Friday, May 1, 2009
Evolution
In the Asma reading, I thought interesting points were brought up about evolution in the context of the museum. Evolution is constructed differently depending on the museum and its location. The scientific community is largely uninterested in presenting an argument or explanation for creationism as the concept is an unrelated discourse. Creationism is an absolute (with no way to be proven or unproven), whereas scientific theory is open to debate and reflection. Science has morphed into a discipline devoid of religion. The two practices are thought of as incompatible though historically the two work side-by-side. Science and theology both answer questions, but the answers are gathered extremely differently. Under the current heated climate of science and religion, I doubt the two will rekindle their romance. I am under the modern perspective that the differences between the two communities are too extreme to be reunited.
Evolution
The second chapter, "Evolution and the Roulette Wheel" is particularly interesting in light of yesterday's visit to the museum, and the Hall of Human Origins. I understood Alan's letter about the roulette wheel and yet, I doubt kids were somehow subliminally influenced to take up the vice because of it. I personally have always thought chance plays a huge part in everything, even if one were to subscribe to a religious or non-religious view. Spinning a wheel or throwing some dice seem an excellent representation of all that is possible, both good and bad.
Anyway, I then wondered: was there any reference to God in the Hall of Human Origins? I know it was only yesterday, and yet I don't remember seeing anything about it. Does it belong in a scientific museum? Evolution is not "anti-religion," which Asma makes clear, but people have a tendency (I know I did originally) to put the two on opposite ends of the spectrum. There are, even today, plenty of debates in schools about whether or not to include evolution, or just the religious point of view, or both. I remember in my biology class sophomore year my teacher turned off the lights, made us close our eyes, and read from the bible of how life was created. He wasn't encouraging this theory, instead I think it was something he had to do, and wanted to do, because he saw the two things as being compataible in some way.
I found the Hall of Human Origins fascinating, and I wondered how it compares to other natural history museums on how it portrayed evolution. I would think America would be more likely than European institions to weasle something into the exhibit about God and religion, but maybe I'm wrong. As I was standing near the section on human creativity, I heard a man saying on a video nearby how science couldn't tell what was wrong from right; that was what philosophy, religion, art, etc was for. This was an interesting point of view, and maybe it was the museum's way of reconciling the two views. He, so as not to generalize, didn't act like science was around to give meaning to people's lives.
I think Alan (from this chapter in Stuffed Animals) would've been better off looking at chance from a religious point of view if he so chose. It is not incompatible. I like how Asma says that scholars and theologians jump to answer a question "not because they have an answer--it's because they can't stand the silence." I don't think it's just them, though, I don't think anyone can stand the silence. As cliche as it sounds, I'm not sure everyone is necessarily looking for "the" answer as much as a possible variety of answers.
As for a curatorial agenda in museology, it seems hard to avoid otherwise. Objectivity itself is rather subjective this way, as he alludes to with his soup example. I wondered, while in the Hall of Human Origins yesterday, if the curators purposely made the other hominids look more animalistic and then suddenly homo sapiens aren't at all? Was I imagining things? The dioramas connoted more primitiveness and distance. I understand this to an extent but for the most part they seemed very much the "other." Even though it was essentially us and our ancestors on display to gawk at, I doubt many people felt alarm because they didn't really look or seem like us. If one were to show up today we wouldn't be like, "hey, join my group!" We have placed ourselves out of reach of any kind of connection to these hominids.
Anyway, I then wondered: was there any reference to God in the Hall of Human Origins? I know it was only yesterday, and yet I don't remember seeing anything about it. Does it belong in a scientific museum? Evolution is not "anti-religion," which Asma makes clear, but people have a tendency (I know I did originally) to put the two on opposite ends of the spectrum. There are, even today, plenty of debates in schools about whether or not to include evolution, or just the religious point of view, or both. I remember in my biology class sophomore year my teacher turned off the lights, made us close our eyes, and read from the bible of how life was created. He wasn't encouraging this theory, instead I think it was something he had to do, and wanted to do, because he saw the two things as being compataible in some way.
I found the Hall of Human Origins fascinating, and I wondered how it compares to other natural history museums on how it portrayed evolution. I would think America would be more likely than European institions to weasle something into the exhibit about God and religion, but maybe I'm wrong. As I was standing near the section on human creativity, I heard a man saying on a video nearby how science couldn't tell what was wrong from right; that was what philosophy, religion, art, etc was for. This was an interesting point of view, and maybe it was the museum's way of reconciling the two views. He, so as not to generalize, didn't act like science was around to give meaning to people's lives.
I think Alan (from this chapter in Stuffed Animals) would've been better off looking at chance from a religious point of view if he so chose. It is not incompatible. I like how Asma says that scholars and theologians jump to answer a question "not because they have an answer--it's because they can't stand the silence." I don't think it's just them, though, I don't think anyone can stand the silence. As cliche as it sounds, I'm not sure everyone is necessarily looking for "the" answer as much as a possible variety of answers.
