Name: Promise
Username: ppartner@brynmawr.edu
Subject: being alive
Date: Mon Nov 13 15:38:08 EST 2000
Comments:
Last night I read a comment by Madeleine L'Engle that, though on the existential side of the discussion, may help us in differentiating what is alive and what is not:
"To be human is to be able to laugh, to cry, to live fully, to be aware of our lives as we are living them. We are the creatures who know that we know, unlike insects who live by unthinking instinct. That ability to think, to know, to reflect, to question, marks us as human beings. And our humannnes includes an awareness that we are mortal."
Name: Jeanne
Username: jbraha@brynmawr.edu
Subject: adaptive?
Date: Mon Nov 13 16:49:10 EST 2000
Comments:
First, Joe, I apologize for using you as an example in class today. Moving on, what I meant by humans doing things that are not adaptive is the following: we have an amazing capacity to self-destruct, both on the personal and on the group level, that I do not immediately see in any other species. Self-destruction, to me, seems non-adaptive both on the individual and on the species level.
An example of the personal/individual: suicide (this works on the species level if done prior to reproduction) is the most blatant example I can think of. Other organisms might kill themselves, but generally only if they are severely injured or lack the resources to continue. Less clear-cut examples range from smoking to other mental illnesses that have physical self-harm as a symptom (anorexia, cutting, etc.) to maintaining a diet high in saturated fats and cholesterol when presented with evidence of a history of heart disease and/or data that the individual is currently suffering from that.
On the group/species level, humans do a great job. Every day we get into machines that spew carbon monoxide into the environment, elect politicians who engage us in international treaties that allow for nuclear testing, contribute to the decline in water quality by dripping a little gas when filling up our car, accidentally dropping trash along the road, using detergents with phosphates, etc. I could go on for a while.
Finally - I probably should have started with this - I am defining the word adaptive to refer to the positive sense of the word. An adaptation is technically just a modification due to natural selection, but my understanding of the example of the bacteria acting adaptively was that the bacteria was moving towards food, the substance that allows them to remain alive. The behaviors I discussed above do not inherently keep us alive, but often have the opposite result. The big difference I see is humans (in the broadest sense, not necessarily every single individual on teh planet) actively seek out these non-adaptive behaviors. If a bacteria consumes something toxic to its system, that's just something it ran into on the way to the higher concentration of food.
Name: Debbie
Username: dplotnic@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Adaptations and Reproduction
Date: Tue Nov 14 09:40:35 EST 2000
Comments:
Adaptive is an interesting concept to contemplate when your personal DNA offers adaptations that can be highly beneficial or lethal. As we spoke of a few weeks ago, traits (that are genetically coded) in conjunction with the proper environment (presences of specific proteins) can produce a fatal illness, such as sickle cell anemia, or something highly desirable, such as protection from malaria. In my family we think and talk about such concepts regularly, only we insert manic-depression and highly creative into the slots for fatal illness and desirable.
Manic-depressive illness (also known as bi-polar disorder) is estimated to have a 20% mortality rate. The fatalities, however, are classified not as disease related but as suicide. It does seem counter intuitive that a tendency towards committing suicide would be a successful reproductive strategy. But, for people whose DNA codes for manic-depression, regardless of whether the individual manifests the illness, also tend to be extremely engaging people, which does correlate with reproduction. And even if they suffer from the disorder, the manic and hypo-manic phases are associated with hyper-sexuality.
Why would it be desirable to pass on such a genetic heritage? Looking at some of the most creative and artistic families in history, such as those of Hemmingway, Lord Byron and Van Gogh, supports a positive argument. I employ such rational when speaking to my own three highly, creative and engaging children. Thus far only one of them overtly manifests what in my family we refer to as “a lithium deficiency.” I think about that question everyday. I wonder what my children’s choices regarding reproduction will be. I wonder, if I understood twenty-two years ago, that which I know today if I might have answered that question differently.
