The attraction between a male ad female seems to always be a question well answered. However, I decided to focus on what actually makes a female attracted to a male. Is there an actual scientific reasoning behind it or is off of self judgment.  Could it be the way a male walks, or presents himself that makes a female attracted to him.

Through a study found from the book "human physique and sexual attractiveness in men and women" I had found that women like men who are tall, who have slightly narrow waist and broad shoulders. Men who are athletic and have well toned muscles are more preferred because it symbolizes they are more likely to be a good hunter, which could mean they could provide for their family. With males being big and strong they can protect the family from other males and danger. Women are also attracted to male that are successful because it shows that males have the ability and resources to be able to provide for the family 

In conclusion, just like males, females are cautious about the male they choose to mate with because women believe that men have the most valuable reproductive resources to offer. Men produce thousands of sperm while women only produce about 400 eggs in their lifetime. The time of pregnancy and child bearing are long process which puts more pressure on what women find attractive about guys. They find the security and long relationship to be attributes that make the guy more attractive. In other words a women finds a man that can provide for them, will stay there for a long period of time, and will be able to protect them. Kind of the same things we need in society today to survive.

By: Dyamond Logan

P.S ( i was absent, I went on a college tour and i didnt have any internet connection)

Climate and environmental change are major parts of the evolution of species. If the environment changes the species generally either adapts to fit that change and becomes a new species or dies off. This is part of nature and always will be as long as there is life. So this brings up the question, if extinction is part of evolution, what is the point of protecting a species?

            There is no point to this actually. All it does is change how the species evolve or make it take longer for them to die off. However people find it necessary to fix these mistakes that are causing the extinction of species. However, the way to protect species isn’t to have them grow inside, being kept from living in the wild, it’s to fix the problems that human beings have caused by fixing what’s been done to the environment.

            However to argue against that, there is the point to be made that many endangered species are national or state symbols, like the bald eagle. There’s also the fact that many species are only able to survive inside because they’re environment has changed so drastically.

Overall this topic is something that is easily debatable from both sides. Possibly the simplest explanation of what the point of protecting species is, is that people find it necessary to find an immediate solution to the problem caused but don’t realize that the long term solution is the better one.

Source:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/local/species.html

How have some animals evolved wings?

When learning about evolution, someone might wonder about how irreducibly complex parts of animals, such as wings, have evolved.  A wing only works when there is an entire functioning wing. So this brings up the question, how does an animal without wings evolve into an animal with wings? The most reasonable explanation would be that wings began evolving with a slightly different purpose. 

Theropods that lived in the trees would get around by jumping from branch to branch. If they missed the jump, they could fall out of the tree and die. These theropods evolved into birds. According to discovermagazine.com, birds and theropods both "Have three bones that appear to have evolved from the digits on a common five-fingered ancestor." A theropod with a small flap of skin between its fingers would have a slightly larger surface area when jumping between branches and that would decrease the chance of it falling. Through generations, that skin flap became larger and eventually evolved into a functioning wing where the animal could flap it's wings and fly away.

If I were to do further research, I would want to look into birds that don't fly, like penguins or emus. If they can't fly, what is the purpose of having wings?

Sources:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/06/18/how-dinosaur-feet-evolved-into-bird-wings-new-fossil-provides-clues/

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins

Humans are known to be of a complex species, however it is no mystery that Homo sapiens (humans) are also categorize as mammals. There are many components and characteristics that define a mammal; hair being on of them. Epidermal in origin, hair is made up of a complex structure. Mammals are the only animals in which hair is found on. Even "hairless" mammals, such as pigs, elephants, dolphins, and other cetaceans (another word for marine mammals) are partially covered with fine short hairs. Hair has many functions within itself. The many functions of hair include the retention of heat, attraction of mates, protection of skin, sexual dimorphism, an absorption of sunlight and, in the case of pets, the elicitation of a protective response from humans (us). Now how is it that humans and animals, all mammals, differentiate in how the hair is actually presented on their bodies? Though humans are covered in hair completely, they are not covered to the extent that animals are. This is because mammal body hair is an evolutionary enigma.

