Blog Feed

If humans were evolved from monkeys, why don't we have more similar physical characteristics? In the diagram of evolution, chimps are the most closely related organism to humans. According to National Geographic, scientist’s found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. Scientist Frans de Waal at Emory University states, “Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough." He also states, "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament." Scientists have actual proof of the genetic relationship between human and chimp.

Humans and chimps have a high degree of genetic similarity. Proteins are usually responsible for organism’s anatomical, psychological and behavioral characteristics.

The African Wildlife Foundation informs us that chimpanzees’ use of “sticks to collect ants and termites from their nests, and rocks to smash open nuts” draws a relationship between a human and chimp’s ability use “cognitive thinking to problem solve.” Similarities are drawn also in physical characteristics. The chimpanzee is known to be “Noisy and curious, intelligent and social” just like humans. The percentage of DNA identity between human and chimp is extensive.  However, the percentage is not 100% leaving room for physical distinctiveness between the two organisms.  Humans and chimps have a strong facial resemblance. According to the American Museum of Natural History, humans and chimps descended from the same ancestor species six or seven million years ago. The DNA of both organisms, passed from generations, changed. Many of these DNA changes led to changes in behavioral and physical appearance.

For more information, visit:

1. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/past/dna.php

2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html

3. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/13842/the_similarities_and_differences_between.html

4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

5. http://www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/chimpanzee

It is said that extinction is a natural occurrence in evolution. Even though this is true, scientist believe that we should still save some species because they are dying before evolution can happen. The extinction of just one species can have a drastic impact on many other species. The only way protecting endangered species could be considered tampering with evolution is by killing species faster than evolution. As said by PBS, “No species exists in a vacuum”, no one species is isolated so every species has an effect on the other.

In today’s society there are many organizations working to save endangered species. These organizations realized that all species play a role in another’s life. If we were to lose a large number of one species there will be no food for the species that feed on them. Which would lead to the death of several species until we are all gone.

Many think of saving endangered species as tampering with evolution as said by Sheila Conant, Professor, and Department of Zoology University of Hawaii.  She believes that the endangerment of species is a natural process. She says this because a majority of the time species becomes endangered because their habitat has inadequate food quality or amount. This lowers the chances of an animal’s reproduction, and survival.

When we move an animal for instance moving polar bears to America because the are endangered that is an example of tampering with evolution because we are removing the species from its natural habitat, which is tinkering with its food, and natural reproduction abilities.

Questions

 - Since we believe animals evolve, why  aren't new species with similar but better characteristics created from evolution before extinction occurs?

- Is it possible to speed up the process of evolution?

- Do species become extinct not just because they can't survive in the present conditions but because they have no chance of survival in the future ?

Sources
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat08.html#Q03
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/4/437.abstract
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1310848

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332163

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

I am inspired by details.  Once I have arrived at a concept of what I will create, I am from the outset of the creation of a piece, highly intuned to the precise placement of each element in that piece. Deciding how each color relates to the other, complements the other and bounces off one another is taken into consideration along with the strategic placement of the items. One of my favorite things to do is take an object, pull it out of its element, and give it a new perspective. Then, the purpose of the object is completely different. It may or may not be useful, but it will always evoke some type of emotion.

I like to use natural elements, and shape and twist them into something that they were not intended for. I feel that the piece will emit a more honest vibe, if it was created from something that people may see everyday, but never truly appreciate. With this approach, it is sometimes hard to envision how the final product will turn out, but I don't really mind. I feel that the piece will always turn out to be how it was meant to. I'm just helping it complete its aesthetic purpose. I see myself as an aide in helping people recognize the true potential and beauty in commonplace objects.

The process of creating a piece, rather than the actual final product is what is most important to me. For instance, if painting, I am more likely to slowly and carefully paint each color that butts up against another than paint one color over top of the other. I would much rather go through the process of creating a close detail-oriented piece of work, than just have the overall piece be quick, easy and generally aesthetically pleasing. And although not intended, the result of such close detail work is that when someone looks at a piece, it may seem basic at first, but on closer inspection the details begin to show themselves. Someone would have to really be paying attention, in order to truly appreciate my work.

