Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Human Variation & Race Blog

In cold climates there is the risk of hypothermia. Hypothermia drops the core body temperature to dangerous levels. Normal core temperature for a human is 98.6 degrees. Hypothermia begins when the core body temperature drops below 94 degrees. Different people respond to the cold differently depending upon hormones, age, time of day, physical activity, body size, body shape, and metabolism. Once this happens a person may eventually die from the cold. Interestingly people may be revived after organ failure, after reaching freezing temperatures of 57-60 degrees.

At the other end of the spectrum people experience Hyperthermia, when exposed to excessive heat over 105-107 degrees. Within a few days they may die.

There are a number of ways we Humans adapt to our various environments:

Facultative adaptation: If one is constantly exposed to a cold climate they may build fat insulation around their organs, gain an increase in their basal metabolic rate, and there may be a change in their blood flow patterns.

Developmental adaptations: Cold climates encourage larger bodies that are built compactly . A more compact body has less surface area and so heat is not lost as easily.

Short-term adaptation: Our built in response to the cold causes up to start shivering. This is our bodies attempt to warm itself up. It only works in the short-term.

Cultural adaptations: With the use of technology Humans are able to create artificial environments (via heathers/air conditioners) that enable them to live in virtually any environment, without having to evolve to fit into that environment. Another cultural adaption would be wearing warm clothing, use of animals (sled dogs), eating high fat foods (fish/seals)to raise metabolic temperature, remain active when outside, creating fires for warmth, drinking alcohol (can speed heat loss) to gain a feeling of warmth, and building shelters. Also setting certain outdoor activities for during the warmer daylight hours/warmer seasons helps minimize exposure to cold.

By studying this spectrum of adaption we can better understand ourselves and know more readily how to adapt in new environments that we may encounter.

When we think of people in terms of their adaption’s we can have a better respect for their culture, way of life, food choices, etc. Our interaction becomes one of learning and connecting versus just making assumptions about a person based upon their skin color or ethnical background. Race alone is not consistent across the board as a way of determining environmental adaption traits or someone status in society because genes for skin color, eye color, nose size, hair type, arm length, etc. are not consistently linked to ones ethnic background. Many of us are mixtures of various backgrounds, so visible traits are misleading. No one’s morality, intelligence, or social outlook should be guessed upon by these superficial means. Genes can be mixed interchangeably…a dark skinned person can have blue eyes, and a pale skinned person can have black hair, etc. Any one of us (as a population over time) put into the right environment, may develop survival traits that make us look different, but essentially we are very similar in every other way. Culturally speaking I think that we should celebrate these differences and enjoy them, rather than trying to make everyone the same. We are not cookies, and should not be made to fit into a mold. Women with “big” feet should be seen as just as lovely as those with smaller feet, as an example. Scientifically speaking, there is even more reason to celebrate diversity because we have the capability of dealing directly with our genes. I would even go so far to say that genetic information and diversity is the most valuable substance in the universe. Just today I watched a program about a person that does not age. This person has had a hard life and is solely dependent upon their family, but their genetic diversity could open up many new opportunities. I would hate to see a world where there is no genetic diversity where everyone is “beautiful” and “perfect” and looks the same. As long as we are adapting; we are growing….and more opportunities open up for us.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Language Experiment

I chose not to tell my subject that I was conducting an experiment. I wanted to get honest reactions from them.

For the first part of the experiment I only used non-verbal vocalization, hand signs, body language, etc. While my subject carried on a conversation I never said a word. This portion of the experiment was easy. It is amazing how easy it is to communicate without words, especially when you are with someone chatty. For the most part the subject did not even notice that I was not speaking. They had assumed that I was distracted and so slowly the conversation fizzled out.

In a situation where two cultures are meeting for the first time, I can imagine that the person with the ability to speak is the most able to communicate complex ideas. The culture that can speak would without doubt feel a sort of disconnect with the culture that could not speak and perhaps would not regard them as equals.

There are those in our culture that cannot hear and so do not speak audibly our symbolic language. I have interacted directly with such persons. Non-verbal communication goes a long way in getting a point across. Hand gestures, smiling, and eye-contact all assure the person that they are respected and welcome. As long as both parties are patient, communication is relatively easy. Only basic ideas can be communicated though. Complex ideas are lost and need language, either written or spoken.

