On pages 53-56, Shenk talks about an experiment where a college student's memory was tested by having him try to remember a string of digits. It was seen that his short-term memory performance started to improve after a few sessions. The scientists found that the college student did not have a special talent but merely used a different strategy to get around his natural limits.
In the case of the college student, is strategic thinking favored by natural selection in every situation that it is presented in? Give examples and explain how they are or are not favored by natural selection. Do you think there are limits to the human body or are there ways to get past all the common limitations that are placed on the body now? Explain how genes can be involved in helping get past limitations.
(Regan Frieling, regan1995@yahoo.com)
Argument
I believe that natural selection favors strategic thinking in some, but not all, situations. Animal behavior is categorized as innate or learned. Learned behaviors, ones based on experience, tend to be more strategic. In the Campbell textbook, Figure 51.12 uses the example of a coyote learning to avoid porcupines after being attacked by quills (pg 1128). Through trial and error animals can learn what to do and what not do in order to survive and pass on their genes. The same could be said about other strategies of survival.
ReplyDeleteSome behaviors are innate, including fixed action patterns. Campbell uses the example of Tinbergen’s stickleback fish to explain this type of innate behavior (pg 1121). In his experiment, Tinbergen saw that the red coloring, which is the color of a normal male stickleback fish’s belly, causes aggressive behavior in other male stickleback fish. This fixed action pattern behavior allowed male stickleback fish better naturally select the strongest of its species. Fixed action patterns are not strategic behaviors since they are carried to completion after triggering to a sign stimulus. Yet, this behavior is favored by natural selection. Therefore in some cases, non strategic behavior patterns are favored by natural selection.
There are limits to the human body. On page 36, Shenk mentions that plasticity is “every human brain’s built in capacity to become, over time, what we demand of it. But in the Evidence section, he mentions that “there are, of course, strict limits to plasticity” (pg 200). He explains that the human brain is a result of billions of years of evolution and humans share commonalties between structure and function of the brain. The same can be said about the human body in general.
In an article posted a few days ago, NewScientist discussed why certain people like Edmund Hillary, the first confirmed mountaineer to climb to the summit of Mount Everest, are able to perform with a low amount of oxygen circulating. The article offered an explanation that our bodies response to low oxygen levels can alter gene expression and that some people have a polymorphism of those genes that allow them to survive in extreme conditions, including Tibetan natives who live in high altitudes. This is an example of how genes are involved in helping push past human limitations.
(http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/03/pushed-to-the-max-bodies-at-the-limit-of-endurance.html)
Alvin Varghese (alvin.varghese@hotmail.com)