Bottle Cap Poster

An artist named Aurora Robson has been creating pieces from plastic bottle caps for some time now. We learned about her in class and about why and how she creates these pieces. Most of them are reflective of images from nightmares that she used to have. Not coincidentally, since they are made from plastic bottle caps, (which can not be recycled) they share a common element with her audience, as we all share in the nightmare of how we are destroying the Earth with our nonchalant overuse of plastic. Our class was planning to visit Aurora and her new exhibit, and we wanted to be helpful to her cause. So, for our first project we were to create a poster informing people that the art room would be collecting bottle caps.

Science & Society

First Quarter Benchmark

Research Question: How much information do fossils indicate about a species evolution? Do they tell the whole story?

Based on this information one would think that fossils are probably the most reliable source of evolution. That is not true. Over time, fossil records have been misinterpreted and have not been able to tell the whole story of evolution. Scientist have been able to point out gaps in fossil record history, proving that some fossil theories are invalid. They say that fossil records fail to illustrate what are called “Transitional Forms” which are the in-between stages of a creature that evolved into another.

Fossil records surely do have gaps because of the conditions required to create fossils have been rare ever since life began on earth. A small percentage of animals that have lived and died have become fossils. Many puzzles of the pieces are missing and some may not be found. With that being said, scientists have been able to discover the evolutionary transitions between fish and amphibians, reptiles and mammals, dinosaurs and birds, and lineages such as whales and horses. Fossils have always proved to show existence, but it’s not consistent in showing evolution.

When we look at a fossil it doesn’t tell use where it came from or how it was formed. That why fossils still allow us to ask questions about its origin, we can suggest answer these questions by discovering circumstantial evidences.

Ever since early man, meat has been a part of humans diets. Of course 5 million years ago meat probably wasn't as carefully prepared as it is now. Through out the 5 million years of our existence we have gained a few tools to aid us in consuming and digesting meat. First we gained two sets of teeth, one set on the upper row of teeth, and one set on the lower set of teeth that are sharper than others and help tear meat, we have also gained the ability to digest carbohydrates and fats better. 

In a study done by the University Medical Center in Dallas Texas, there are some characteristics that humans have that also resemble those of plant eating species. Most carnivorous species have small intestines that are around 3 times their body length, and most herbivorous species have small intestines that are around 12 times their body length and humans small intestines are closer in length to those of herbivores species. 

If humans as a whole began to cut meat out of their diets a few things would began to change, the sets of sharpened teeth would no longer be needed so they would begin to fade away through the generations. Also humans would possibly lose their ability to digest fats and carbohydrates as well, which would mean carbohydrates would become less common. 

After looking over the various tools and adaptations humans have gained in order to consume and digest meat, it has become apparent that if those tools and adaptations aren't used they will begin to show less and less in newer generations. Which means that humans will begin to lose the teeth that we have gained to help us eat meat. 

Here are some links that aided me in my research

http://www.rense.com/general20/meant.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

While doing this research I began to form a question in my head that seems to me would be interesting to research, why can't humans just live off of fruit? A lot of fruits can give us the necessary sugars needed for survive, and for all of the other necessities humans can just rely on vegetables? Just a thought.

           In the 21^st century, many humans wonder why Penguins are so unique.  James Randerson says  " They have a dinner-suit plumage and waddling gait, penguins are among the most unusual and endearing members of the bird kingdom." Something has caused penguins to change.  The scientific community has researched the changes, finding evidence that supports the Penguins evolution. In the beginning, scientists believed that penguins evolved from a flying bird that dated back to 150-million-year-old Archaeopteryx. According to Bnet.com, Ornithologists agree that, "Their closest living relatives appear to be an albatross, the graceful, soaring birds celebrated for their ocean-spanning trips in search of food for their young, says Marcel van Tuinen." Why is it that Penguins can not fly and how have they evolved?

How Does Evolution Impact the Social Behavior of Hanuman Langurs?

