Brrrrrrr...

The cold is an environmental stress that disturbs the human body’s homeostatic temperature. When the internal temperature is cold and off balance, the body is more vulnerable to sickness due to less blood flow to extremities, therefore, less white blood cells to fight disease. Disruptions to the homeostatic temperature cause increases in blood pressure and impaired body functions. This is because nerve cells as well as muscles function at a slower rate in lower temperatures.

Humans, being the resourceful beings that we are, have adapted to this stress in a variety of different ways.

 A short term response is shivering, the rapid contraction and release of muscles to generate heat. 

A facultative adaptation is a vasoconstriction, the narrowing of blood vessels to reduce blood flow to the skin, therefore, reducing heat loss at the body’s surface.

 A developmental adaptation is a subcutaneous fat layer that acts as insulation for the body.

 A cultural adaptation is a high carbohydrate, high fat diet.

Studying human variation across environmental clines like this is beneficial because we can clearly see how the body is affected, for how long, and at what level. Physiological responses to environmental factors are controlled by genetics. Information from explorations like this can be useful when looking at cases of extreme coldness. For example, we can look at a person and be able to tell if they have been exposed to the cold for a long time or not. If they are shivering, they have recently been exposed, and if they have a layer of fat underneath the skin for body insulation, we might assume that they live in a cold environment permanently, like the Inuits.

You can use race to understand variation of the adaptations because it is commonly believed that cultural traits are associated with certain physical traits. Also, people of the same racial group occasionally live in similar environments and practice similar practices that might contribute to the variation. It allows us to look at interactions between culture and biology in adaptive characteristics.  Studying the effect environmental influences have on human variation is better than looking at race because anthropologists have found that there is more variation between different racial groups than within groups.  Races are also the result of the human need to simplify and organize complex ideas, and they are actually not very valuable to evolutionary science.

Language

Conversation without a version of symbolic language
I began the conversation with phrases and sentences that were simple to act out and easily identifiable such as "I love you" or" and "I sleep." The task was a bit frustrating because I am so used to expressing with my words and my actions, but I eventually used more body language and facial expressions to communicate. My responses remained fairly simple because I could convey difficult words without actually saying them. My partner, my sister, eventually began to ask me questions that she knew I would be able to answer easily with hand motions or body language, so I wouldn't get too stuck. The conversation overall, was a bit more basic with he content, but a lot more theatrical and gestural on my part because I had to convey tone, mood, attitude, opinion without speaking.

My sister was the one leading the conversation and changing topics, while I was mostly responding. She was able to come up with things to say quicker because of her use of words and would try and change the subject constantly, challenging me to figure out how I was going to communicate my answer. I believe that my sister definitely had the power in this conversation as she had more words at her disposal and did not have to think as hard about getting her point across. She could interrupt my "speech" way more effectively than I would be able to interrupt hers.She had the majority of the power as she was dictating the questions and topics, and I was responding.

The culture that uses language has the advantage of communicating complex ideas with their population because there are more opportunities as you have the ability to articulate exactly what you want to say. When you can't use words, the gestures may sometimes convey more than one thing. For example, "mad" and "frustrated" mean different things, but the gesture that one might use to show this could be interpreted either way. With speech, there is less opportunity for misinterpreting the point of what is being said. A speaking culture might view a culture that doesn't use symbolic language as possibly behind educationally or not as intelligent in the communication aspect. A modern culture that can speak is the American culture, but there are some people within that culture who are mute and do not speak.


Conversation without physical embellishment
At the start of the experiment, I talked slow so I could make sure that I didn't raise my volume or change my face. My natural conversation usually involves varying volumes, hand gestures, head movements, and more, so I felt that I had to be slow, deliberate, and more focused to break these tendencies. I found this task a bit more challenging than the first because there were so many more things to think about not doing. Before you just had to not talk, but now you have to not move, not get louder, not gesture with your hands. My voice was monotonous and the conversation became slightly more boring and dry overall because of the lack of personality and animation in my voice. My partner, in response, started to tone down her own body language to almost match mine. She did not have trouble understanding the words that I was saying, but she did have trouble understanding the intention of my words and how I was feeling. Many things sounded sarcastic and like I didn't have any interest in what I was saying.