The common belief of hair evolution is that hair evolved to help retain body heat since hair is an excellent heat insulator. But there is no conclusion as to which evolved first: hair or warm-bloodedness (endothermy). Researchers verbally combat between the two all the time. Most ‘Darwinists’ believe that humans evolved in Africa along with other primates, all of which were almost totally covered with thick fur (again, hair). As such, a common view is that now the body hair of men and women are purely vestigial, a useless evolutionary leftover from when we were ape-looking animals. Initially hair arose as surface insulation, retaining body heat in primitive mammalian endotherms.

The reason for the putative issue of human hair loss in evolution is still unknown, and all the explanations and reasoning proposed are contradicting.

Harrub, Ph.D. Brad "Why do Humans Lack the Abundant Hair of Apes?", Article. Web. 2003. Nov 2010.<https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2345>

“Human Thermoregulation and Hair Loss,” Article. Web. 2003. Nov 2010. <http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/>

Bergman, Ph.D. Jerry " Why Mammal Body Hair is an Evolutionary Enigma" Article. Web. 2004. Nov 2010. <http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm>

During the writing, pictures started to form. They began from the Egyptian hieroglyphics. Many other religions had their own ways of writing and eventually this later led to Cuniform, Chinese pictograms and also Mayan glyphs. [3] People could communicate in their own writing. The only pondering thought left is how was the writing for communication revolutionized over time? The answer  might be that over the years writing is changed in put into different arrangements because it revolutionizes itself. The process of writing is still going on and who knows when it will end. Writing is a form of evolution. [4]

http://www.atlantisquest.com/evolution.html [2]

http://www.krysstal.com/writing_evolution.html [3]

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab33 [4]

  Think 81 years ago, on the island of Bathurst off the coast of Australia Indigenous Australians hunting and gathering, daily struggling to survive.  As a child you a born into poverty, famine, and danger, dealing with animals and an environment that could take your life.  In your first few years, all you know is your family, your mother, who birthed you, your father who protects you, and your elders who support you, who else would know better how to survive.  Underneath these selection pressures, children who would not obey, would die, so obedience as a trait survived. 

            Other hostile environments in different areas instill obedience to a degree of loyalty, trust and brotherhood.  In war torn areas children are recruited from young to join rebel militia.  They pillage through villages stealing people’s children, killing children who seize to obey.  Obedience is pounded into their mind from young, and if that trait does not sustain, eventually the child will be killed.

            Even as adults in a modern society obedience to authority prospers.  When you disobey the law, you go to jail, loose connections with the world, and are unable to procreate with the opposite sex.  Adults, who don’t obey the “rules” loose their job, loose their house and suffer fines and penalties, which are unpleasant. 

Future Questions?

If the government becomes lenient with there laws will that create more disobedient children?

Does being disobedient or rebellious make you more attractable?

Citations

Dahlman, Christian. "The Difference between Obedience Assumed and Obedience Accepted." Ratio Juris22.2 (2009): 187-196. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

Passini, Stefano, and Davide Morselli. "The obedience–disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility." Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 20.1 (2010): 1-14. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

Walcott, Damon Muir, Pat Cerundolo, and James C. Beck. "Current analysis of the Tarasoff duty: an evolution towards the limitation of the duty to protect." Behavioral Sciences & the Law 19.3 (2001): 325-343. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

The evolutionary paths concerning vegetarianism seem to be less a matter of biology as they are an issue of cultural ideals.  Physically, humans have the internal organs, systems and other mechanisms for meat consumption.  However, it has become a growing trend in society to opt out.  Some people today choose not to eat meat because they are morally against mass-market animal slaughter.  Others do it because it goes against religious values or simply because they believe it to be a healthier life choice.  However, it’s hard to go back and pinpoint one specific turning point that “began” vegetarianism. 