As for a curatorial agenda in museology, it seems hard to avoid otherwise. Objectivity itself is rather subjective this way, as he alludes to with his soup example. I wondered, while in the Hall of Human Origins yesterday, if the curators purposely made the other hominids look more animalistic and then suddenly homo sapiens aren't at all? Was I imagining things? The dioramas connoted more primitiveness and distance. I understand this to an extent but for the most part they seemed very much the "other." Even though it was essentially us and our ancestors on display to gawk at, I doubt many people felt alarm because they didn't really look or seem like us. If one were to show up today we wouldn't be like, "hey, join my group!" We have placed ourselves out of reach of any kind of connection to these hominids.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Importance of Our Origin
I am fascinated to learn from this article that there is a gap preventing us from pinpointing our origin. Having said that, as I continued through the article, I began to wonder why this information could be so important besides the thirst of our curiosity to know. Is there a disease of some sort we could cure if we knew of our origin? I continued throughout the reading in hopes of a mention of an outcome that could take place once this puzzle of our "evolutionary" line could be complete. This is what I ended up on:
“At a basic level, one wants to know when and where transformations occurred so one can put them into their appropriate evolutionary context,” Dr. Lieberman said.
I respect the idea behind knowing your past and history in order to learn from what has already taken place and in order to avoid repeating the same mistake again; it is crucial to know the past to advance into the future. However, as important as the beginning is to any story, how useful would this information really come out to be? References to the question we seem to be stuck on include "modern humans with the ambition to find their origins", "the redrawing of the human family tree", and most importantly, "our big question". When it comes down to it, is it just that? A big question that we are extremely curious about? Before the previously mentioned reference ("At a basic level..."), "Daniel E. Lieberman, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard, said that filling in the tree matters to scientists, and not only out of innate curiosity about human ancestry." Then he continues to refer to filling in the missing pieces into the "appropriate evolutionary context". So because these "experts" we call scientists want the information to fill in gaps of the human evolution it is much more important? In the end, isn't the completion of this line of human evolution to be a reference and a guide for anyone curious about that subject? In the end, I feel that it is another one of our results derived from a curiosity to know and collect.
“At a basic level, one wants to know when and where transformations occurred so one can put them into their appropriate evolutionary context,” Dr. Lieberman said.
I respect the idea behind knowing your past and history in order to learn from what has already taken place and in order to avoid repeating the same mistake again; it is crucial to know the past to advance into the future. However, as important as the beginning is to any story, how useful would this information really come out to be? References to the question we seem to be stuck on include "modern humans with the ambition to find their origins", "the redrawing of the human family tree", and most importantly, "our big question". When it comes down to it, is it just that? A big question that we are extremely curious about? Before the previously mentioned reference ("At a basic level..."), "Daniel E. Lieberman, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard, said that filling in the tree matters to scientists, and not only out of innate curiosity about human ancestry." Then he continues to refer to filling in the missing pieces into the "appropriate evolutionary context". So because these "experts" we call scientists want the information to fill in gaps of the human evolution it is much more important? In the end, isn't the completion of this line of human evolution to be a reference and a guide for anyone curious about that subject? In the end, I feel that it is another one of our results derived from a curiosity to know and collect.
Monday, April 27, 2009
April 28th
"Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins" made me think of an evolutionary theory I read long ago. The idea is that Homo sapiens were able to diverge and evolve from their more apelike ancestors due to a genetic mutation in the jaw, a biological feature all of us have today: "The provocative discovery suggests that this genetic twist -- toward smaller, weaker jaws -- unleashed a cascade of profound biological changes. The smaller jaws would allow for dramatic brain growth necessary for tool-making, language and other hallmarks of human evolution on the plains of East Africa...And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person...But nonhuman primates...still carry the original big-jaw gene."
(See articles on the topic here and here.) I mention this "finding" because it seems that the assumptions regarding where we come from contain all the parts of a fluke: mysterious, filled with mistakes (poorly preserved fossils?); the process was likely quick; what came before and after is, for the most part, understood, but the real toothsome stuff is quite literally buried or disintegrated. Think of the chance mutations discussed in Chapter 6 of Stuffed Animals & Pickled Heads. It seems we come from a number of different kinds of species that evolved from or even integrated with each other (leaving, returning as a more evolved species that would integrate with earlier kinds of beings - a good idea, but still just an idea), but there remains a search for this isolated moment: When? How?
I, too, want to know the answers to these questions. It'd be interesting to see if there is a change in scientific paradigms and the idea that one thing happened, and then another, but the fact that there is some sort of 'mystery moment' in between said 'things' becomes acceptable - and why shouldn't it be? Species grow, they mix. Is the answer so important? To answer 'no' would be bold; it might even be incorrect. Maybe is there IS an isolated moment. Science is flawed, broken into different categories and continually proving itself wrong: but it remains constant in its search for answers and the development of a lineage of all forms of life. However, to put in a straight line that which might be more cyclical and whole is ultimately frustrating. Maybe a reworking of what's already been discovered is the answer.
