Human Variation

1. Cold
Low temperatures are disruptive to human homeostasis since the human body has a relatively high core temperature (97.7 Fahrenheit). Decreases in body temperature leads to impaired bodily functions. Slowed blood flow, lethargic nerve responses, and muscle rigidity are symptoms of the human body succumbing to the forces of cold temperatures. A human being has a low chance of survival of this homeostatic disruption persists since it essentially makes one "clumsy", a "clumsy" person has a lower chance of successful endeavoring for food and shelter.

2.
a) Short Term: Goosebumps are a short-term adaptation to cold temperatures. Goosebumps produce extra heat by the muscle tension created from piloerection. Additionally, raised hair also increases heat insulation. Shivering is another short term adaptation that functions in parallel to goosebumps.

b) Facultative: A major trait of many cold environments is typically the lack of sunlight, thus in areas where temperatures are typically below zero degrees, people tend to have lighter skin. This mostly due to the imperative of vitamin D absorption.

c) Developmental: A great example of developmental adaptability is the Inuit people and their consumption of high caloric fatty foods. This significantly rose their metabolic rates which as a result, their bodies produced more heat. They also have actively lifestyles which supplements their choice of diet and their bodies are stocky and round as a result.

d) Cultural: Igloos are actually incredibly effective insulators of heat since they are essentially traps for small pockets of air. Snow, despite being cold itself is great at insulation since it can be compacted to the point where there is almost nonexistent intrusion of cold air from the outside. Thus, body heat by itself, can be used to bring the internal temperatures of igloos to a comfortable 40 degrees Fahrenheit (much better than the alternative which is below zero). 

3. There are many benefits to studying human variation through this perspective across varying environmental clines. One benefit is primarily medical, hypothermia and hyperthermia are two common medical conditions that can be fatal if not properly cared for. Observation of adaptations by humans living in environmental extremes can aid with the treatment of these ailments.

4. Race is an ineffective use of categorization since it has caused a lot of controversy for the majority of human history. From a genetic viewpoint, human beings aren't that different from one another. Phenotypic differences are a result from the environment in which humans have adapted to. It is a much more effective and efficient way to understand human variation through the perspective of environmental adaptation because it decreases the amount of classification we succumb ourselves to. If people had higher scientific efficacy and understood this about how environment plays a major role in how we look, I personally believe that racism would not be as big of an issue as it is today.

Language

Part 1:

     This was perhaps one of the most hilarious experiences I've had regarding assignments for school. Due to the hectic nature of my schedule I was only able to do these exercises with a classmate from my Communications class. I mainly utilized body language as a means to convey messages to my partner. Needless to say, it started off as five minutes worth of confusion from both ends. We clearly weren't understanding each other initially. I decided to shift my body language into something more discernible. Sports, was the first topic that came to mind and I gestured the act of kicking a ball. Immediately my partner yelled out "SOCCER!" and from there we reached a mutual understanding. He asked what my favorite position to play was and although the truth to this question was "defender" I gestured my arms wide and acted like a goalkeeper, just to keep things simple. This assignment was neither difficult nor easy, it was a challenge, a rather fun one at that. My partner decided to start mimicking my actions in order to empathize with what I was trying to convey, it was like playing a messy game of charades with a better sense of immersion.
     Control of the conversation was constantly shifting, once my partner realized what I was trying to express, he went on to carry the conversation further with more questions. Later on, my partner was the one who changed topics mostly due to the fact that he had more flexibility in conveying ideas since he had the power of verbalization. Initially, I had the power in the conversation but the scales shifted towards my partner's favor as we progressed.
     In terms of communicating complex ideas within a population, I believe that verbal communication has the upper hand. The greatest ideas throughout our history we're formulated through essays and writing, oratory storytelling, plays, and many more. Non-verbal communication might be effective at conveying simplistic ideas and emotions however, verbal communication has unrivaled versatility when it comes to expression. A speaking culture can view a non-verbal culture as alien and mysterious, and its safe to assume that there isn't going to be an abundance of understanding between the two. When I was on vacation in France, I had zero knowledge of the language thus, I could only communicate with people through limited verbal usage and non-verbal communication. I often made a lot of French natives laugh due to my poor attempts at asking for directions to certain landmarks, so it's safe to say that they had absolutely no idea what I was trying to say.

