http://butdoesitfloat.com/474885/The-very-definition-of-the-real-becomes-that-of-which-it-is-possible

hall of human origins

The Hall of human origins was actually one of my favorites. I personally like when there are several resources to interact with , in this hall we could actually learn through different ways. it had a progressive and and effective way to lead the audience through the exhibition Starting with DNA , then fossils, Dioramas and migration etc . more over the museum's website has a great educational site for the human origins , showing and explaining all of the resources in the hall . i think hey have approach the subject very carefully and well done .

http://www.amnh.org/education/school_groups/hall.php?id=149

Interesting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/science/04angier.html

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.