Human Variation and Race

1.     a) heat. Heat has the potential to disturb homeostasis by altering an individual’s body temperature to such an extent that their organs begin to fail, possibly fatally (hyperthermia). Excessive heat is responsible for more deaths, globally, than excessive cold (hypothermia). If the body temperature reaches 105-107 degrees and remains that high for a few days, death is usually the result. Theoretically, hyperthermia would be especially difficult for people of a shorter, thicker stature to tolerate because that kind of body shape is ideal for colder climates; the layer of fat that would be useful in a colder climate would be detrimental to the individual’s health if that person was faced with conditions that instigate hyperthermia.

3. 

Short-term adaptation: An example of short-term adaptation would be radiation (loss of heat from the body in heatwaves, to the surrounding atmosphere) in response to excessive heat. Likewise, evaporative cooling is a short-term adaptation which is particularly effective in climates that are not only hot, but also significantly dry. 

Facultative adaptation: If an individual moved to a warmer climate from a colder climate, it is possible that their appetite would be suppressed because of the heat, causing them to lose the layer of fat designed to keep them warm and thus be able to cool off more efficiently. According to Bergmann’s rule slimmer individuals have an easier time cooling off (i.e. they lose heat to the surrounding atmosphere more quickly) because they have a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio. 

Developmental adaptations: Most individuals within the Masai tribe of East Africa have a specific body shape that maximizes their ability to remain cool in their hot native environment. Not only are they slender, but their arms and legs are also quite long. This body shape is highly contrastive of one that would be advantageous in a cool environment, described earlier. These individuals would thus not do very well in a cool environment because their body shape is not conducive to conserving heat.

Cultural adaptations: In the summertime in Los Angeles and the surrounding communities of Southern California, the attire one will see when walking around a populated area is relatively predictable: shorts, short-sleeved shirts, and dresses for women, and shorts and t-shirts for men, (plus sandals for both sexes) will most likely be sighted. There will also probably be a noticeable absence of jackets, particularly on days of temperatures over 100 degrees. This is an example of cultural adaptations: as Southern Californians, we dress in a certain way in the summer to expose the most skin to the surrounding atmosphere and thus cool off more efficiently. Of course, some of this also has to do with fashion, tanning, and showing off, but in general it also helps with cooling off in these hot Southern California temperatures.

3. In many ways I think that observing human variation across environmental clines is a good way to preserve the perspective that while we all vary according to our environment, we ALL vary; the reasons we are different from one another are the same everywhere. Many tribes in Africa have traditional clothing that exposes a lot of their skin, and this could be for the same reasons Southern Californians wear shorts (cultural adaptations). In other words, this kind of study allows us to see the similarities between populations worldwide, which is perspective-changing in and of itself. 

4. I don't think race can be used to explain any of the adaptations I listed in question 2. Race is generally not a fruitful lens through which to study science or the variation of human populations; indeed, using race scientifically led to a staggering amount of historical atrocities. The study of environmental influences on adaptations is much more effective, because it allows us to observe similarities between different populations who perhaps live on parts of the globe with similar environmental conditions (the similar skin pigmentations of South Indians and some populations of Africa, for example). 

The Piltdown Hoax

The Piltdown Man was found in 1912 by Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist. The first piece of skull was supposedly found by a laborer, who gave it to Dawson. Dawson invited Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, a geologist of the Natural History Museum in London, to come dig with him at Piltdown. Together they came upon a jawbone that appeared to be a part of the skull fragments given to Dawson by the laborer. Woodward, who was initially skeptic, thought that the jawbone indicated that this was indeed a momentous discovery. The scientific community and indeed the world reacted in a similar manner: they saw the Piltdown discoveries as the beginning of a new and exciting road in evolution. The only thing that was missing was the canine tooth, which cast slight doubt on the find. Despite this, the Piltdown Man made headlines worldwide, and was accepted into the scientific community with open arms. Of course, a year later, a canine matching the exact specifications of the skull was found on the site. With the discovery of a second Piltdown Man not far away, most skeptic’s doubts fell away.