(See articles on the topic here and here.) I mention this "finding" because it seems that the assumptions regarding where we come from contain all the parts of a fluke: mysterious, filled with mistakes (poorly preserved fossils?); the process was likely quick; what came before and after is, for the most part, understood, but the real toothsome stuff is quite literally buried or disintegrated. Think of the chance mutations discussed in Chapter 6 of Stuffed Animals & Pickled Heads. It seems we come from a number of different kinds of species that evolved from or even integrated with each other (leaving, returning as a more evolved species that would integrate with earlier kinds of beings - a good idea, but still just an idea), but there remains a search for this isolated moment: When? How?
I, too, want to know the answers to these questions. It'd be interesting to see if there is a change in scientific paradigms and the idea that one thing happened, and then another, but the fact that there is some sort of 'mystery moment' in between said 'things' becomes acceptable - and why shouldn't it be? Species grow, they mix. Is the answer so important? To answer 'no' would be bold; it might even be incorrect. Maybe is there IS an isolated moment. Science is flawed, broken into different categories and continually proving itself wrong: but it remains constant in its search for answers and the development of a lineage of all forms of life. However, to put in a straight line that which might be more cyclical and whole is ultimately frustrating. Maybe a reworking of what's already been discovered is the answer.
what happened to all the fossils?!
In "Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins" William Kimbel tells us about fossils from 2.6 million years ago when the Homo Habilis roamed the earth. Apparently hominid fossils are hard to find from that period, he said, “It’s not that sites containing rocks this age are particularly rare, or that the time period in eastern Africa has not been searched by several groups... The problem is that the fossil yield has thus far been low or poorly preserved, compared to the time periods on either side of this interval.” But why is that? He does not explain any further on the subject, but it is something that baffles me. Was it something in the soil that couldn't preserve the fossils? Or was it pure negligence from the paleoanthropologists? How can there be plenty of fossils from before and after that period but that one period in time there is not enough? Although this was just a short paragraph in the New York Times article, it struck me because it left me wondering. so I tried to answer these questions with my own research. I googled "dark Age," which was a bad decision because it seems like every continent or country had a dark age at some point. next i tried "dark age Homo Habilis" and i got this New York times article and a whole lot about how the habilis species were known as "handy men" and made tools, which i already knew. But i could not find anything on the lack of fossils from that period. So, overall i found the article frustrating to read because i read it waiting for it to mention more about this fossil dark age and it never did. Such a shame
Fossil Wars/Fossil Clues
Dinosaur Fossil Wars surprised me because I never knew about the legal battles that took place over dinosaur fossils and that there was so much competition among scientists, amateurs, and poachers, further complicated by private collectors and the federal government. Much collection is illegal because of the large demand and complicated, oblique laws and regulations, requiring permits on any public land. It seems pretty limiting that fossils are government property, but cases are deemed criminal based on intent, which would be difficult to prove. And it sounds like the more valuable the specimen, and the more money that's involved, the more the government is likely to intervene, like in Frithiof's case which wasn't a secret excavation (appearing on the Discovery channel and in the news, it was obvious that he didn't know it was public property and he wasn't a poacher. I wasn't sure how to judge the idea of amateurs taking valuable specimens away from scientific knowledge, but it would be ideal to maintain a balance where private collectors could obtain common fossils and scientists could study the most significant ones that offered new clues. I do believe nothing can stop illegal collecting, especially on a small scale, I've found fossils many times and never heard about such laws.
Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins related to our discussions of the evolution of theories and scientific facts, but in this case many solid clues are missing, and unlike the horse lineage, we don't know whether our origins were linear or more complex. Connecting the dots to our human origins with a large million year gap in fossil records seems like a major issue in our relatively short lineage. I was surprised to find out that only traces of our Homo ancestors from over 2 million years ago are loose teeth and fragments, and yet there is enough evidence that scientists believe our first ancestors arose 3 million years ago. Why have there been so few findings, or why have they been "poorly preserved" for this interval of time? There are suggestions that some members left Africa and evolved rapidly due to isolaton, returning later to Africa, so should they be looking elsewhere?
Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins related to our discussions of the evolution of theories and scientific facts, but in this case many solid clues are missing, and unlike the horse lineage, we don't know whether our origins were linear or more complex. Connecting the dots to our human origins with a large million year gap in fossil records seems like a major issue in our relatively short lineage. I was surprised to find out that only traces of our Homo ancestors from over 2 million years ago are loose teeth and fragments, and yet there is enough evidence that scientists believe our first ancestors arose 3 million years ago. Why have there been so few findings, or why have they been "poorly preserved" for this interval of time? There are suggestions that some members left Africa and evolved rapidly due to isolaton, returning later to Africa, so should they be looking elsewhere?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)