This experiment shows that while words are important, the signs are crucial to communicating your intentions and feelings about what you are saying. It adds an emotional aspect to words and can let someone know if you are serious, joking, mad, sad, happy, and more. When you read someone's body language, you can often read their attitude on the subject they are speaking on. You can tell if they are open to challenge or completely closed off in their opinion. You can tell if they are shy or outgoing. When the body language is read along with speech, it shows the complete intention of what the speaker is trying to convey.

The adaptive benefit to possessing the ability to read body language is that it can help you judge someone's character or intentions. It can aid you in determining if a person is serious about their words or if they might be lying. Being able to accurately read people helps you to come up with better ways of talking them into getting what you need. It can also help you to detect lies, and therefore, be smarter about who you trust with your words, your safety, your health, your life.

People that might have difficulty reading body language are those who are blind. Not being able to ready someone's body language might be an advantage when making a speech in front of many people. It can be very distracting to see people in the audience falling asleep or having irritated body language. Not reading body language can sometimes help a person to stay focused on the task at hand and not be affected by the opinions of others. Body language may not give you reliable information when a person is manipulating you. They might have the understanding that certain body language can make them look non-threatening and possibly like they are in need of help. However, when they are purposefully manipulating their appearance, this provides false information as to what their real intentions are.

The Piltdown Hoax started with Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist, found a piece of a human skull and a jaw bone in 1912 in a pit in the English town of Piltdown. This fossil was especially significant because it looked like a common ancestor of both humans and apes. They were believed to be from about one million years ago, proving exciting because while early human remains have been discovered in France, Germany, and Asia, this was the first to be found in England. This suggested that the ancestors of England could possibly be the earliest humans, and that apes and people share a common lineage. Although some scientists may have been skeptical of the remains, they neglected to challenge Dawson and his team. An anatomist, Arthur Keith, was especially supportive of this discovery because it supported his theory that big brains in humans evolved before upright walking did. The hoax was discovered after fossils were found in Asia and Africa, dating after the supposed Piltdown man. However, the new discoveries appeared to be less human than the Piltdown fossils, despite being older. This prompted a further look at the fossils with more advanced dating methods and it was soon discovered that the artifacts were artificially stained, material was cut with a steel knife, and the teeth were manually filed down. People believed that Dawson, himself, was responsible for the forging of the artifacts in order to become accepted into royal society and obtain prestige. Woodward, another involved scientist, was not to blame because he kept digging after the Dawson died, and found nothing else. Father Teilhard was quiet when the hoax was brought to light.

Human faults are exposed when looking at this scandal. In this particular scandal, Watson was more obsessed with being accepted into Royal Society and establishing himself as a prestigious scientist than actually being accurate and finding honest, honorable results. Humans can also be trusting, and sometimes too quick to believe what they are being told. The other scientist did not question Watson’s findings as much as the process required. Also, the skeptical individuals were too scared to confront or challenge Watson because if his standing in science at the time. Humans tend to not want to stand out or be criticized, and the scientific process was compromised because others did not want to be proven wrong.

When the truth was revealed about Piltdown man, it was due to many technological advancements. There was more advanced radioactive dating, which allowed them to find that the artifacts were not from millions of years ago. The jaw, in fact, was from less than 100 years ago from a female orangutan. There were also stronger microscopes, which helped scientists to see that the teeth had been filled down into the shape the suspect wanted. They also, after finding deep scratch marks, saw that the bones fossils had been cut by a steel knife.

As long as humans are performing these processes and experiments, I don’t believe than it is possible to completely remove the human factor from science. It is possible to reduce and minimize, but not to completely eliminate. Some aspects of the human factor should be removed such as motivations like recognition or fame. This can compromise the process and possibly lead to incorrect manipulation of experiments in order to produce a desired outcome. Other aspects, however, such as natural curiosity and innovation, should be kept in science because they are what makes the field advance. Computers cannot perform these tasks. They are needed to problem solve and figure out solutions to unexpected obstacles.

This historical event shows us that you must always be a little bit skeptical when receiving information from unverified sources. It can be tempting to simply believe it if it supports something you believe, similar to Arthur Keith, but it is better to have an incorrect theory to have unreliable, false support. Every aspect of the information has to be carefully examined to confirm its claims, not matter how convincingly correct it may seem. Accuracy is key to everything.