For the second part of the conversation, when I spoke audibly but hindered my body-language, I was not able to last the full fifteen minutes. It was difficult not to use my hands, or to express emotions on my face. My partner in conversation felt unsure, confused, and somewhat uncomfortable that I was not offering body-language or assuring tones in my voice. My speech seemed more serious or perhaps disconnected to the conversation at hand. My subject felt that I was disinterested or even in a bad mood and the conversation ended.

I think that non-verbal communication is essential and the tone of our voice communicates volumes of information to our companions in conversation. There is a saying that 90 percent of our communication is non-verbal. When we use hand gestures, posture, and facial expressions those listening to and watching us feel assured that we like them, that we are genuinely interested in talking to them, that we accept them, etc. This strongly affects our ability to form bonds and build trust.

There are people that have difficulty reading emotions in others (autism spectrum disorders) and it can be as if they are missing out on part of the conversation taking place. They may not be able to understand the way others feel. I cannot fathom any environment where not reading body language could be beneficial. I actually found it easier to communicate non-verbally than I did verbally without body language.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Piltdown Hoax

In 1912, near the Southern English town of Lewes there was an amazing discovery. In a small village named Piltdown, there were Human fossils “discovered”. The fossils consisted of skull fragments and a partial jaw bone of an early Human ancestor. The newspapers dubbed the find, the Piltdown man. Charles Dawson, an armature archeologist, claimed to have found the fossils while digging in a gravel pit. This was however not true. The bones were a carefully fabricated hoax.

Dawson invited Arthur Smith Woodward, England’s leading geologist at the time, and Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin studied geology and paleontology and was at the site for only a short while. Woodward hailed from England’s Natural History Museum. Woodward seemed to wholeheartedly support and believe Dawson, even though he never found fossils of his own, even a long time after Dawson had died. While the three men excavated the site together, and over a course of time Charles Dawson made “stunning finds”. He presumably dug up the partial jawbone and other fragments of the Piltdown individual’s head.

This had a huge effect upon the scientific community. This put England on the map, so to speak. As we try to fathom the motivation for this hoax, let us consider that France, Germany, and Asia had all found fossils of humans. England had not produced an ancient fossil of man, and perhaps this led to some jealousy. Since Woodward was so well favored, no one questioned the validity of Dawson’s find. Woodward was however specialized in fish fossils; not human evolution.

Also, Sir Arthur Keith, England’s leading anatomist, was one of the greatest supporters of Piltdown man. Keith was so inclined because the fossils supported his personal beliefs about human evolution, and that humans developed large brains before they learned to walk bipedally. Scientists have now learned the opposite to be true; Humans learned to walk upright before developing larger brains. When news broke that the Piltdown man had been a hoax, Keith was quiet about the matter.

Another character in the plot is Martin Hinton, a young volunteer and worker at the Natural History Museum. He seemed to be a silent observer to watch all this unfold. He apparently disliked Woodward, which led some to believe that he was a co-conspirator with Dawson.

The Piltdown hoaxer(s) fooled the scientific community for more than forty years. Then the tide began to change. Findings in Asia and Africa did not seem to support the findings found in the small town of Piltdown. The new human ancestor fossils found were hundreds of thousands of years after Piltdown and were less human, not more human like the Piltdown man. In addition the Natural History Museum didn’t allow many outsiders to examine the Piltdown man fossils. Wider access and study may have revealed the true nature or the Piltdown man fossils; even though in those days technology was limited.

Later, around the time of WWII, in 1949 a fluorine test was administered. This test gave surprising results. The bones were much younger than originally thought. In 1953, there was full scale scrutiny of the Piltdown remains with better dating methods than previously available. It became evident that the bones had been stained, cut with steel, and otherwise tampered with. The human-like teeth on the jaw-bone of Piltdown man had evidence of being filed down. Then the killer evidence came when it was discovered that the jawbone was less than 100 years old and came from a female orangutan. The jawbone had been cut, broken, and manipulated to fit a human skull and to erase any signs that the bone was not human. This led the scientists investigating the Piltdown man remains to the understanding that the fossils were forgeries. Charles Dawson became the prime suspect in manipulating the bones, even though he was long gone. Dawson’s possible motivation was that he was an ambitious person and he wanted to be a fellow at the royal society and achieve scientific prestige (which he did). Dawson today is revealed to be undeserving of such titles. He has been known to have forged another half dozen archeological finds over the course of his career.

