Desireé Mack

Science and Society

                                     Why Only Five Tastes?

 I have all way wondered why Humans have the ability to taste so many things, to what limit can we taste things, and how many taste buds we have. I knew it had to do with making sure our food is not poison but I want to know more. Humans have taste buds to make a choice on what to ingest so we need our taste buds to sample the food to decide what to put in our mouths and what to ingest. When you look at your tongue you see lots of little pink bumps, and in those little pink bumps you have your taste buds. All taste buds are on the outer edges of your tongue. All taste buds can taste multiple flavors because inside them you have multiple cells to pick up the flavor. 

There are five main tastes, one for sweet, sour, savory, bitter, and salty. Animals have evolved to taste sugar to find carbohydrates for energy and a safe source for calories. Animals have evolved to taste savory things to be able to pick up the taste of protein. There are over 25 different types of bitter taste buds to pick out the things that might be toxic to eat and allows us to have enough sensitivity to taste something beneficial in the long run.  We have evolved to taste sour to protect us from eating things to sour that would throw our bodies out of whack and helps us figure out the ripeness of our food for nutritional value. Salt is very important to our biological task our bodies don’t store salt so it is very important that we find foods with salt.

• Walking up right
  
  
• Thumbs
  
  
• Ability to grasp with all five fingers
  
  
• Similar skull structure
  
  
• Round Ears

• Ingham, Richard. "Early humans had sex with chimps ." News in Science (2006): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1641443.htm>.
• Ape, . "Apes." How Stuff Works. How Stuff Works, 16 May 2008. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/ape-info.htm>.
• Marks, Jonathan. "What It Really Means To Be 99% Chimpanzee ."Department of Anthropology (1999): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interests/aaa/marksaaa99.htm>
• MacAandrew, Alec. "Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes ." Department of Anthropology n. pag. Web. 11 Nov 2010. <http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm>.
• Rodriguez, Monica. "Ask a Geneticist." Tech Museum:Stanford School of Medicine (2007): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=229>.
• Pbs, Science. "Evolution Frequently Asked Questions." PBS Science (2010): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat03.html>.

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.

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

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