The Hanuman Langur is an Asian monkey; whose social behavior is uncanny. Their troops consist of both males and females numbering around 125. The head male—of a troop where there is one male—is competing with other males to maintain his position as leader. When a group of males overthrow the leader —so to speak—they kill his offspring. After that “ritual” one male becomes they new leader. That male then mates with the females of the troop and the process is repeated. The males gain a reproductive advantage because the females are at their maximum sexual receptivity when they lose their offspring.

·      This species is vulnerable to infanticide.

·      Males attack the infants only if they were not present at the time of contraception.

·      The males are usually protective of their offspring, however some still kill their own young.

 Ecology, Social Structure & Evolution

·      Ecology pressures that influence sex ratio populations also affect group size and social structure.

·      Increasing the Hanuman Langur troop size might prevent takeover and infanticide.

 One study reports that species such as:  P.ursinus, Propithecus diadema, and Semnopithecus entellus (Hanuman Langur) have over a 10 percent mortality rate of infants. Another species, the Red Howler species, shows that the rate of infanticide increases with group size. However, there was a change in rate when the Red Howler groups became large enough to cause paternal confusion—the males in the species normally do not kill their own young. The confusion causes males refrain from infanticide, which causes an overall decrease in the infanticide rate.

Because the social behavior of the Hanuman Langur depends on ecology...ecological evolution impacts the behavior. The ecology of the Hanuman Langur includes varied troop sizes and varied troop constituents, which evoke different behaviors. As previously stated, troop size impacts the level of infanticide.

Questions for Research

What does the social behavior of hanuman langur imply about evolutionary desires to be a leader or at an advantage by any means?

What does this behavior say about evolution in general?

Hanuman Langur selectivity and evolution…

Sources

www.eva.mpg.de/ipse/pdfs/Ostner_etal2006.pdf

http://chapmanresearch.mcgill.ca/publications.html

http://www.theprimata.com/semnopithecus_entellus.html

http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/hanumanlangurs.html           

Animals and humans can get the same diseases but to my knowledge there are some diseases that we are immune to that they aren't and vice versa. Humans have had an advantage for the past century or so with having plumbing access to for the most part clean water and other means to prevent and fight diseases. Penicillin and amoxicillin are among pills that are made to fight and prevent diseases. Animals on the other hand have evolved in the wild where they have to rely on natural selection and how they have evolved to adapt in their environments to fight off sickness and disease.

Zoonotic diseases are diseases naturally able to transfer from animals to humans and vice versa. This shows that we share some of the same immune system capabilities as animals. For instance it is known that while sharks are able to get cancer their immune system prevents cancer/tumors from being able to grow.The recent Swine Flu outbreak is recent evidence of this resulting in many people becoming ill and around 12,000 actual deaths in the U.S. in the recent 2009-2010 outbreaks, and shows how diseases originate in animals and transfer to humans. AIDS however is a disease that cannot from my knowledge and research thus far, be contracted by animals except for in chimps. Is this because of our DNA similarities and because of the similar evolutionary path that we have gone down? Also, how has the evolutionary path of diseases influence how and who it effects between animals and humans? What about the sharks? Has evolving in the ocean over these millions of years gave them a sort of advantage from not letting cancer or tumors progress?

These following links show other diseases and how either vaccines are similar or animals and humans can contract similar diseases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7270562.stm

http://www.mrmcmed.org/aids.html

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/immune.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=imm&part=A1480

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v248/n5446/abs/248344a0.html

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_bite_on_cancer.htm

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/aboutp/pets/zoonoses.html

Since the beginning of time, women and men were on two different scales. Women are usually the housekeepers and did not have much say in society. Because they are the housekeepers and produce milk for their young this is an evolutionary basis.

For some animals there are males that produce milk or lactate, just as a woman does. I would consider this an evolutionary basis as well because this is usually something that happens in women. Or what should only happen in women.

Just as human women produce, there are other animals species who are able to produce as well. Although this is true, the reproductive system is different for all. Animals can reproduce more than one child at a time. For example a fish can have multiple babies at one time, but human women can only have one baby at a time or if they or their partner carry the gene, can have twins which isn’t as common in the human population. It’s also different with breastfeeding. There are some male animals who lactate and human men are able to lactate as well.