As far as co-conspirators, there is no evidence on the others, except for perhaps Martin Hinton. He was found to possess many stained bone fragments. Hinton had eventually become a zoologist at the Natural History Museum. When investigators were able to go through Hinton’s things, they found the exact stain (chemically) used on the Piltdown man specimens. This does not prove however that Hinton collaborated with Dawson. Investigators feel that Hinton may have merely been experimenting, on his own, as a means to investigate the fraud durning the 1950’s.

We as humans have our own beliefs about the world, even as scientists the same is true. When we find “evidence” to support our beliefs it is tempting to encourage or spin the evidence in our favor. Since we know that we are predispositioned to do this we must guard against ourselves and our own individual interests. We like to think of scientists as heralds of progress and truthful individuals, but the reality is that even scientists can be corrupt.

Then there is the scenario where people have no regard for the true advancement of science, and in order to advance their own agenda, they are willing to lie and produce forgeries. By doing this they are able to achieve fame, glory, praise, and whatever other benefits; at least temporarily. Unfortunately we as investigators, truth seekers, and scientist have to be on the defensive against such individuals.

Dawson and Hinton are the two main suspects in the Piltdown man hoax, but I think of Keith as an interesting character in this story. Being an expert in anatomy, surely he would have been able to recognize a human jawbone or one that was not human. I wonder if he simply “looked the other way”, and endorsed the Piltdown man for his own pride and gain - which was to promote his beliefs about human evolution. Though it’s not possible to totally remove the “human” factor, and there is no such thing as a human without emotion, we can however, knowing our weakness, guard against such mistakes.

This is just another reminder, among many that face us every day; that life or reality is not the construct we have created. There is a reality all around us that we may never understand objectively, but scientific method is the best tool we have to achieving an objective understanding of our reality.

This is also a lesson that any and all of our accepted scientific theories can be changed, amended, added too, detracted from, and/or can be proven to be true or false. Nothing is written in stone when it comes to science, especially at this time in history. As a civilization we are still learning, and we are still primitive in our scope.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Comparative Primate Trait

Comparison, the expression of dentition patterns:

Lemurs (Prosimians/Strepsirhini):

Suborder: Strepsirrhini
Infraorder: Lemuriformes
Superfamily: Lemuroidea
Family: Lemuridae
Genus: Lemur
Species: L. catta

a. A thorough description of the environment in which the primates lives.

Lemurs live on the isolated Madagascar island where they have no competition with larger primates. Lemurs are usually nocturnal, insectivorous primates that lead solitary lives. They have a smallish body, large eyes, long bushy tails, and a long nose. Their habitat is endangered by habitat destruction and deforestation. Lemurs that operate during the day tend to be larger and less reclusive.

b. A description of your specified character trait for that primate.

Lemurs have specialized teeth on their lower jaw that aides in grooming.

c. A discussion on how the primate’s trait expression has been influenced by its environment, i.e., how can the trait be viewed as an adaptation to the primate’s environment.

Lemurs may also use these teeth for eating native insects and leaves.

Spider Monkey (New World Monkey/Platyrrhini):

Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Atelidae
Subfamily: Atelinae
Genus: Ateles

a. A thorough description of the environment in which the primates lives.

Spider Monkeys make their home in South and Central America’s tropical rain forests. They have prehensile tails, tiny bodies, and long arms for life among the trees, though oddly, they have no thumbs. They are social and work together in small groups foraging for food. Spider Monkeys are threatened by logging, human encroachment, and deforestation.

b. A description of your specified character trait for that primate.

Spider monkeys have fewer teeth than other primates (only 32) and many species have two large teeth that jut out.

c. A discussion on how the primate’s trait expression has been influenced by its environment, i.e., how can the trait be viewed as an adaptation to the primate’s environment.

These frontal teeth help them bore holes.

Baboon (Old World Monkey/Cercopithecidae) :

Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Superfamily: Cercopithecoidea
Family: Cercopithecidae
Subfamily: Cercopithecinae
Genus: Papio
Species: P. Anubis

a. A thorough description of the environment in which the primates lives.