            Back in the day (talking thousands of years,) people got sustenance through “hunting and gathering.”  This required a fairly nomadic lifestyle, traveling around to wherever the food source went.  By this process, early man spread across the continents.  The food that was eaten was not always about choice, but more about availability.  If meat was scarce, then less was eaten.  However, it is unlikely that people lived a fully vegetarian lifestyle. 

            Many scientific researchers agree that humanity would not have developed as it did without a meat-laden diet.  According to N. A. Barnicot, “It is virtually certain that diet, as a major component of the human environment, must have exerted evolutionary effects, but researchers still have little good evidence.”  Meat and animal products do contain vital proteins and nutrients humans need, especially fats for brain growth.  Many believe that this is the primary reason our brains grew to what they are today.  Scientists have additionally stated that our teeth would not have formed the way they are if humans were not meant to tear through meat. 

Though it is disputed that animal-product nutrients can be found elsewhere, meat is often the “best” source.  According to Dr. Stephen Byrnes, “Vegetarianism and veganism are neither natural nor healthy diets…and it is not primarily meat-eating which is responsible for the spread of cancers and heart disease.” There is cause for concern with vegans, who are often malnourished in essential vitamins and minerals such as B12 and iron.  People need these to survive and develop, and it is usually not recommended for children to be vegan.  Some argue that the same goes for vegetarianism.    

            Whether or not someone believes vegetarianism is the right step, the idea developed in society as a choice.  Once people learned how to farm and grow their own food, they had more options.  As agriculture grew, so did population size, and with it religion.  Today, vegetarianism is still highly connected with religious values, especially in Buddhism, Jainism and devout Hinduism.  According to Daniel Lazare, “Vegetarianism is most fundamentally about the importance of not taking life other than under the most extreme circumstances.”

            This is not to say someone can’t be a perfectly healthy vegetarian.  In fact, Einstein said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."  I just wouldn’t choose it for myself.  The convenience of modern supplements has made it easier to make the switch in a healthier fashion.  However I’d argue that if there suddenly were no more animal products, humanity would be weakened.  Even if I’m wrong and it isn’t evolutionarily disadvantageous to not eat meat, I don’t think it’s advantageous either. 

http://www.diet-and-health.net/Diet/veg_diet.html

http://www.biblelife.org/abrams2.htm

http://www.theecologist.info/page14.html

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

Barnicot, N. A. "Human Nutrition: Evolutionary Perspectives." Integrative Physiological & Behavioral Science 40.2 (2005): 114-117. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=105&sid=097bc83a-1caf-42ca-ac7c-7ad011a0e422%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aqh&AN=24225923#db=aqh&AN=24225923

LAZARE, DANIEL. "My Beef With Vegetarianism." Nation 284.5 (2007): 25-29. Advanced Placement Source. EBSCO. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=105&sid=097bc83a-1caf-42ca-ac7c-7ad011a0e422%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aqh&AN=23749985

 What is the difference between myth and theory?

            This is the question that has been bothering me for the past month.  If the theory of evolution is so troublesome to the school district, why aren’t greek myths?  Is it not true that both Greek myths and the theory of evolution deal with the theme of how life was created? Could they both not potentially influence student views on creation? What makes them so different?

            After much research, I have discovered that a myth can be apart of a theory. Myths are stories that are created as an explanation for why certain things exist.  These tales date back to the early history of people.  A theory can be used to explain why myths exist all over the world.  There is actually a theory known as “The Jesus Myth Theory” that poses the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but a fictional character or mythological archetype created by early Christians.  The idea that Jesus was not real but was a fictitious figure is apart of a larger theory that explains this myth. 

            According to Religion Compass, “Myths are prose narratives which, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past.”  Theories serve to explain why these myths are created.  However, myth theories that are taught in school, such as the Greek myth of Zeus, are taught in such a way that makes it obvious that the stories are fictional.

Resources:

Myth & Theory

Jesus Myth Theory

What is Myth?

Questions to Consider:

•What about a theory makes it controversial?

•What other factors separate the theory of myth and the theory of evolution?