One of those animals is The Dayak fruit bat is a bat that produces milk, but this is a normal function of the bat. Also there is a male goat that produces milk on occasion. According to an article called Male Lacation by Professor Patty Stuart Macadam. Human men are able to lacate after having a baby suck on the nipple after several weeks. This shows the evolution of the human women role to it being passed on to men.

There are also other male mammals that do not lactate but have the role of the “stay at home,” the Deer Mice is one of these. According to NOVA Online, the Deer Mice guard the young while the other goes out to eat This shows how the roles of the partners can be switched up, for different reasons.

In human society, this is not the case with men. Men cannot reproduce but they are the reasons on why reproduction is possible. It shows how closely related we are with animals but how we are also different.

Further questions:

Why are there mammals that take on the role of the “stay at home” but are not able to lactate?

Why can the Dayak fruit bat lactate but not breast-feed? What is the propose?

Citations:

Comparison, By. "Statistics Bureau." Web. 02 Nov. 2010. <http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c02cont.htm>.

Shanley, Laura. "Milkmen: Fathers Who Breastfeed." Bornfree! Laura Shanley's Unassisted Childbirth Page. 27 Sept. 2007. Web. 08 Nov. 2010. <http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/miscarticles/milkmen.html>.

             Not many people recycle these things. They want to but they keep their shoeboxes and then when they are tired of them they just throw them away. Sometimes intentional other times just wanting the space and not caring. So I wanted to do something that would mean something to me. I really like sneakers and I didn’t use to recycle them either. But when I realized what effect it was having on the environment I changed that.

            The boxes are just something I needed so that it can hold the question mark. I made a question mark because it’s asking the question why. It’s making a silent but very loud statement trying to figure out why people don’t recycle these things. I made the question mark 3d because I wanted it to pop so that people will be able to see it. I wanted people to look at it and get that feeling of  “why?” If people do that then I will have accomplished my message. 

Q1 Science In Society Benchmark

“Evolution Blog Post”

 Question:  How is Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire theories impact the era at the time and paved the way for future evolutionist?

            Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilarie once said “Nature ... tends to repeat the same organs in the same number and in the same relations, and varies to infinity only their form. In accordance with this principle I shall have to draw my conclusions, in the determining the bones of the fish's skull, not from a consideration of their form, but from a consideration of their connections.”

            Sanit-Hailarie derived this quotes from his theory on animals sharing the same characteristics regardless of an animals origin. He made several comparisons with animal’s connection opposed to their connection to one another.

Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire a profound French naturalist created the principle unity of composition. In 1772 Etienne came into this world and impacted forevermore the way we look at the modification of animals overtime.  The Herbet Spencer, Darwin, Patrick Mathew and many more wouldn’t have based there theories on the evolution of life if he didn’t pave they way.

Etienne took over the early 1800s with his theory then later Darwin evolved his theory to conclude natural selection many decades later. In giving him full credit is ignoring his early influence Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Haire who was his professor.

            The concept of an animal forming the same elements sparked a controversial impact in the 1800s. In actually believing that animals shared the same features baffled the unknowing scientific world. Etienne friend Curve heated over large misconceptions that lead to there ending friendship.

Sources

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Etienne_Geoffroy_Saint-Hilaire

http://www.answers.com/topic/isidore-geoffroy-saint-hilaire

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-2830905695.html

The first idea that I actual liked was to build a city out of bottles and cans. I would make it look like some kind of futurist thing because of how the inside of a can and bottles can be shiny if light hits them right.

It seemed like a good idea, but when I started to try to work it out, I couldn’t figure out how I wanted to make it work I didn’t know how to organize the different bottles and in the end it just didn’t work out the way I wanted it to.