Name: Joan
Username: jsteiner@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Adaptivity
Date: Tue Nov 14 13:50:30 EST 2000
Comments:
As human being I feel our normal behaviors are moving more and
more away from "adaptive", but not necessarily to "non-adaptive". We
have gone from working with our environment (a.k.a., when it's cold
our primitive ancestors used the environment, such as animal skins,
fire, natural shelter, etc., to keep us warm) to manipulating it to suit
our present desires (a.k.a., control the climates of certain designated
areas, such as a room). I don't know whether it is our unique form of
consciousness or what, but I feel we are not using our adaptive
abilities as much as animals do, or our evolutionary ancestors have.
Name: jakki
Username: theduellist@email.msn.com
Subject:
Date: Tue Nov 14 19:35:46 EST 2000
Comments:
I am not sure that turning up the thermostat isn't more or less the same thing as building a fire or wrapping up in Bambi's mom, when talking about adaptive behaviours. Its all about exploiting the environment (in both the positive and negative sense of the word). And I am not sure, but I thought that as far as adaptive behaviours go, they choose us rather than the other way around. I mean, you can choose to wrap yourself in an animal skin and huddle in your tepee, but when the blizzard comes those of us who are lounging in the hot tub in our climate controlled rec rooms (ah, but I can dream it, anyway) will likely be the one's passing on our genes when all is said and done. Unless, of course we thoroughly denature our sperm and ova, like so many boiled carrots. But, ultimately its nature's call, right?
Also, just a quick comment about the sentience thing. I think that it is the human tendency to anthropomorhise everything that makes it hard to understand autonomy and homeostasis in other livng organisms. If we say soething is "moving for its own reasons," or of "its own volition," or that it is "sensing the food source," it sounds an awful lot like it has reason, volition, curiousity, etc.
Name: Joan
Username:
Subject: Comment & Response
Date: Wed Nov 15 19:54:35 EST 2000
Comments:
Here is a quote from my girlfriend, a former physiology student, in response to this class and the science of Biology in General:"Biology doesn't involve thinking!!! You're spoon fed facts and then you spit them out again for the final exam."
And as for the lecture today, is this another opportunity where we are still supposed to be confused? I feel like I grasp the concept in general, but then I have the nagging feeling that I am wrong or taking it the other way. Is all this random motion, coding, protein making, blocking, etc., another one of those things that they talk about when they say "don't be fooled into thinking there is a reason for everything"?
Name: Katie
Username: kgallagh@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Science and adaptivity
Date: Thu Nov 16 21:55:35 EST 2000
Comments:
First, in defense of this class in particular and science in general, I don't think that science is/should be regurgitating facts (see Joan's quote). I mean, that's one of the first things we learned in this class - there are no facts, just some observations that seem to work for us. Another really neat aspect of this class that challenges that description is that there are no exams. I personally feel that having a paper-based course instead of an exam-based course encourages curiousity and gives the student freedom to make biology her own. Of course, I am a bit biased in that opinion. About adaptivity: I personally think that our climate-controlled environments are a form of adaptivity (it's even more adaptive when the climate-controllers break and humans have to sweat/freeze it out). However, it's a form of adaptivity that puts humans in a precarious position - since we are not used to toughing it out with nature, if we should somehow lose our systems, then we would be less likely to survive.
Name: Katie K
Username: kkennedy@brynmawr.edu
Subject: adapting
Date: Sun Nov 19 03:04:30 EST 2000
Comments:
I think humans are very capable of adapting to adverse circumstances. One reason I believe this is our superior form of conciousness compared to other species. Not that other species don't have the ability to adapt- because they quite obviously do. But because of our knowledge, our ability to retain facts, history, etc, we can learn from a situation without ever having to go through it. This to me means that while human kind has not confronted ever obstacle it ever will, but we are somewhat prepared to deal with different encounters. We also can mentally figure out how to deal with a situation and have the ability to build the supplies we need. Our bodies don't really have to adapt too much because we can produce supplies to make that unnecessary. I think some of our modern day accomplishments can be considered as a form of our own adaptations- for instance climbing mount everest, our ability to inhabit deserts, antarctica, and other areas of extreme weather, to build cities where swamps used to exist (not that I totally agree with that), and people first going and now living for months at a time in space.
