Human Variation and Race

An environmental stress that negatively impacts the survival of humans would be high altitude. Many things occur when someone travels to high altitudes. The climate itself often has hot days and freezing nights with strong winds, low humidity and most importantly low air pressure. All of these factors negatively impact human survival. For example, strong winds and low humidity often cause dehydration. Moreover, when the air pressure lowers it makes it more difficult for oxygen to enter our systems which can result in Hypoxia, oxygen deprivation. This in turn causes many obstacles for humans to continue with symptoms such as: fatigue, distorted vision, difficulty in thinking clearly, pneumonia, fluid around the brain, and death if normal air pressure does not resume. There could also be heart failure because of the extra work that the lungs, heart and arteries are doing at such high altitudes.

There are many ways that humans have adapted to this stress placed on the body. A short term adaptation would be the normal physiological adaptation to the changing pressure by the breathing and heart rate increasing.

The body also then naturally acclimates itself and more red blood cells and capillaries are produced to carry more oxygen. This is a facultative adaptation because it remains as long as the stress exists.

In addition, a developmental adaptation would be that humans who live in high altitudes have developed a higher fitness level because of the greater lung expansion and increase in red blood cells.

Finally, cultural adaptations vary in how people have adapted to high altitudes. Indians from Peru have attempted to increased their lung expansion capability where others like the Tibetans began breathing faster to take in more oxygen.

Benefits of studying human variation by looking for patterns that explain how the trait is expressed in various environments helps to get a more conclusive reason for the trait itself. This information is useful to possibly show how certain traits have developed over time. If people have responded to environmental stresses that caused genetic change overtime, that explanation seems more feasible than merely it being race related.

With that, I don’t think I could use race to understand the variation of adaptations listed above for high altitude. I think that the idea of race is so blurred that one cannot define something purely based on race for the simple fact that there is so much variation within “racial” groups to begin with. Environmental influences on adaptations just seems to be a more logical way to understand human variation because it deals with a multitude of similar factors affecting a multitude of different groups in possibly different areas.

Language in the Vortex of the Twilight Zone

Part 1: Huh?

The experiment felt like a ship trapped in the Bermuda triangle. All guiding compasses no longer function and you are surrounded by dense fog. Since it is not customary for us to communicate symbol free, it is rather difficult to convey any detailed thought. Seeing that this was the case, it seemed that I was confined solely to the use of simple verbal gestures, and even this is being gracious. For the most part the conversation consisted of a bunch of “huh” grunts. However, in thinking over this experiment I think if this was my customary form of communication it might become easier to understand one another, but as far as the depth of thought that could be communicated, in my opinion, it would be limited.

My partners faces displayed confusion and for some even frustration. Despite the mass confusion and flustered friends I can’t say any really altered their mode of communication. If anything they assailed me with a barrage of questions. It was like a game of charades gone bad.

If both I and my partners represented two cultures meeting for the first time wherein they represented a speaking culture and I the non symbolic culture it is with little doubt that they would have the advantage when it comes to communicating complex ideas. Since speaking cultures can communicate abstract thoughts or complex ideas and non symbolic cultures are limited, in my opinion, the attitude of the speaking culture would be one of two, generally speaking. First, one being an attitude of superiority, and the other being one of helpfulness. The latter desiring to understand and help teach a more useful way of communication, and the prior one of sheer arrogance. Sadly, in our culture the mentally disabled would be one group of people that have difficulty communicating with spoken language. However, the sadness or shamefulness falls more so on those that can communicate freely with spoken language. From my brief experience the mentally disabled are by passed due to complexities that arise when communication is attempted. So rather then try to learn to communicate and understand it is easier to neglect.

Part 2: Attack of Monotoned Ben Stein

Unfortunately, in trying not to use any physical embellishments in my conversation I couldn’t last more than five minutes before I caught my tone changing. After the tone fluctuation I was more conscious of that aspect until I realized how much I move my eyebrows when I speak. I also had a constant urge to rub my beard or put my fingers on my eyes. It was easier not to use hand movements as I clasped my hands behind my back, but I was well aware of the desire to do such things. Through all the constant fumbling I managed to persevere to the end of the conversation. It is no easy task to attempt to impersonate Ben Stein.

My partners in this experiment seemed to think it was comical that I was trying so hard to be monotone and straight faced. However, some of what I actually said was misunderstood because they could not differentiate my opinions on the matters being discussed.

I would conclude through this portion of the experiment that our use of “signs” has become imbedded within our overall communication and that spoken language without such physical embellishments or tone fluctuations is not as effective. We as a culture have become dependent on such “signs” to interpret one another’s emotions, thoughts, or attitudes toward life. However, I would also say that these very signs also lead to a world misinterpreted ideas because of such a heavy dependence on these “signs.” Moreover, there is a degree of difficulty in reading body language depending on the people involved in the conversation. People of different cultures or classes, for example, might have extreme difficulty reading one another’s body language. When I lived in Germany for 9 months I first thought that all the Germans were so angry with one another based on their tone and body language, however, it was just their normal communication that I was misinterpreting because I was either different culturally or lacked the ability to accurately read their body language. Overall, the ability to understand body language, even if it is misinterpreted at times, is beneficial to us as a society because there are times when words fall short or cannot be used.

