no place on the family tree!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/science/28hobbit.html?ref=science

Museum Visit highlight

An interesting fact I noted from last thursdays visit to the Hall of Ocean Life-

Male Parasitism

"In a world where finding a mate is no small feat, some Anglerfishes have evolved an extraordinary strategy. The tiny male angler searches for a female by smell, then bites into her and becomes permanently attached. Eventually his month fuses to her body, his gut degenerates, his blood vessels merge with hers and he becomes little more than an attached sperm sac available at any time to fertilize her eggs. In some species females have several males embedded in their bodies"

-we talked in class today about differences in race/gender/genetics/cultures/everything-

For angler fish, the roles seem pretty distinct.

enjoy.

In the reading "Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order and the Construction of Nature" I found it very interesting how Asma explained how one interbreeding population gets transformed into two different and reproductively isolated populations. This was something I had always wondered about and I thought he did a thorough job in explaining it. Asma's personal accounts of various world-wide museums was very interesting in relation to the AMNH. It makes me think of the permanent skepticism of this science, and how all museums of natural history will forever be challenged, questioned and forced to explain themselves and/or change things based on public demands. The fact that science will continue to advance and theories will continue to be revised or disproven, makes for a tough job for modern museums of natural history and science.

In chapter 6, I found the statistics about creationism vs. evolution beliefs shocking. For some reason, I thought that the general population was becoming more open-minded. Clearly evolution theory wins the debate with hard evidence. This quote really struck me, "Snobby urban college boys like me are looking down their noses at the hardworking middle-class rural folks who have built their lives on family values and belief in God's plan, and we're calling them unsophisticated bumpkins." In someone that disapproves of religious theories and does side with the theory of evolution, I believe that Asma's words represent the truth in many ways, but at the same time, these so-called bumpkins are part of an isolated species in themselves and that should be considered when harshly denouncing their views.

Response 4/26

Reading both the chapter on Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order and the Construction of Nature in the book Stuffed Animals and Pickled Heads by Stephen Asma and the article Human Evolution – Genus Homo – Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins by John Noble Wilford made me think how anthropology is a puzzle on multiple levels. Beyond the physical puzzle of piecing bone shards together to reconstruct a body part, there is the historical puzzle (the evolutionary timeline) and the sociological puzzle (the cultural and genetic overlap) of how these ‘parts’ fit in with others. Each researcher views the puzzle in his or her own way, putting the pieces together as best as they can, then offering their view to the scientific world. It is a painstakingly tedious process, one that might mean dedicating an entire academic career to pieces together one jaw bone.
As Asma noted, systematist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin had an interesting approach to the problem of ambiguity of overall similarity. As stated, ‘the subject matter of biology is historical, which means that it matters to the understanding of such entities where they are located in space nad when they are located in time’ (Asma, 184). For example then, is it not confusing when the AMNH in NYC takes the Cladistic approach to displays, rather than the historical? Is it not making the puzzle exponentially more complicated to present this data in more than one format? Are we not doing the entire field a disservice as we alternate between methodology as we educate the general population on evolution? It seems to me that we are creating more confusion. The Cladistic approach, moving through nested boxes does not serve the purpose of fitting the pieces together in my opinion. It compartmentalizes them, into the box where they fit best.
As more and better tools are developed that aid in this work, the puzzle will become more clouded, with multiple interpretations and decision points needing to be rethought. To make the statement that ‘[we] are relentlessly optimistic that we have all the information we need to answer our big questions, but just haven’t figured out the order in which to connect the dots’ (Wilford, 5) simplifies the process to the lowest level providing a baseline that everyone can understand, but also leaves begging the question of when and how will we know when the ‘family tree’ is complete.

Mario Cedeño Response 4/26

Chapter 5 of “Stuffed Animals & Pickled Heads” titled “Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order, and the Construction of Nature” explores the idea of evolution and how museums choose to display evolution within their collections. I found it interesting how different natural history museums around the world take different approaches to displaying evolution. The American Museum of Natural History for example stresses cladistics, while the Natural History Museum in London emphasizes Darwinian evolution, and the Grande Galerie in Paris emphasizes mutation. Asma writes, “It has to be remembered here that these contemporary differences between evolutionary museums are matters of emphasis, not complete exclusions or of inclusions of subjects” (Asma, 199). I think it is important to note that the museums do not ignore different ideas of evolution but that they emphasize certain theories.
Another point I found interesting in the reading was the increasingly prevalent role that biodiversity plays in natural history museums. When reading this section of the book I thought about the Hall of Biodiversity that we visited on the last museum trip. In this hall there was a large emphasis on environmental destruction and preservation while making clear the vast diversity in our planet. I thought it was interesting that the main message in the Grande Galerie in Paris is biodiversity, which they incorporated throughout the museum. If the AMNH followed the lead of the Grande Galerie and incorporated the idea biodiversity throughout its plant and animal halls then the museum would better educate the public about some of the issues that are affecting our world today.

Reading for 4/27

Tonight's reading made me think about the ways the dinosaur exhibits at the AMNH are laid out. Now understanding the museums use of cladistics, I realize how exactly they inferred those rooms to work. In looking at the history of the museum I think this makes a lot of sense. The cladistic method (although incredibly fixed) is very literal and characteristic of the absolutist approach we sometimes associate with the museum. This also makes sense specifically when explaining evolution, which is so mistrusted as a theory, to the public, that having a very literal and less observational method of organization may seem more trustworthy. However, as I experienced that space I didn't really have a collective idea of how these animals/vertebrae correspond or differ. Like Asma, I had a Russian dolls experience with how I interpreted each room. This is where Ghiselin's theory seems very applicable, seeing as he not only examines similarity, but more importantly difference. I found the part about humans need to group things that are similar to be really interesting especially in correlation to the museum. However, Ghiselin points out that this is all relative to a point. By that I mean objects can have multiple similarities, but it's their differences, and levels of difference that makes ones ability to group things incredibly ambiguous.

museum 4/22 hall of biodiversity and ocean life

In the very beginning of the Hall of Biodiversity, there is a short movie about all of the earth's creatures and plants. It is not necessarily spreading the message of conservation, but the movie is very honest about the damage that humans are causing to the earth's natural equilibrium. It brings me to question what the role of humans really is and what can be done to reverse the damage that has been done to this planet. There is just so much junk here. Even if there were to be another astroid strike or something equivalent, could the earth recycle and renew? Or will it just be eliminated completely. The question of weather humans are separate or a part of nature is unanswerable but one thing remains clear: humans take up most of this planet, so weather they are a part of nature or not, the two are interconnected. In the exhibit, there were many areas discussing the efforts to sustain the rainforest and how the local people were disregarding these efforts by logging, poaching, subsistence farming, and illegal diamond mining. This made me think of the Tsing reading 'This Earth This Island' and how indigenous rights have become entangled with conservation initiatives. There is no easy solution. The rainforest can provide, but it also needs to be protected; protected by humans from humans.