Name: Naomi
Username: nlim@brynmawr.edu
Subject: 3-D structure and concentration gradients
Date: Tue Nov 21 08:56:53 EST 2000
Comments:
About the electron transport chamber that we discussed in class yesterday, it's interesting that there is a (proton) concentration gradient formed and that this, as well as the 3-dimensional shape, are both critical to the Calvin cycle. This reminds me of two of the labs we have done so far - 1) the one on motion and energy with the microspheres, as well as the one on cells, molecules, and energy, where we varied either the enzyme or substrate concentration, or the temperature or pH. That biological systems are always re-organizing things, then, demonstrates how they need to adjust to the 3-d structure, as well as to the changes in concentration of certain molecules or atoms because of the fact that everything recycles back or is used in another way. Maybe this is obvious, but I thought it was interesting. Have a great Thanksgiving all! :)
Name: Debbie
Username: dplotnic@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Je ne sais quoi...
Date: Mon Nov 27 21:19:59 EST 2000
Comments:
First off, apologies to the class and to the professor for behaving like a third grader today in class and laughing out loud over the comment that the cross section of the woman looked like “bacon.” I think my reaction included more than a response to a remark that was intended as humorous. I believe that implicit in my agreement that the slice of lady did indeed look like bacon was the fact that I was horrified by that thought.
It horrified me because of what I do know about living things and can explain and quantify and because of that which I do I know, but can’t explain or quantify. I and all other humans and many other types of multi-cellular organisms would also if cross-sectioned resemble bacon thereby rendering (no pun intended) all of their organs and spaces (and their functions) to be identified. But none of those things can begin to explain, who I am or you are or who that woman was. And as much as “biology” can tell us, there’s that last (or maybe first) little but all-important something that eludes science.
Name: Jess
Username: jhayesco
Subject: comment on adaption of humans
Date: Tue Nov 28 20:17:06 EST 2000
Comments:
In responce to Katies comment about humans being able to adapt to adverse
circumstances, I wouldn't give humans quite so much credit. Half the
things they are now having to adapt to (water pollution, death of wild
life, air quality, etc... for which we have filters, air conditioners, and
other products) were caused by humans 'adapting' or rather, inventing stuff
to make themselves more comfortable. This, I would say, is stupidity
rather than adaption. Or possibly laziness or greed. I say this because
we don't adapt in ways that help the environment around us. We instead
continually damage our surroundings and then adapt to them--and this will
eventually lead to the destruction of earth. Speaking in terms of
consciousness then, humans, I think, are one of the only species on the
earth that do not realize (or choose not to realize) their dependence on
the natural systems of earth. I would think, if we are going to LEARN from
history, we wouldn't make the same mistake again. But unfortunatly, we
continue to NOT learn from situations, even if we HAVE gone through them!
Name: julie
Username: jkwon@brynmawr.edu
Subject: chicken or egg
Date: Wed Nov 29 13:15:13 EST 2000
Comments:
so which came first the chicken or the egg?...the great debate!
Logically there would be no egg without a chicken so the chicken
most likely can first. so where did the first chicken come from. this
goes into the idea of evolution verses creation and so on... can we
have evolved from simple unicellur organisms or were we created
from the hands of GOD...just a thought
Name: allison
Username: ahayesco@brynmawr.edu
Subject: conciousness
Date: Wed Nov 29 23:40:15 EST 2000
Comments:
I got thinking after reading the first part of Katie'c
comment about humans "superior conciousness." I understand what is meant
by that, of course. Fish, for example, most people (except maybe some
sects of various eastern religions) consider to have little or no
consciousness. At least, even if they can react to danger or hunger etc,
they do not have a self-conciousness. They cant look at themselves as
individual animals that exist, so we think. But, the argument becomes
more fuzzy with mammals. Do cats or dogs have self-conciousness? some pet
owners would like to think so. Others say definitely not. They may have
concious feelings and know or learn what they like and dislike, but they
aren't self aware. But, on the other hand, many people might agree that
gorillas have the capability of self conciousness/awareness. Where is the
line drawn? Can a line be drawn? and can it be drawn purely on biological
t
Name: srabonti ali
Username: sali@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Thu Nov 30 20:01:39 EST 2000
Comments:
first of all i think the egg came first, and i do not have any reason to think so except that i just naturally think a chicken comes from an egg.