Part 2:

     This part of the assignment was definitely a lot more challenging. I am a very expressive individual, when I tell stories or simply talk to others I use a lot of gestures to supplement my messages. The simple act of restricting all these non-verbal cues was quite difficult for me. My partner had an incredibly hard time trying to prevent his laughter from consuming his composure due to my sad attempt at a poker face throughout the conversation. In terms of understanding what I was trying to say, my partner was responsive and understood most of what I said.
     The eye-opener for me during this activity was the realization of how important "signs" are in our day to day communication. The adage "actions speak louder than words" has an incredible amount of credibility and is the basis of all disciplines regarding behavior. Anxiety can be seen through the mannerisms of an individual, having closed off body language is a sign of discomfort and the want to be left alone, and much more can be conveyed through non-verbals.
     A lot can be read through body language and having competent knowledge on the subject can benefit a person majorly. If a person can read a potential aggressors body language then he can act accordingly (fight or flight). A person being able to read a friendly individual's body language then he can either befriend or trade with the individual. In terms of reproduction, a potential mate will provide "indicators of interest" which will prompt a prospective male to "make a move" and proceed to courtship.
    Yes, there are a great deal of people who are oblivious to non-verbal cues. These are typically the type of people that approach people without proper prompting and can be labeled as "creeps" because they can't read the discomfort that people show through non-verbal gesturing only. A situation where reading a person's body language would be unreliable is if they are master liars, those who have complete mastery over their non-verbals and can feign sincerity through extended eye contact and lack of anxiety gesturing.
   
   

Piltdown Man

     In 1912, a small town in Lewes, England called Piltdown was home to the discovery of a fossilized piece of an ancient human skull. The find was credited to an amateur archaeologist named Charles Dawson. The reason why this fossil was highly regarded was due to the fact that it could have been the missing evolutionary link between humans and apes. After the discovery, Dawson convened with Arthur Keith, Sir David Woodward, and Telihard De Chardin in order to present the fossil to the scientific community at large. Widespread groupthink occurred amongst the scientists throughout England and perhaps even the world. No one doubted the findings since Dawson's group then went on to find several other fossil pieces to supplement his initial discoveries. As well as the fact that fossil dating technologies were essentially non-existent during that time period. However, discoveries of ancient human fossils surfaced in Asia and in Africa. These fossils were much older and were inconsistent with the composition of Piltdown Man. This led to widespread skepticism of Piltdown's legitimacy and in 1949 a fluorine test was conducted and determined that the fossil was no more than 100,000 years old. Further thorough testing revealed that the fossils were: artificially stained, cuts were made throughout the fossils with a steel knife, and that the teeth belonged to a orangutan which later revealed that the fossil was less than 100 years old. The overwhelming amount of evidenced led to the conclusion that the Piltdown Man was nothing but a mere product of clever forgery. 

     The scientific process was clouded in this case due to national pride, hubris, and groupthink. Dawson was an ambitious man, he wanted nothing more than prestige within the scientific community. Apart from the Piltdown fossil, it was also discovered that many of his archealogical findings were also products of forgery. Scientists are humans too, which means that they are not immune to the forces of desire and greed. Another fact to consider is how the scientific community did not have any skeptics (perhaps Hinten was), and their decision to accept the fossil as true evolutionary evidence was due to the overwhelming amount of national pride and general jubilance everyone at the time incurred. England wanted to prove that they were also scientific pioneers and did not want to fall behind other European countries like France. 

     

     Where there is darkness, there is light. That light definitely shined when the skepticism of the Piltdown fossil grew. Advances in scientific technology like the fluorine dating test was developed and resulted in the exponential growth of said skepticism. Chemical tests and technologically advanced microscopes showed that a lot of what made the Piltdown fossil "authentic" were artificial. The utilization of the scientific method in order to answer the question "Is this truly a connection between humans and apes?" was used and further research and testing led to the conclusion that Piltdown man is simply a hoax.

     Scientists are the backbone of the entire subject of science. Without scientists, our understanding of science would not be as comprehensive as it is today. The fact that scientists are human means that is nearly impossible to remove the human factor out of science. However, as we advance technologically, so do our means of authenticating the discoveries made in the field of science. Countermeasures are in place in order to combat the human factor and the enforcement of the scientific method as well as peer-reviews are well implemented. Although it would be great to have an autonomous way to procure scientific data, I feel that the human factor is simply something that can not be removed.

     The life lesson here is, always be skeptical. Keep an open mind but do not be impressionable. It should take more than mere words and shoddy evidence to influence one's mind. Never succumb to hubris and groupthink, always think outside the box.

