Anthropology Analysis Assignment

Anthr 1: Analysis Assignment
Due: Friday 2/2/2018 by 11:00 p.m.

Brief critical analysis of an article (10 points)

This Critical Analysis assignment asks you to analyze the information contained in the article under reference. I want to know what you think of the impact of the information presented in this article. Do not write a summary of the article itself.

In the assigned article “Darwin’s Rib” (located in the Chapter 2 resources on the course website), the author Robert Root-Bernstein mentions several observations about the number of ribs in men and women that support evolutionary theory and clarify the basis for the student’s initial answer to the research question.

1) What is Larmarckian inheritance? Explain why this mode of inheritance does not work, using an original example (one of your own, not from the article).

2) What is Darwin’s explanation of inheritance by Natural Selection? Refer to your textbook and/or the Chapter 2 power point presentation to help you synthesize this information. Tell me YOUR understanding of this information. DO NOT copy from the article, the textbook or the power points.

3) What is a “sex-linked” trait? Is inheritance of a specific number of pairs of human ribs a sex-linked trait? Does understanding this scientific observation of inheritance contradict Creationist accounts of the first human parents? How or why not?

4) Briefly discuss the difference between scientific fact and faith-based belief in terms of observations and testable evidence. Are these two approaches mutually incompatible (must we choose one or the other, not both) or can they work together to understand the web of life on our planet?

5) Finish your essay with a brief conclusion about what you learned from this analysis.

REQUIREMENTS:

Your name, date and subject
in the
top left corner
of your paper. DO NOT put my name or the course name/number at the top of the page.

No title page, no abstract, no bibliography or source page.

Minimum one full page of text. 1½ – 2 pages is an appropriate length for this assignment.

Double-spaced, one-inch margins all around, typed in English, 12-point font.

Use grammar befitting of a college student who cares about her/his grade. Spell-check and re-read your paper before submitting it to the drop box for this assignment on the course website.

Save and submit your paper as a Word doc or x or as .rtf or files. Canvas does not accept work submitted in .pages or as Google Docs, Google Drive shared documents or as ZIP files.

IMPORTANT:

Every student must write his or her own, original essay based on their individual understanding of the topic and written specifically for this winter cybersession class at DVC. Do not copy from any source, including the article under reference. Plagiarized papers will receive a grade of “0”.

Plagiarism means copying anyone else’s words and/or sentence structure and trying to pass them off as your own, original work. Review this website to understand what is plagiarism and what is not:

http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/

Grading Rubric

This assignment is worth 10 points: 8 points for content and 2 points for following format directions. The scientific method is grounded in precision and rigid testing format. You will be marked down for any incorrect formatting. I am looking for your brief, critical analysis of a short article, written within specific parameters of style and paragraph topics.

Excellent work (score 9-10):

Demonstrates thorough understanding of the topic through specific, detailed discussion, comparison and contrast.

Analysis includes thorough discussion of topics noted in the assignment prompt.

Conclusion is comprehensive and concise.

Good work (score 8):

Demonstrates moderate understanding of the topic through discussion, comparison and contrast but lacks sufficient detail.

Analysis includes discussion of the topics, but skewed towards the student’s point of view (did not analyze the topics, just answered the questions).

Conclusion is adequate but not thorough.

Adequate work (score 7):

Demonstrates some understanding of the topic but lacks sufficient discussion and details.

Analysis includes some discussion of the topics but lacks details and/or insufficient understanding of research information.

Able to draw generic conclusion.

Inadequate work (score 6):

Demonstrates some understanding of the topic, but little effort was made to complete this assignment.

Opinion outweighs analysis, little demonstration of having learned anything about the topic.

Not acceptable work (score 5 or below):

Did not understand the assignment.

Plagiarized work or no assignment submitted: score of “0”

Email me at

jsmithson@Peralta.edu

if you have difficulty uploading your assignment!

Darwin’s Rib (abridged)

by Robert S. Root-Bernstein

Robert S. Root-Bernstein is a professor of physiology at Michigan State University. He is the author of

Rethinking AIDS (1993: Free Preeellviacmillan). From Discover, September 1995. Copyright © 1995

Robert S. Root- Bernstein. Reprinted by permission of the author.

