Human Variation

High levels of solar radiation as long with low levels of solar radiation can be harmful to the human body. Overexposure of UVB rays can penetrate the skin and affect the DNA which may lead to skin cancer. On the other hand, inadequate amounts of UVB rays can lead to deficiency of Vitamin D which can contribute to high blood pressure, fatigue, and bone problems.

There are no short term adaptations our bodies have to help protect ourselves from high levels of solar radiation. If you sit out in the direct sunlight for too long, you more than likely get a sunburn. Although, some individuals may feel the heat of the sun on their skin and leave, this does not qualify as a short term adaptation because our bodies do not do it naturally.

 A facultative adaptation humans have regarding high levels of solar radiation has to do with melatonin. Melatonin is a contributing factor to skin tone, when skin is exposed to high levels of solar radiation for a good amount of time then melatonin production increases which makes the skin tone darker. This happens when people go tanning. For many people, their skin tone changes depending on whether they have been exposed to high levels or low levels of radiation for a period of time (ie. summer and winter.)
This facultative adaption leads to developmental change. Individuals who live in warmer tropical climates tend to wear less clothes because of the heat. They in turn, have a darker skin tone since more of their skin is exposed to the sun. This is due to high levels of solar radiation which in turn increases melatonin production. Throughout generations, the cells will continue to adapt and increase melatonin so the individuals are less likely to be sunburned or develop skin cancer. The same developmental change is seen in individuals who live in colder climates. Obviously, they wear more layers of clothing due to the cold and are not exposed to high levels of solar radiation, so they have a fairer skin tone.

There are many examples of cultural adaptions to high levels of solar radiation. Individuals are able to protect themselves from the sun, ie. umbrellas, clothing, hats, and shelter. There is also sunscreen, however it doesn't one hundred percent protect us from the UVB rays. Sunscreen just allows us to stay in the sun for a longer amount of time without the worry of being sunburned.

The benefit of studying human variation across environmental clines is learning that not everyone reacts or adjusts the same way as everyone else. We get to see how people from different areas react to the same environmental changes. Information from explorations like these can help us understand better how individuals adapt to changes. Not every person will adjust the same because there are people with different environments than one another. This information can be used in a productive way by learning that some people are better adapted to high levels of solar radiation than others.

We use race to understand the variations of adaptions of high levels of solar radiation because there are certain races that are better adapted to the high levels of solar radiation. For example, the races living in tropical climates usually have darker skin tones since they have adapted to the high levels of solar radiation. However, the study of environmental influences on adaptions is a better way to understand human variation. We cannot expect to see a whole race react the same way to and environmental change. It is based on the individual and where they are on how one adapts.

Language Post

Part 1:

• This experiment was easier than I thought it was going to be.
• My partner did not seem to notice at first, until it was my turn to speak and I started to use my hands and facial expressions without speakin. My partner was confused at first, but then understood how I was trying to communicate to her. They spoke a bit slower and tried their hardest to understand my gestures.
• The culture that speaks would have a better advantage on communicating a complex idea. They obviously can use their words and hand gestures/facial expressions to express their ideas. The non-symbolic using culture would be able to communicate, but I believe they would not effectively be able to express themselves. Their are individuals whom are born mute or deaf and are not able to use symbolic language. They have to find different ways to communicate effectively and the people around them (if they want to) need to find different ways to communicate as well.

Part 2:

• I was not able to last the whole fifteen minutes with only using speech to communicate. After what seemed to be only five minutes, I found myself boring. I also think my partner was a bit bored because of my monotone voice and lack of enthusiasm. It was hard for both of us to carry on the conversation.
• My partner was affected greatly. At first, they were able to keep the conversation with me but after awhile they lost interest in the conversation. They found it hard to concentrate and pay attention to what I was saying.
• Our use of "signs" in language is very important. Our gestures help us communicate effectively and help us express ourselves effectively. Without it, I don't think that people would talk much.
• I believe that people who grew up isolated may have trouble reading body language. Being able to read body language is very beneficial. We can pick up on hints without having to be told them. For example, sometimes we can tell if someone is lying or if they just don't want to talk to us. In some environmental conditions where their are life threatening situations it may be beneficial to not be able to read body language. You may keep yourself safe if someone who is trying to hurt you cannot pick up on clues of you trying to escape or get help.

Piltdown Man Hoax

1.) In the year 1912, in a village in England named Piltdown, a shocking discovery was made. An amateur archeologist named Charles Dawson discovered a piece of a human skull and a piece of what appeared to be an ancient human jaw. He recruited geologist Arthur Smith Woodward and French paleontologist Father Pierre Tayard to help dig in the same spot where he discovered the jaw to see if they were any other fossils. His findings were eventually known as the Piltdown Man. When Dawson's findings were revealed, the scientific community was happy and excited. Scientists were pleased that England could possibly have a fossil of one of the first ancient humans. Since Arthur Woodward was a prestigious geologist, everyone believed the piltdown man to be real. An anatomist Arthur Keith also endorsed the Piltdown Man since it justified his theory on evolution. Scientists were happy that the "missing link" between primates and humans had possibly been discovered.
     After World War 2, new scientific advances had been made. In 1949, scientists were able to measure the fluoride inside the fossils to date them. The Piltdown Man fossils were measured and discovered to be dated only 100,000 years ago instead of millions. In 1953, scientists were able to perform a full scale dating analysis which proved the fossils to only be 100 years old. Scientists also discovered the jaw was really that of a female orangutan. Pieces of the skull and jaw had been cut off purposely with a steel knife so that it could not be recognized as a primate fossil. The teeth on the jaw also had been filed down. The fossil along with other artifacts were also artificially stained. It was proven that Dawson had forged this fossil and other fossils he had discovered all because he wanted the scientific prestige. Charles Dawson tricked Arthur Woodward into believing that the fossil was that of an ancient human. The scientific community was shocked and disappointed that they had all been tricked. 