Baboons live in East Africa among the savannah’s and woodlands. They are social and enjoy grooming. Their communities consist of about 50 individuals. Baboons are omnivores, eating things like berries, seeds, leaves, roots, insects, fish, and even bark. The main threat to Baboons, besides cheetahs and leopards, are Humans.

b. A description of your specified character trait for that primate.

Baboons have two prominent large canine teeth that jut out of their long muzzle.

c. A discussion on how the primate’s trait expression has been influenced by its environment, i.e., how can the trait be viewed as an adaptation to the primate’s environment.

These teeth help them eat a variety of foods that otherwise would be difficult for them to eat and they also serve as a formidable aid to help them defend themselves.

Gibbon (Lesser ape/Hylobatidae):

Suborder Haplorrhini

Infraorder Simiiformes

Superfamily Hominoidea

Family Hylobatidae

Genus Hylobates

a. A thorough description of the environment in which the primates lives.

Gibbons are arboreal apes dwelling in Asian rainforests. They are known for their agility. They have small bodies. They live in small families. They are endangered, mostly due to humans partaking in illegal wildlife trade practices and deforestation.

b. A description of your specified character trait for that primate.

Gibbons have relatively large canines and high cusped teeth in the back of their mouths.

c. A discussion on how the primate’s trait expression has been influenced by its environment, i.e., how can the trait be viewed as an adaptation to the primate’s environment.

Their teeth are well adapted to grinding plant matter and for eating a folivoruous diet which they prefer.

Chimpanzee (Great ape/Hominidae) :

Suborder: Haplorrhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Pan
Species: P. troglodytes

a. A thorough description of the environment in which the primates lives.

Chimpanzees are arguably the most Human-like of the primates and some argue that they should be a part of the same genus as Humans. Chimpanzees have no tail, prominent ears, pale faces, and white beards. They are arboreal and terrestrial. They are native to the equatorial region of Africa. They eat mostly fruit, along with leaves, seeds, blossoms, and bark.

b. A description of your specified character trait for that primate.

Chimpanzees have robust canines, though not as large as other primates, but definitely larger than those found in Humans.

c. A discussion on how the primate’s trait expression has been influenced by its environment, i.e., how can the trait be viewed as an adaptation to the primate’s environment.

Male Chimpanzees have even larger teeth, which they use in fighting other males or predators.

Summery: It seems that the primary influence on primate dentition has to do with what kind of diet these animals maintain. In addition their teeth aid them in fighting off predators or other attackers. Most primates have large or exaggerated canines, which they use resourcefully to break apart fruits, seeds, and tree barks. Primates with the greatest danger from predators seem to have the largest teeth, like Baboons.

Image Sources:

http://www.erectus.it/me-thought.html

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/spider-monkey/

http://www.educationalbiofacts.com/educational-skulls-replica-mammals-primates-gibbons-apes-monkeys-baboons.html

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20756

http://true-wildlife.blogspot.com/2011/01/baboon.html

http://www.connecticutvalleybiological.com/gibbon-skull-hylobates-agilis-p-13881.html

http://www.zoonar.com/photo/weisswangengibbon-hylobates-concolor-leucogenys-whitecheeked-gibbon_432539.html

http://media.photobucket.com/image/chimpanzee+teeth+/emoxian/showing-his-teeth-and-toungue-chimpanzee-pictures-1600x1200.jpg

Research Sources:

http://www.wildmadagascar.org/wildlife/lemurs.html

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/ring-tailed_lemur

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/spider-monkey/

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/baboon-info.htm

http://www.gibboncenter.org/about_gibbons.htm

http://www.zooschool.ecsd.net/white%20handed%20gibbon.htm

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Analogy and Homology Blog Post

Blog Post Guidelines (60 pts total):

Due Thursday of Week 3 by 11:59 pm (two responses to two other posts due Friday, 11:59)

For your blog post, you will select two sets of traits, one set of homologs and one set of analogs, to evaluate and analyze. You cannot use the example of eagle, penguin and bat wings from above.