As all good teachers know, students will work much harder for extra-credit points than at the assigned

task. I like to take advantage of this convenient trait in my introductory course on evolution. Once my

students (non-science majors at a midwestern land-grant university) understand the basic terms, I offer

additional points for answering the questions I really want them to investigate. Find a dozen differences

between the skeletons of a chimpanzee and a human being, I challenge them; tell me how a human

female skeleton differs anatomically from a male. The male and female skeletons I display are

exemplary in their difference, and since most students should be able to guess what that difference is if

they don’t already know, I usually feel confident that the final answer is a giveaway. I say “usually”

because seven years ago, the first time I taught the course, I got a surprising answer that still crops up

with alarming regularity. Five minutes into the lab period, a young woman announced that she could

answer the question without even examining the human skeletons.

I waited silently for her to explain that the female pelvis is shaped slightly differently from the male’s,

with a larger opening for childbearing. That part was the giveaway. The real purpose of the exercise was

to make her prove her conjecture with measurements to translate the theory to practice. I also wanted her

to explain why this sexual dimorphism-that is, this sexually determined physical difference-is not nearly

so pronounced in nonhuman primates, such as chimpanzees.

She spoke: “Males have one fewer pair of ribs than females.”

I was totally unprepared for her answer. My mandible dropped. After a moment’s reflection, I realized

she must be referring to the biblical story in which God creates Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. My

student was someone who believed in the literal truth of the Bible, and it was her religious belief, not her

previous knowledge of human anatomy, that made her so sure of her answer. This was going to be a

challenge.

I believe just as firmly in religious freedom as I do in the scientific search for understanding. Thus,

while I adhere rigorously to teaching the best science and showing how scientists recognize it as the

best, I never insist that students believe scientific results. On the contrary, I encourage them to be

skeptical-as long as their skepticism is based on logic and evidence. Scientific results, in my view,

should be compelling because the collected observations and experiments leave room for only one

possible rational explanation. To insist that students accept my word (or the word of any scientist) about

any fact would undermine the one thing that makes science different from all other belief systems. The

acid test of science is the personal one of convincing yourself that you perceive what everyone else

perceives, whatever reservations you may start with. The evidence should be so compelling that it

convinces even the most serious skeptic-as long as that skeptic retains an open mind. Even more

important, science must admit what it does not or cannot know. Questions are what drive science, not

answers. A teacher who insists on blind obedience might well crush some budding Darwin who sees a

higher and more compelling truth about nature than the current dogma admits.

But in this instance, I was dealing with a pretty bare-bones case. The skeletons stood there as mute

models of reality. Pedagogical ideals notwithstanding, I saw little hope of enlightening my young friend

without attacking her religion outright.

I stalled for time. “Have you actually counted the ribs?” I asked. She admitted that she had not. “Well,

since this is a science class,” I admonished, “let’s treat your statement as a hypothesis. Now you need to

test it.” So off she went to the back of the room, full of confidence that God would not let her down. The

breather gave me a chance to plot out what I hoped would be an enlightened, and enlightening, approach

to the crisis her assumption had precipitated. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive topics.

How might it be possible to learn about how evolution works and continue to believe that God created

Eve from one of Adam’s ribs?

“Are you sure those are male and female skeletons?” My cocksure friend was back, looking a little

puzzled.

“They’re the bona fide item,” I answered. “Not only did they come so labeled from the company from

which they were bought, but certain anatomic features that I have verified myself lead me to conclude

that the labels are correct. But I’m glad you asked. Skepticism is a very useful scientific tool, and

scientists do sometimes make mistakes. Not this time, though.”

“Yes, but the skeletons have the same number of ribs,” objected my student.

I agreed. “Why did you expect otherwise?” Best to get the argument out in the open. As I had guessed,

her information came from the Bible, via Sunday school.

“But what does the Bible actually say?” I asked. Surely there had to be some way out of this mess.

“That God took a rib from Adam to create Eve.”

“One rib or two?”

“One,” she replied without hesitation.

“Don’t forget that ribs come in pairs,” I prompted her. “Oh!” I could almost hear her mind whirring. “So

men should be missing only one rib, not a pair — is that what you’re saying?”