The next big Idea I got was in the middle of class. There was a bunch of foam and then looking at it made me want to make a table from it. Maybe paint a cool design on it to represent recycling. So I started on that. Then I saw my friend who had extra pieces from what she was working on. As I was looking at them I started thinking about how most big things in America have some kind of mascot. Wendy’s has the Ginger Girl, McDonalds has the clown, Kmart has the light bulb guy. But why doesn’t recycling have an official mascot to stand for it. I mean, there’s just that little symbol thing. “I should make one.” I thought to myself. And so that’s what I’ve been working with so far. I went with the feel of the material I was using and in a way, let the art create itself. I cut out a head and the used my friends extra piece and ended up with a horse bird thing that had headphones.

Right now I’m in the process of painting it, but I think I want to build a setting around it. The reason it’s not done is because I feel as though I need to do a little more with it. There’s something missing from it that I have to have for it to be complete. Also, I ran out of paint in the middle of painting so I need to go buy some more. 

-       http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/83057-290-bills

-       http://www.votesmart.org/resource_govt101_02.php

-       http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3590

-       http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/show

Dear Citizens of America,

            On April 30^th of 2004 I proposed to Congress the idea of raising the minimum wage rate because of the effect it has on our country. Citizens of America fail to see that our countries economy isn’t flourishing as well as it could be, considering the amount of poverty we have in this country. According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line, that including 12.9 million children. Poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on how much the average individual makes. Statistics show that most Americans will live below the poverty line for at least one year when they are in between the ages of 25 and 75.

Minimum wage from $5.15 to $7 over three years and would be the first raise in the minimum wage in seven years. Under the suggested bill, the minimum hourly wage would increase by $0.70 two months after the legislation is signed into law. One year later, it would increase again by $0.60, and in the third year the minimum wage would increase by $0.55, bringing the minimum wage to $7 an hour. Currently working at a job, which is 40 hours a week, that being 52 weeks in a year, when worked out the average worker would have earned only $10,700, within that year, which is still $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. One parent working 40 hours per week at current minimum wage earns only 40% of the estimated cost to raise two children. How can we live off of just that?

As senator, I proposed this bill hoping to get it passed, in order to create a higher living standard for those of poverty and those who are poor, but on October 19^th, 2004, my bill was voted against. This infers to me, how much do our politicians care about our people? Are we living in the same world? Or is it that because the politicians earn so much money off of American citizens tax dollars that the issues of whose suffering because of the laws congress set in place doesn't matter?

In 2005, I attempted to propose my bill again, but again it was rejected. In 2007, my comrade George Miller came up with the idea that the minimum wage rate conflicted with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which made the House have no choice, but to pass the bill. The act raises the federal minimum wage in 3 increments: to $5.85 per hour 60 days after enactment (2007-07-24), to $6.55 per hour 12 months after that (2008-07-24), and finally to $7.25 per hour 12 months after that (2009-07-24). One of the biggest aspects of the bill was that the republicans and president Bush wanted to add tax cuts of small businesses. The House and the Senate passed the minimum wage on May 24, 2007 as part of HR 2206, the supplemental aid of the Iraq War. As part of the deal, $4.8 billion worth of tax breaks are going to be given to small business over a 10-year period to offset the wage increase.

Minimum wage didn’t change for tipped employees, leaving it at $5.15 fro most places. Though this bill only suggests a MINIMUM wage, which they can choose to exceed or sustain, I still believe that this isn’t enough. My original idea was to have it increase, year by year, little by little, to make our society and its price of living more livable. The average person spends about $50 a day according to Us News, $50 multiplied by 365, the amount of days in a year, amounts to $18, 250, which is higher than the poverty line for a family of three people. Even with the raise in minimum wage, the fact still stands that Americans are still living well below the poverty level and most of these Americans have families to take care of and tend to, with the couple thousand dollars they earn a year.

Though, I helped lead the torch in an aspect of Americas economy progression, I don't feel I’ve done enough. We as a culture and people should continue to grow, the stronger we are as a country, the easier it is for us to flourish. This year, I plan to propose, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2010. With the citizens and not just politicians in mind, I am hoping to one day, lessen the percentage of people who are well below the poverty line, instead of watching it grow every year. Supporting our country, helps build our country.

Senator Edward Ted Kennedy

• http://tedkennedy.org/
• http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00002:@@@L&summ2=m
• http://www.themiddleclass.org/bill/fair-minimum-wage-act-2007