The Piltdown Hoax

In the early 1900's, about fifty years after Darwin's theory of evolution had been published where he connected all living organisms to a common ancestor, laborers in South East England in the hills of Sussex in the village of Piltdown found what some thought to be the missing link to Darwin's theory. France, Spain, and Germany had all found their share of strange bones and made progress in support of evolution with advances such as the Neanderthals. However, scientists at this point had not found fossils to prove the link between humans and apes. With England not yet having any headway into the discovery of any fossils besides stone age tools, the discovery at Piltdown was thought to be their big break. The laborers who found the skull passed it to amateur archeologist, Charles Dawson who then met with Sir Arthur Woodward a geologist, Telihard, and Arthur Keith an anatomist. In 1912 Dawson wrote of the discoveries and linked the findings to have be ape and human with the evidence of the ape-like jawbone with human-like teeth. Sadly, it was discovered in 1949 that the remains were less than 100, 000 years old by measuring the fluorine content of the fossils. Furthermore, in conducting a full scale analysis in 1953 using chemical testing and microscopes, they realized that the staining was artificial and that the teeth had been filed. The final conclusion was that the fossils were less than 100 years old and actually belonged to a female orangutan. In attempting to find the culprit of such a scandal the most reliable suspect was Charles Dawson who desired to be a fellow of the Royal Society and gain scientific prestige. He later was found to have forged about a half of a dozen other records. In addition, the anatomist Arthur Keith was thought to have a strong motive to forge the information of the skull due to using the Piltdown man as evidence for his pet theory of Human Evolution. Unfortunately, this supposed missing link to support the connection of apes and humans was proven to be a complete forgery.

In the scenario of the Piltdown man forgery, the concept of human faults played a major role that has negatively impacted the scientific process. The national pride of Britain drove them to attempt to show that man had its origins with Britain and the self-interest of Charles Dawson to gain scientific prestige actually brought their downfall. Moreover, scientists that were previously looked at as scholarly gentlemen were now looked at as being subject to lies, cheats, and deception. The idea of Good Science came into play where it was based on objectivity yet knowing the capability of all those participating.

Although, the revealing of the skull to be a fraud was shameful to the scientific community there were positive aspects to the actual discovery of it being a fraud. To search out the further dating of the skull shows the reliability of using the scientific method to come to terms with the evidence that was presented. The scientists involved used the principles of the scientific method to observe, question, and hypothesize as to why the bones were not dating as far back as they should if they were in fact part ape part human. They also used methods of measuring fluorine content, chemical testing to discover artificial staining, and microscopes to provide accurate information regarding the truth of the Piltdown skull. Even though this discovery would have greatly supported the theory of evolution the scientists were devoted to the objective truth regarding the skull, regardless if it depicted others to be forgers.

The "human" factor that was involved in the Piltdown Hoax cannot be removed from science altogether because those conducting the research or experiments are all human. However, science can set through a system of checks and balances to continue to promote "Good" science based on objectivity. It doesn't mean that the things of this nature cannot happen again because people can conjure up many new ways to get what they want.

Overall, the main lesson from this historical event would not be that science can fooled or not trusted because as we have seen it is scientists themselves that brought to light the truth of Piltdown skull being a hoax. The real lesson would be that just because something is researched or found in the name of "science" the very object or theory must be examined with all biases put aside.

Dentition Patterns of Primates

Lemurs are found in the wild only in the Old World which is Europe, Asia, and Africa. However, the lemurs are primarily found exclusively on the island of Madagascar and the nearby Comoro Islands. This area consists of tropical forests and dry scrub. Unfortunately, the lemur population is on the verge of extinction due to their forest habitats being destroyed by farmersclearing the land. There is not much competition for them with any other non-human primates. The Lemurs have long, curved, rodent-like incisor teeth, to get at their food in hard to reach places. They have a dental comb formed by lower protruding incisors and canines that are used for grooming

and feeding. They also have molars with high pointy cusps. Their Dentition pattern or dental formula in each quadrant is 2133 meaning they have 2 incisors, 1 canine, 3 premolars and 3 molars. In general, all primates have the same kind of teeth that are adapted to eating a wide variety of foods. Due to not much competition the lemurs have not needed to adapt to much which could be why they have the most unusual teeth for primates.

Spider Monkeys are limited to tropical forest environments of southern Mexico, Central, and South America. All of these monkeys are predominantly adapted to life in the trees. They spend most of their time in the trees rather than on ground, air, or water. They eat leaves, fruits, nuts, gums, and occasional small prey such as insects. Their Dentition Pattern is also 2133 like the lemurs. Their teeth have possibly adapted to the wide variety of foods they eat.