Your case study must include the following:

1. For your homologus traits provide the following information (25 pts):

a. Briefly describe the two different species that possess the homologus trait. (5 pts)

In New Zealand Kiwi is a peculiar little bird that lives on the ground like a scavenging mammal. Its plumage is more like fur than feathers and it snoops along the ground, sniffing for worms and bugs to eat. The Kiwi still has wings, but they are now useless appendages, scarcely seen under the foliage. The Kiwi (top photo) can smell and detect organisms below the surface because its nostrils are at the end of its beak. The New Zealand Kiwi, is considered the most un-birdlike bird of all the birds. Scientists found that the ancestor of the Kiwi could fly.

The wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans), an oceanic bird, has the greatest wingspan of all birds and lives in the southern oceans (see bottom photo). This bird is at home on top of the water or ruling the skies. It is can fly on long continuous trips with ease.

b. Describe the homologus trait of each species, focusing on the differences in structure and function of the trait. Why do these homologus traits exhibit differences between the two species? Make sure your explanation is clear and complete. (10 pts)

Kiwi Traits:

Feathers – hair-like

Bi-pedal – walks on two legs

Wings – unusable nubs

Beak – long beak, nostrils at the end for better smelling ability

Claws/Talons – normal for the most part

Albatross Traits:

Feathers – long, distinct, designed to glide on air, light weight

Bipedal – walks on two legs

Wings – used for flight

Beak – long

Claws/Talons – normal

The differences between these common traits are due to natural selection & genetic mutations. New Zealand has few bird predators and flight exerts a lot of energy. It makes sense to dispose of it altogether if there is no longer any reason for flight. Long wings can be a hindrance to a bird that dwells primarily on the ground like the Kiwi. Since the best food sources are just beneath the soil, Kiwis adapted their beaks to have nostrils at the end.

The Albatross flourishes over the oceans and so its beak adapted to hold fish, and its wings are built for long distance, high endurance flights.

c. Who was (generally, not specifically) the common ancestor of these two species and how do you know that ancestor possessed this homologus trait? (5 pts)

The Kiwi is similar to the Tinamous of South America. The Tinamous is pudgy, not the best flyer, but non-the less can fly. They are adept runners like the Kiwi. Even before this there was the dinosaur/ bird (Archaeopteryx), which is thought to be the ancestor of modern day birds. This bird has been found to have feathers, wings, and had limited flight.

d. Provide an image of each species in this comparison. (5 pts)

Photo Source: http://www.nhnz.tv/factsnz, http://grandnationaltrailer.com/lightbar-grumman-albatross-jet-ski/

2. For your analogous traits provide the following information (25 pts):

a. Briefly describe the two different species that possess the analogous trait. (5 pts)

The Fossa (top) is a descendent of the Mongoose. The Fossa is from Madagascar and typically fills the role a cat would on those islands, hunting prey from the trees. It grows up to six feet long and weighing less than 26 pounds.

(Cryptoprocta ferox)
Order: Carnivora
Family: Euplerida

The Puma (bottom) is from the genus felida (Puma concolor), . It is also known as a mountain lion. It is the largest of the small cat family. It can run very fast and pounce on prey from above. Until its habitat was disturbed, pumas were spread out the most compared to any other American terrestrial animal.

Order: Carnivora
Family: Felidae

b. Describe the analogous trait of each species, focusing on the similarities in structure and function of the trait. Clearly explain why these analogous traits exhibit similarities between the two species. (10 pts)

Fossa Traits:

Large paws

Sharp retractable claws

Large cat-like teeth

Long tail for maneuvering and balance

Solitary

Dwells on ground and in trees

Short haired brownish coats

The largest carnivore of Madagascar

Puma Traits:

Ambush hunters and live in treed mountainous or tropical areas

Sharp retractable claws

Large paws

Large teeth

Long tail for maneuvering and balance

Solitary

Dwells on ground and in trees

Short haired brownish coats

c. All pairs of organisms share some common ancestor if you go back far enough in time. Did the common ancestor of these two species possess this analogous trait? Why or why not? (5 pts)

The most likely ancestor of the Fossa and Puma would have been a weasel type mammal thought to exist some thirty million years ago apart of the Proailurus genus. In what is now modern-day France there was the species called P-lemanensis. This animal was small, had short legs, a long torso, and cat-like qualities. From there cats may have developed from an animal apart of the Pseudaelurus genus. These animals were thought to be the Miocene ancestors of the saber-tooth and what we know as modern day cats. It possessed many of the modern day traits.

d. Provide an image of each species in this comparison. (5 pts)