“I don’t know.” I shook my head. “Why should they be missing any?”

“Well, if God took a rib from Adam, wouldn’t his children also be missing a rib?”

”All his children?” I countered. “Boys and girls?”

My young friend thought for a moment. “Oh, I see,” she said. “Why should only males inherit the

missing rib-why not females, too? That’s a good question.”

“I have a better one,” I pressed on, a full plan of evolutionary enlightenment now formulated in my

mind. “What kind of inheritance would this missing rib represent?”

In class we had discussed the differences between Lamarckian evolution by transmission of inherited

body modifications and Mendelian inheritance through genetic material that is subject to mutations, but

my student missed the point of my question. I explained. “Essentially, Lamarck maintained that anything

that affects your body could affect your offspring. Lift weights regularly, and your daughter could

inherit a bigger and stronger body than she would if you never stirred from the sofa. Chop off the tails of

generation after generation of mice, and eventually you should end up with tailless mice. Make an

antelope put its neck out for high-growing leaves, and its distant descendants will be giraffes.

“The problem is that generations of Jewish and Muslim males have been circumcised, without any effect

on the presence or absence of the penile foreskin of later generations. Certain breeds of dogs have had

their ears and tails cropped for hundreds of years without affecting the length or shape of the ears and

tails of their offspring. In other words, Lamarck was wrong.

“In fact, if you recall from lectures, he couldn’t have been right. Nothing you do to change your personal

physiognomy, from lifting weights to having a nose job, will affect the genetic makeup of your

offspring.” As I re-explained these basic points, I realized that, lacking a problem to apply the

information to, my student had not yet understood the important differences between Lamarck’s and

Mendel’s theories.

“Look at it this way. Suppose you had an accident, and your right thumb had to be amputated. Would

you expect all your children, assuming you have any, to be born lacking a right thumb?”

“Of course not,” said my student. Then, after a pause, “Oh, I see. You mean that for the same reason my

children would have thumbs even if I didn’t, Adam’s children would have the normal number of ribs

even though God took one of his. Otherwise, it would be Lamarckian inheritance.”

“Right!” I said. ”And there is no creditable evidence to support Lamarckian inheritance. So you’ve

actually got several problems here. First, Lamarckian inheritance doesn’t work. Why should Adam’s loss

of a rib affect his children? Second, everyone has ribs, men and women alike. Ribs certainly aren’t a sex-

linked trait like excessive facial hair or a scrotum. So there’s no reason I can think of that Adam’s male

offspring but not his female ones should be missing a rib. If the sons were missing a rib, wouldn’t the

daughters be missing one, too?

“Third, there is nothing in the Bible that says exactly how many ribs Adam started out with, or how

many ribs we should have, is there? So you have no compelling reason to believe that in taking a rib

from Adam, God left all of his male offspring one short. That’s an inference, and a particularly poor one

since it relies on an outdated theory of evolutionary change. You don’t really want to use a discarded

evolutionary theory to prop up the Bible, do you?”

I was pleased to see that my ploy had worked. My student accepted my explanations with good grace

and an active intellect. Her religion was intact, but she was learning to think about her assumptions and

to reason a bit more like a scientist. She was soon back at the human skeletons counting and measuring

other bones. With some help, and a few broad hints (“How can you tell the difference between a man

and a woman from behind, if they are the same height and have equal-length hair?”), she finally realized

that the reason she wore a different cut of jeans from the men in the class was because she is built

slightly differently.

Most human females have a relatively wider pelvis than males because the human brain (even in a

newborn) is too large to pass through a narrow birth canal. Thus, one of the reasons sexual dimorphism

is so much more pronounced in humans than in most other primates is relative brain size. (“Don’t trust

me,” I told her, “check it — the skeletons are there!”) Bigger brains require wider hips for birthing.

By the end of the course, five more students had reported to me that they too knew without having to

look at the skeletons that women have more ribs than men. Some of them trotted off to count the ribs

and came back to report that they had verified their preconceived notion. I had to stand beside them and

count the ribs two or three times before they would believe that there really are the same number in the

two skeletons.