Baboons occupy a wide variety of different habitats in South and East Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and even Gibraltar at the southern tip of Spain. Some of the Baboon species inhabit tropical forests, while others live on arid grasslands, mountains with snow, or even semi-arid desert land. They spend most of their day on the ground but sleep in the trees. Male savanna baboons grow up to 80 pounds (36.3 kg.) and have powerful jaws with long canine teeth. These traits are helpful to defend them against predators, competition for mates, and occasional hunting. Their Dental Formula 2123.

Gibbons live in in tropical and sub-tropical rain forests in Southeast Asia. They have prominent canines and their Dentition Pattern is 2123.

Chimpanzees habitats include both tropical forests and bordering savannas which are usually semi-arid plains regions covered with grasses and occasional scattered trees. They reside in Africa. Their Dental Formula is also 2123.

In comparing the five primates with regard to their Dentition Patterns it is obvious that the Lemurs and the Spider Monkeys have a dental pattern of 2133 and the Baboons, Gibbons, and Chimpanzees have a Dental Pattern 2123. It is possible then to conclude, because Humans also have 2123 that the Baboons, Gibbons, and Chimpanzees reflect an evolutionary closeness to humans and also sets the latter three primates apart from the former two primates. The Dentition Patterns are not that different with it only consisting of an extra molar. However, the environment plays a role in the expression of this trait because the animals have to adapt to the environment and the variety of foods that are available to them. These animals all eat a variety of foods. In the cases with not as much competition there is an extra molar.

Homology and Analogy

1. A human and a chicken are two species that possess a homologous trait. A human and a chicken are both vertebrates. Humans are mammals and chickens are birds. They are obviously completely different species. However, they both possess a homologous trait in the forelimb. The function of this trait is used drastically differently in the two species. For example, humans use their forearms for a variety of activities such as lifting or holding, while chickens don't do much with theirs. The structure also appears vastly different from the outside in seeing that humans are long and straight limbed with the ability to bend where chickens are always bent but can extend. Chickens are covered in feathers where humans in skin and hair. However, their underlying construction is similar and directed by a few regulatory genes called Hox genes which makes them homologous. Mutations in these genes led to the variation between species, but they are linked to a common ancestor. The structure is what has been shared by these species because of a common ancestor.

I am not sure as to how to note who the common ancestor between the two species is. However, the ancestor would possess the trait because that is what makes them homologous. The fact that this trait, although different in different species shares a commonality in structure or basic genetic regulations.

2. The Butterfly and the Bird are two species that have analogous traits. A butterfly is an insect while a bird is a vertebrate. A butterfly and a bird both have wings that serve the same function that enables them to fly. Although functionally they are similar, their structure is completely different and that is why they are analogous. Birds are said to have wings that are modifications of the front feet. However, a butterflies' wings are a completely separate appendage. The wing in a bird has an internal skeleton, whereas a butterfly (because an insect) does not. Birds have feathers and butterflies have scales. These two different species can exhibit similarities in these analogous traits because they are a product of separate evolutionary responses to somewhat similar demands that the environment placed on their development of wings.

All living organisms, according to evolutionary theory, share a common ancestor, but because the structure of this trait differes greatly it can be stated that they do not share a closely related ancestor and are not homologous. I think it could be possible that the common ancestor possesses this analogous trait, but because they developed wings independently and are structurally diffeerent I find it too difficult to answer that question indefinitely. I would think that if the ancestor possessed the trait that it would make them homologous.

Protein Synthesis

TGAATACACCCTATAAGGGAACGCAAGTGTGAGCACCCCTTGGATCCGTT

One Out of Five

1. Out of the five individuals I would choose Thomas Malthus as having the most influence over Darwin's development of his theory of Natural Selection.

2. Thomas Malthus was actually an English economist that wrote an essay entitled, "An Essay on the Principle of Population." This essay, surprisingly, had an enormous impact upon the scientific community. It served as an huge influence to Charles Darwin and Russel Wallace in the discovery of Natural Selection. The essay proposed the idea that populations are producing more offspring at a higher rate than the natural resources to sustain them. Malthus' notion of limited resources creates competition among individuals for necessary survival. The scientific community, including Darwin then saw this as an important key to understanding how new species come to be. Some brief links to his influence include:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/thomas-malthus-faq.htm

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

3. The points directly affected by Thomas Malthus as partially noted above include "What is preventing organisms from reproducing at their potential?" and the fact that resources are limited. These main questions were answered by Darwin in reference to the essay written by Mathus. However, the other subsequent points were then derived from Darwin receiving the answer to these questions. In actuality, Malthus influenced many of these points directly without even having written on the questions themselves.

4. It is possible however, he gives a lot of credit to Malthus' essay for answering his major question of how species came to be. That was because Malthus' proposed the idea of what limits population growth. He also recognized that the facts Malthus derived lead to the struggle for existence which is the key to natural selection.