now on to the comments being made about superior consciousness. how are we to know how conscious animals and other life forms are? we can only see what our eyes let us, and we only see how much they want us to see...believe me it's not much. we're probably the laughing stock of the living organism world because we think we are oh-so-superior in so many ways and they just let us think that because in actuality, they are the superior beings.
but then again maybe not. just a thought...
have a nice friday.
Name: susy jones
Username: srjones@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Questioning the system
Date: Fri Dec 1 00:43:36 EST 2000
Comments:
I am awe-struck at how little I know about everything around me, how the vast majority of humans live a life guided by blind faith. I don't know how the computer (that I rely on daily) functions, I don't know what's in my food, or how I can pick up a phone and talk to someone in Africa. I rely on what professors tell me, what scientists write. It's common knowledge that we accept without ever working through ourselves. Media, trade, textbooks, and technology make us feel omnipotent and advanced. But aside from the scientists and engineers, who knows anything at all about all these medical theories and technologies? Will this utter lack of comprehension for the things that surround us have any repercussions? Karmicly? Physically? Evolutionarily?
Name: jeanne braha
Username: jbraha
Subject: specialness
Date: Fri Dec 1 08:49:43 EST 2000
Comments:
I was reading Susy's post, and it occurred to me that there are lots of things that I don't understand, I just take them for granted, like those phone systems, etc. I don't have time to find out about every single little thing--- we humans are specialized, just like the different cells of which we are composed.
Name: Katie Kaczmarek
Username: kkaczmar@brynmawr.edu
Subject: genetics
Date: Fri Dec 1 13:59:03 EST 2000
Comments:
I thought our discussion of what causes us to look more or less like our parents was very interesting. Does that mean that if one looks more like one parent than the other (for example, I look a lot like my mother) then we got more of that parent's chromosomes, which code for amino acids and proteins?
Name: Rachel H.
Username: Garg0yle99@hotmail.com
Subject: "What d'ya want to do tonight, Brain?" "The same thing we do every night, Pinky--try to take over the world!"
Date: Fri Dec 1 15:40:30 EST 2000
Comments:
In response to Srabonti's comment--have you by chance ever read the Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe? Because according to the Guide, mice and dolphins are the superior beings on Earth. I mean, yeah, the trilogy is totally bizzare and the author was drunk when he came up with the plot (if you could call it that), but hey, it could be true. I mean, even if we think that science today can prove that animals are not the superior beings on the planet, it doesn't really matter--if they were the superior beings, I doubt that they'd let us find out about it...
Name: katie k
Username: kkennedy@brynmawr.edu
Subject: clarification
Date: Sun Dec 3 01:52:10 EST 2000
Comments:
I just wanted to say that I consider the inventions we have created to make our lives better or easier to be triumphs of adaptation. This does not mean that I think that what ever we are doing to the earth in order to be comfortable is ok, don't let your personal politics get in the way of your logic. It is true that many of us humans go hungry, die of diseases, and perish in extreme cold, but society as a whole has geared towards preventing these things. The weak in our species don't die off like they would in other species because we have invented and adapted our way out of that. We live in temperature controlled environments and instead of our bodies and DNA adapting to the conditions around us we change our lifestyles and create tools to help us do this. This could be a good or bad thing. Does this mean that there are very few or no truly weak individuals in our species? You could argue that many people live with severe disabilities - but I would argue that they are still living and many live and bear offspring. I hope some of this made sense to someone.
| Biology 103
| Forum | Biology | Serendip Home |
Send us your comments at Serendip
© by Serendip 1994-
- Last Modified:
Wednesday, 02-May-2018 10:53:21 CDT