           

Forty years later, the hoax was revealed, to the shock and awe of the scientists and the world. The discoveries that had taken place in the rest of the world in the interim had been in no way similar to the structure of the Piltdown Man. This significant disparity caused scientists to return to the Piltdown man, utilizing the more advanced dating technologies that had developed. In the 1940s, the scientist Kenneth Oakley tested the bones using his invented "fluorine method" by measuring the fluorine deposits in them (which can collect in calcium-rich organic matter) and found out that while they contained similar amounts of fluorine, they were much, much younger than had been insinuated by Dawson. Joseph Wiener and Wilfrid Le Gros Clark worked with Oakley to test and observe the Piltdown specimen further. After having noticed that the teeth looked like they had been shaved down, the scientists decided to do more tests. Using chemical tests that included an improved fluorine test, these scientists found out that not only were the jawbone and the skull not fossilized, but they were not even part of the same species (let alone the same age). In addition, the bones had been dyed to match the surrounding sediments at the Piltdown site.

            

The Piltdown Man had been thought genuine for forty years—and for this reason, the revelation that it was fake was very difficult for many scientists to take. Quite a few had built significant aspects of their research on Dawson’s findings, and the fact that they had wasted their time on a false “missing link” was, as Miles Russell put it, “horrifically embarrassing.” Science is in many ways a constant mystery, and the false clue disrupted the work of scientists who could have been working on legitimate specimens that could have led them down a valid path. 

At the time the Piltdown Man was “discovered,” proper scientific method was not as standardized as it is today. A standardized procedure would have enforced better checks on Dawson and his partners. If there had been a procedural structure for ensuring the validity of their discovery, this may not have happened (despite the lack of proper dating technology, a close look at the teeth by an expert scientist could have easily revealed that they were filed down).  However, a lack of adequate scientific method and a lack of proper dating technology were not the only reasons Piltdown Man was thought to be legitimate for so long.

One very important aspect of human fault in the Piltdown Hoax is the pride of the British scientists involved (including Woodward), and of the Natural History Museum, at finally getting in on the evolutionary game. Indeed they had produced Darwin and his theories, but most of the discoveries of early man had been on other continents. When they were presented with their share of fossilized early man, it would not have been in their best interest to examine it from every angle and try to disprove its legitimacy (as is done to modern hypotheses). Additionally, the Natural History Museum showcased their erroneous pride by being overly strict in terms of who they allowed examine the skull.

In the same way, trust can be a fault in this scenario. Scientists must question everything in order to advance their findings. When it was first discovered, scientists worldwide, by trusting that the Piltdown Man was real and not actually speaking out with skepticism, allowed for the hoax to continue. In science, a measured amount of skepticism is productive.

One of the main aspects of the scientific method is that new knowledge needs to be based on empirical (measurable) data. The initial fluorine test conducted by Oakley was exactly that—the results of the test are scientific measurements that reveal new information.  The initial skepticism, though, which pushed Oakley to test the Piltdown Man, was in of itself a questioning of a “hypothesis” which is another pillar of the scientific method. All of the work that went into looking at the Piltdown Man more closely was to disprove and challenge the information set up by Dawson. Likewise, the observation of the teeth by Joseph Wiener led the two men to conduct the more advanced chemical tests which exposed the whole thing as a fraud. The observation of phenomena is a key aspect early in the order of the scientific method as well. Although this might be a stretch, reproducibility, another key aspect of the scientific method, could be what caused Oakley’s skepticism in the first place. Nowhere in the entire world had there been a skeleton resembling the Piltdown Man, therefore his “reproducibility,” if you will, was called into question. Although the two concepts are divergent, they have the same basic structure to them—a lack of replicated evidence during testing (if “testing” can be applied here to the discovery of other early hominins) rings a bell of falsity. 

I think the human factor in science is quite important. Although error is a human inevitability, humans also have the capacity to learn from their mistakes. In my opinion, one of the most beautiful aspects of humanity is our thirst for knowledge. Removing the human element from science by, perhaps, training robots to make our discoveries for us would be pointless, I think, not the least because machines also have the capacity for error. The driving force behind science is curiosity, and imagination. As humans we have the drive of curiosity and a capacity for inventing and considering boundless possibilities. Even if we can theoretically engineer a robot with the same capacity for imagination, I don’t think the human thirst for knowledge can ever be replicated.

Always confirm that the information you’re receiving is from a reputable source. A good example of this is the internet—it is an incredibly easy tool to use in terms of information retrieval, but it is utterly useless if one believes everything on the internet is true. There are several websites dedicated to the idea that dolphins and whales can help you time travel. Information from the internet must always be taken with a grain of salt. It is generally a good thing, I think, to address the world with skepticism—that way one can avoid the pitfalls of naiveté and gullibility.