1. The tail of a monkey and the tailbone of a human are homologous structures. Monkeys are primates that dwell  in trees and eat fruits, seeds, leaves, and nuts off of trees, as well. They have prehensile tails and have been extensively experimented on due to their similarity to humans. Humans have erect posture, walk on two feet, and have high manual dexterity. They do not have visible tails, but remnants of one in the form of a tailbone. 

 While the monkey has a tail, the human bone is only a small triangular bone at the base of the back. These structures share a common lineage, but what once was a human tail, disappeared during the process of evolution as a vestigial.The monkey’s tail serves to swat away unwanted insects and aid with balance. It also allows the monkey to swing from trees and grab food. The human tailbone functions as a stabilizing bone to help humans in certain positions such as sitting. It is also a connection point for multiple ligaments, joints, and muscles. There is such a difference between these species due to the fact that humans don’t need to be able to swing from trees in order to get their food. There isn’t any need for a tail because of the tree-lacking environment that they live in. In addition to this, humans have multiple mechanisms within the body that help with balance, such as cochlear fluid and kinesthetic sense, rendering a tail completely useless. Although a common ancestor did have a tail, it is now a vestigial for humans.

The common ancestor between humans and monkeys is most likely a species of ape, possibly resembling a gibbon. There is evidence of common ancestry in broken jaw artifacts and teeth. Both species are form the genera of Hominini. Apes do have tails, revealing that the common ancestor did posses this homologous trait.

2. Penguins and fish both have fins. Because one is a bird, and one is a fish, they have no recent common ancestor that could possibly be the source of this feature. Penguins live in colder environments where they have to swim in the ocean to catch their food. Fish live in the ocean and also have to swim to get food, move from place to place, and generally survive. 

The fins of the penguin are coated with scale-like feathers, providing a water resistant coating. It is a bird, and most bird wings would not be flexible enough to swim, but penguins fins are flat and tapered to help in the aquatic environment. Fish fins are also coated with scales and are flat, flexible, and strong enough to propel the body through the water. these analogous traits show strong similarities as a result of similar environments. They both have a biological need to swim so that they can find food, escape from predators, and move to different locations. The shape of both species' fins closely resemble each other because of the physical motions that they perform and their aquatic environments.

I don't believe that their common ancestor possessed this trait because fins evolved after the first birds. While both species belong to the phylum chordata, they belong to different classes. Penguins are in the aves class while fish belong to belong to multiple including agnatha, placodermi, and chondrichthyes.  Because they belong to different classes, this trait could not be genetically related. 

 Charles Darwin is credited with the evolutionary theory, but his knowledge was influenced by many great scientists of his time. In my opinion, Thomas Malthus had the largest, positive influence on Darwin's theory development for a few reasons. Malthus' book, An Essay on the Principle of Population, pointed out the fact that although population sizes increase, the amount of resources tend to stay the same. He was, in fact, focusing more on humans, but Darwin expanded this thought to all organisms. Malthus showed the science community, including Darwin, that competition is constantly present when population size is restricted by the mount of resources available (https://www.allaboutscience.org/malthus-faq.htm). Malthus was able to prompt Darwin to realize that the number of offspring produced in a species were more than the number that was meant to survive.

The bullet point Who gets better access to these limited resources? was most influenced by Thomas Malthus. It states that the organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more competitive. Malthus found that resources stayed at a constant capacity, but those that knew how to deal with the issues in a smarter way were ultimately more competitive and would survive longer. Darwin took this idea and centered his entire evolutionary theory around it. The survival of the organisms best adapted to their environment was the basis of natural selection. In fact, I don't believe that Darwin would have developed the theory of evolution without Malthus' discoveries and insights. Because Malthus came up with "the survival of he fittest," Darwin was able to elaborate on it and clarify how that related to the evolution of organisms over time.

Darwin was reluctant to publish his theory for the world to see, partly because he knew how controversial it would be, especially within the church. The ideas within evolutionary theory go against what many religious groups believe in, and people at this time did were concerned with going against the norm. Darwin finally decided to publish his findings after realizing that Alfred Russell Wallace might get credit instead.