2.) There were a couple of human faults that came into play in the Piltdown Man hoax. People thought of scientists as having prestige so no one ever dared question them. Although, there was a good amount of evidence proving that this may be an ancient human, people still doubted it. They were too scared to challenge a scientist though and therefore did not say anything. Woodward believed Dawson and did not question anything. This negatively effected the scientific process because no one felt the need to experiment to prove that these fossils were that of an ancient human. Everyone was too excited and acted on emotion rather than think and use the scientific process.

3.) The process of dating fossils by measuring the fluoride inside them was a huge scientific advancement. It also played a huge role in figuring out the the Piltdown Man fossils were only 100 years old instead of millions of years old. Scientists were also too see where the jaw and skull had been cut with a steel knife and that the teeth had been filed down. Another positive aspect of the scientific process was scientists being able to see that jaw and other artifacts had been artificially stained to make them appear older than they really are.

4.) I do not believe it is possible to remove the "human" factor from science to reduce the chance of errors. Scientists are humans and humans come with many emotions, feelings, and we all think differently. Even if a scientist is thinking strictly scientifically, he/she still has feelings and it is impossible to function without them. I would not want to remove the human factor from science. I believe that many theories and discoveries have been made based on someone having a "certain feeling" about something. We are not robots and we will always have certain emotions and feelings, I think that some of these actually aid scientists in doing their jobs.

5.) There are many important lessons you can learn from this hoax, but there is one that is the most important of all; Regarding science, even if you trust this person completely, you must provide solid evidence and experiment to make sure that your/their discovery/idea/theory/etc is completely true. If there is something that doesn't quite add up, then don't be afraid to speak up and question it. The scientific method is there to help justify your observation so use it, even if you're using it to justify someone else's observation.

Homologus and Analogous

Michelle Vasquez

Anthropology 101

11/08/12

1. a. Two species that posses the homologous trait are dogs and whales.

b. The homologous trait that the dog and whale posses are the bones in their flipper/feet. Both the flipper and feet have similar bone structures and even have the same bones (phalanges.) However, dogs and whales use this trait extremely differently. Dogs use their feet to walk, run, dig, etc. Whales use their flippers to swim in their water home. Although they share similar bones and bone structure they both use them for entirely different things and do not even live in the same habitat.

c. The common ancestor of the dog and whale is known as the mesonychidae. This animal walked on land and had the similar bones and bone structure that the dog and whale posses today. Some of the ancestors of the mesonychidae branched off to go live in the water while others stayed on land. The ones in the water eventually evolved into whales and the ones on land evolved into dogs.

d. Dogs:

Whales: 

2. a. Two species that posses the analogous trait are sharks and dolphins.

b. The analogous trait these species share are their body shapes, fins, and flippers. These traits show similarities because both species have the same body shape that helps them swim through the water. Their fins and flippers also aid them in swimming and being able to move around. Even though they are from two completely different species, they have similar traits that help them move around in the water.

c. No, the dolphin and the shark do have a common ancestor that posses this analogous trait. Shark ancestors have been hard to find because they have cartilage so their bones do not fossilize. Sharks have pretty much looked the same throughout time. Dolphin’s ancestors actually walked on land and gradually moved to the water.

    

      d. Shark: 

          Dolphin: 

DNA Strand

T T A  G G T T C T A C C A A G T C A C A C A A G G A A T T  C T G T G A T G G A T C C C A G G A A C C C T

Historical influences on Darwin

Michelle Vasquez
10/26/12


I believe that Thomas Malthus had the most positive influence over Charles Darwins' development of his Theory of Evolution. Thomas Malthus observed in nature that plants and animals are capable of producing far more offspring then can survive and that Man too is capable of this if left unchecked. Malthus concluded that unless family size was regulated, Man would succumb to poverty which would become a global epidemic and eventually consume man. Malthus' said that poverty and famine were natural outcomes of population growth and food supply. He believed that such natural outcomes were God's way of preventing man from being lazy.
Source: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

Although Charles Darwin and Thomas Malthus came to their conclusions about Natural Selection independently, Malthus' views still influenced Darwin greatly. Darwin framed Malthus' principle in purely natural terms both in outcome and in ultimate reason. By doing this, he extended Malthus' logic even further than Malthus ever did. Darwin realized by animals producing more offspring than can survive establishes a competitive environment. The variations among siblings would mean that some of the individuals would be better off than others. This would later be defined in the term of Natural Selection. Thomas Malthus work helped inspire Charles Darwin to refine Natural Selection by stating a reason for competition between members of the same species.

I do not believe that Charles Darwin could have developed his theory of Natural Selection without the views and principles of Thomas Malthus. Malthus provided the basis of Darwin's view on Natural Selection. Without Malthus, I do not believe that Darwin could have come to the conclusion that he did. Malthus gave him the foundation and Darwin built it from there.

The church believed that the bible held all the answers for the way society was. Many people started to doubt the scriptures and the church because of Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Darwin states though that his book should not shake a Christian person's faith. It took awhile for the book to be published due to fear of religious persecution. He also feared that his views would be disgraced by society. Even though it took him awhile, Charles did publish his book.