These days I’m better prepared than I was that first year. Sometimes I bring in an extra pair of skeletons

or a medical textbook with X-ray photographs of the chest, so that the students can count ribs to their

hearts’ content. I’ve come to expect at least 10 percent of the students in each class to tell me that men

and women differ in rib count. I have conducted surveys of nearly a thousand first-year college students

who either are non-science majors or have not yet declared a major. More than 25 percent report

believing that God created the Earth within the last 10,000 years and that man was formed in God’s

image exactly as described in the Bible. Another 50 percent report being undecided as to whether

evolution is a valid scientific theory or a hoax. Only about 20 percent enter my university having learned

enough about science and the evidence for evolution to consider it a valid scientific theory.

My college classroom numbers follow fairly closely those reported in recent national polls. A 1991

Gallup poll, for example, found that 47 percent of the respondents believed that God created man within

the last 10,000 years. Forty percent believed that man evolved over millions of years but that God had a

direct hand in guiding that process. Only 9 percent said man evolved without God’s direct intervention.

In many communities, such as mine, there are ongoing, active attempts to exclude evolution from the

public school curriculum. Lecturing on evolution is an interesting challenge under these circumstances.

Take nothing for granted, I counsel my students: that is what makes a scientist. I’ll make no bones about

it: anatomic differences are what drive evolution — and its teaching.

Chapter 2
Origins of Evolutionary Thought

1

What is Science?
Science is a process, not a result!
Science is the process through which the
natural world is explored and understood.
Video: The Nature of Science
https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkvjDZseD4k

2

The Scientific Method
1. Observation
4. Experiment/test
2. Deduction
3. Hypothesis
5. Conclusion
6. Repeat
7. THEORY

3

More about “Science”
Hypotheses must be testable! If a hypothesis (proposed explanation for observed phenomena) is not testable, then the hypothesis is not scientific.
Science is the process that we use to investigate, to question and to verify or disprove a hypothesis.
Science is self-correcting.
If a hypothesis can be falsified (proven wrong through application of the scientific method), then we have to rethink the proposed explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Early Scientific Thinkers
A word about ancient Chinese science, Egyptian science, Mayan science, Arab science … They were first!
Ancient Greeks
often are credited with the first written efforts to understand the natural world and our place in it
Aristotle (born 2400 years ago) talked about:
Chain of Being
Fixity of Species
Geocentric Universe

5

The Roots of Modern Science
The Renaissance (14th – 16th centuries)
Copernicus (1473-1542): Heliocentric Universe
(what is this?)
Galileo (1543-1642): supported Heliocentrism

Backlash against scientific observations:
Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656)
Calculated the Day of Creation based on Biblical genealogies.

6

Linnaeus and Systema Naturalae (1735)
taxonomy
binomial
nomenclature
What is a taxon (plural = taxa)?
A unit or category for classification
What is binomial nomenclature?
A two-name classification system for identifying species

7

The Road to the Darwinian Revolution
Georges Cuvier (1769 – 1832) = Catastrophism
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829)
Inheritance of acquired characteristics (what is this?)
James Hutton (1726 – 1797)
and Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875)
Uniformitarianism (what is this?)
Thomas Malthus (1766 – 1834)
Population Economics: War, disease, famine are necessary to prevent overpopulation

8

Lamarck’s contributions
Lamarck popularized two important ideas about species change over time. The first one was correct. The second one was not.
Steady and predictable “improvement” of species over time, such that species would be successful in their given environments.
Creatures could improve their bodies through experience and/or need and then pass on these acquired characteristics to their offspring. This idea of “Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics” was popular in the early to mid-1800’s because it explained that a creature would somehow “grow” traits that were needed and lose what was not. This is not how Evolution works.

Hutton/Lyell’s Uniformitarianism:
James Hutton Charles Lyell 1726 – 1797 1797 – 1875
Observable natural processes shape physical landforms and features over very, very long periods of time.
The same gradual geological processes we observe today were operating in the past.