Homology

1.

a) Human beings are bipedal mammals meaning they stand on two feet and have an erect posture. Humans are omnivores and are innately social creatures. These two traits are major contributors towards the versatility of human beings as a species. The ability to adapt to any environment and being able to alter their environment to cater to their needs is the reason why homo sapiens is the apex predator of the global food chain. Cats are carnivorous mammals that have been domesticated through years of selective breeding. Their bodies are adapted towards killing small prey, i.e rodents and serve a predatory niche in the wild (feral cats).

b) The human arm and a cat's legs are homologous. Humans use their limbs for a variety of activities, they're used for defense, nurturing, building, climbing and a lot of other things. The versatility of human limbs comes from the evolutionary advantage of opposable thumbs which opened a wide variety of opportunities for humans to take advantage of their environment. Cats on the other hand (no pun intended) have much more specified roles for their limbs. Movement is probably the biggest deciding factor regarding the differences of limb structure between humans and felines. Cats are incredibly nimble and flexible creatures. Despite having similar bone content (humures, ulna, are thicker), structurally they are different due to the fact that the anatomy of a cat's limbs are specialized. A cat's "arm" is essentially a spring loaded mechanism that can; withstand falls from certain heights, be used for pouncing on prey (birds and rodents), jumping etc. Thus

c) Through some research I discovered that the common ancestor of these two mammals is a particular placental mammal. I know this ancestor possessed these homologous traits because it is the only possible explanation as to how homology exists between these two very different species.

d)

2.

a) Butterflies are colorful flying insects, some species pollinate plants and some serve as carnivorous predators who feed on smaller insects They belong to the same group as moths from an evolutionary and taxonomical standpoint. Birds are considered to be the last living dinosaurs on earth as indicated by fossil records. Birds have reptilian evolutionary origins and a large majority have the ability to fly. They serve a variety of different roles amongst a myriad of niches. Some are predatory (birds of prey), some are nocturnal, some are herbivores, and some are carnivorous. 

b) The wings of a bird capable of flight and a butterflies are quite similar in function. Despite not sharing a common ancestor, they both developed the ability to fly thanks to convergent evolution (living within the same environment). Flight is a major evolutionary advantage, the development of wings between these two species largely contributed to their survival. Most notably the bird, as previously stated, they are the remnants of dinosaurs and it is heavily theorized that dinosaurs capable of flight were the ones who managed to survive numerous mass extinction events. 

c) In the butterflies' case, yes, their common ancestor possessed the ability to fly (caddis flies) and through changes in their environment the butterfly we know today was conceived through years of gradual evolution. It is largely speculated by the scientific community that the common ancestor of birds were theropods (think of raptors), who clearly lacked the ability to fly. This fact alone is proof that the traits of these two species are analogous. Birds developed wings through evolution as it was an imperative tool for their survival within their environments.

d)

Protein Synthesis

ATTCATGGTTCATTTGCAATATAACTCAGGGTAGGCC

Historical Influences on Darwin

For this blog post I will highlight the major influence that Georges Cuvier had on Darwin's formulation of the theory of Natural Selection.

Georges Cuvier is widely regarded as the "Father of Paleontology" by members of the scientific community (for good reason). Cuvier was responsible for establishing extinction as a fact through his extensive observations of numerous fossilized animals. Cuvier also founded the idea that a species' lineage can be more than one. He was also one of the founding fathers of comparative anatomy, which led to the discovery of analogous structures and other anatomical similarities of living beings.
(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html)

Cuvier was a devout Protestant, he actively spoke against the initial implications of evolution that his peers, during that time period, presented. If Cuvier was alive during Darwin's time, Cuvier would have been Darwin's nemesis. However, a lot of Cuvier's research were instrumental in Darwin's discovery of natural selection. "If the environment changes, the traits that are helpful or adaptive to that environment will be different." Through his observations of fossils and comparisons with their living counterparts, Cuvier (unknowingly) found evidence of speciation. He also observed this first hand when each differing stratum (underground level) contained fossils that looked similar but had different traits.

The basis of natural selection is survival of the fittest. Cuvier was the pioneering researcher that proved that extinction was indeed a fact. Had it not been for this confirmation, Darwin would not have had a solid foundation for his theories. The purpose of evolution is to combat extinction. Had extinction been outside our sphere of thought during that time, Darwin may have never formulated such a grandiose theory or even if he did, it would have just been seen as blatant heresy.

The church was certainly Darwin's main cause of distress during his time as a researcher. It's safe to say that the church was one of the key opposing figures to his studies. Even contemporarily, evolution and creationism are still widely debated. However I do believe that the church's opposition led Darwin to step out of his comfort zone, he went where no other thinker had gone before. He made sure that he gathered enough compelling evidence in order to give the best case he possibly could, in order to avoid being shrugged off as a man overdue for Bedlam.