that has been torn down for it's biological inaccuracy for years, but it does have its merits. Lamarck believed that all living things evolved into more "perfect beings", enhancing their strong parts and eradicating their weak ones. He explained a point in which as an organism lives and changes, it's adaptations would be passed down from generation to generation. This was only half true, as only the traits that are able to be passed down would be present in the offspring. This is where Lamarck gets most of the negative critique for his explanation. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/3/l_023_01.html
3. The bullet points "Organisms with better access to resources will be more successful in their reproductive efforts", "Who gets better access to these resources?", and "If the environment changes, the traits that are helpful or adaptive to that environment" all are related to Lamarck's idea that as resources and environments change, so do the organisms that rely on them. The population will adapt to survive if one of these variables is altered. The points "In order for natural selection to occur, reproduction must occur" and "In order for traits to evolve and change, they must be heritable" also speak to the part of Lamarck's hypothesis that has warranted him so much criticism. While it may be true that species adapt and change throughout their lifetime, the traits that change also must be able to be passed down through the genetic makeup within the sex cells. So in this case, Lamarck was wrong in saying that any and all adaptations that occurred within an organisms lifetime would be passed down to its offspring.
4. I personally do not think that Darwin would have been able to explain natural select without the ideas of Lamarck. Without his views on adaptation and environmental change, Darwin's hypothesis would not be as testable or falsifiable as it was. It is very simple to alter the environment of a test subject to see what kinds of changes occur. However, it is almost arbitrary what will happen without controlling the environmental change or even having any environmental change at all.
5. Darwin's book was, unsurprisingly, not well-received by the church. As a group of highly religious people, reading a book that indirectly shot down the beliefs that they were raised on threatened them greatly. Even to this day, there is a clear divide between science and religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)