10

Malthus’
Population Economics
Populations of laborers grows faster than available food resources:
Human reproduction is exponential (2 x 2 x 2 x 2)
Resource growth is arithmetic (2 + 2 + 2 + 2)
“Natural” forces work to keep reproduction at manageable levels.
War
Poverty
Infectious disease

Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882)
Voyage on the HMS Beagle (1831-1836)
Naturalist
Social elite
Well-educated
Knew about Lamarck, Hutton/Lyell, Malthus
Synthesized previous information to form ideas on Origin of Species in 1859
Who was Charles Darwin?

12

Darwin’s Observations
The Galapagos Islands
Variations of tortoise shells on different islands
Finch variation correlates with environment
Adaptive radiation from ancestor on mainland
Natural Selection as the mechanism for Evolution
As a “Gentleman Farmer” in England
Artificial Selection (selective breeding) is analogous to Natural Selection

Another voice
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823 – 1913).
Independently came up with the idea of Natural Selection in 1857.
Not “social elite”
Father of Biogeography
Read “Insights and Advances” section in the textbook for this story.

Differences between Darwin and Wallace
Darwin argued that competition, survival and reproduction between individuals are primary factors in evolution.
Wallace emphasized environmental pressure on groups (populations) to force adaptations through natural selection.
Darwin was influenced by Wallace’s ideas about Natural Selection and incorporated them into his own thesis on Origins of Species.

Refining the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
Observation 1: All organisms have the potential for explosive population growth, yet populations are roughly stable…
Deduction 1: There must be a struggle for existence (competition).
Observation 2: Nature is full of variation
Deduction 2: Some variations are favored (adaptive) while others are not.

16

Modern Synthesis on Natural Selection
1) Organisms have the potential for reproductive rates that outstrip the rate of increase of food supplies.
2) Biological (genetic) variation exists within all species.
3) There is constant competition among individuals for survival.
4) Individuals with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.

Modern Synthesis on Natural Selection
5) Environment (nature) selects traits that are favorable.
Favorable traits are passed on to offspring at a higher rate than non-favorable traits, which changes the gene frequency in a population over time.
Video: What is Evolution?
http://www.statedclearly.com/what-is-evolution
/

What is “fitness”? Reproductive success
What is an “adaptation”? Trait that helps the creature survive and reproduce
What is a “mutation”? Genetic change that results in a potentially adaptive trait

Natural Selection and Adaptation
Adaptations are the physical result of genetic mutations in individuals.
Reproductive success of individuals (“fitness”) is based on physical adaptations. Those successful individuals are “selected” by nature (Natural Selection).
The unit of natural selection is the individual The unit of microevolution is the population
Individuals do not “evolve” … Populations evolve! Evolution is the change in traits from generation to generation, which requires reproduction (usually two individuals mating).
Evolution that can be seen or tracked from one generation to the next is called “Microevolution”.

For Natural Selection to work …
The trait is question must show variation between individuals.
The trait in question must be heritable.
The environment must exert some pressure on the trait.
Video: What is Natural Selection?
http://www.statedclearly.com/natural-selection
/

20

Science and Creationism
Faith vs. Testable Evidence
Is “Creationism” a Science?
What is
“Intelligent Design”
What does “science” require that “faith” does not?
Can “science” answer all questions about life?

21

Darwin’s Rib Article
What is the controversy?
How was this investigated?
What was the outcome?
Why is this discussion important?
Check your syllabus! The Short Essay Assignment for this class is due on Friday, no later than 11:00 p.m.

Study Guide
1. Discuss the process of science, including observation, hypothesis formulation, and experiment (testing).
 
2. Explain how the scientific method is self-correcting.
 
3. Explain the roots of modern science and the concept of evolution:
Contrast catastrophism versus uniformitarianism.
Discuss the conflicting viewpoints of Bishop Ussher, Georges Cuvier, James Hutton and Charles Lyell.
Who was Thomas Malthus and why is he important to the study of evolution?
4. Compare and contrast Jean Baptiste de Lamarck’s view of evolution and heredity with those of Charles Darwin.
 
5. Identify the contributions of Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace to evolutionary theory.
 
6. Describe the process and provide examples of natural selection including those from the Galápagos Islands.
7. How is the process of Science different from ideas of Creationism?
Why is Intelligent Design not considered to be a scientific approach?