LANGUAGE EXERCISE


So-I am actually going to start with the second exercise first, simply because I found it so interesting. This exercise-which required me to communicate verbally but in no other way-was EXTREMELY challenging. I completely underestimated the degree to which I communicate nonverbally. Also, my family had a great time with this little exercise because they were well aware that I had toi limit my communication.

One thing I noticed was how emotionless I became. In an effort not to break the rules I found myself much more straightforward in the way I spoke. Evidently, my version of sarcasm requires a lot of nonverbal cues. My family loved it-my son kept busting me with every eye roll, every raising of my eyebrows. It was actually a lot of fun.

With raged to communicating nonverbally, this was tough also. Even though-as I previously mentioned-I communicate a lot nonverbally, without the verbal component my ideas needed to VERY simple. I could only convey the most mundane things-I'm thinking, or I'm hungry, etc. My family also had fun with this as you can well imagine.

As for who controlled the conversation, that was not a huge factor when I was able to communicate verbally. It was all straightforward, but I found it fairly easy to carry on the conversation. However, when it came to going completely nonverbal my participation was minimal. I was not able to control the conversation at all, but I could participate minimally. After awhile my family and I just had fun with it. They were making fun of me for all the hand gesturing and pointing-it was one big crazy game of charades and it was so much fun!

The last question regarding the two cultures is s simple one for me. I think the nonverbal group would have a difficult time expressing complex ideas without the ability to verbalize. I also believe the verbal group would look down on the nonverbal group, or at very least there is the huge potential for the nonverbal group to be misunderstood. This is most certainly a metaphor for the some of the situations that exist in the world today. There are cultures in the world that choose to shun a lot of the conventions that Americans find important-such as social media-and because those cultures choose a more simple existence there are some in our culture that look down on those cultures. Sometimes it takes a considerable amount of effort to understand someone, but in the end it's usually worth it. In the end, that is certainly a more positive choice than the choice to hate in a knee-jerk fashion what we do not understand.

                                                        THE PILTDOWN HOAX

The "Piltdown Hoax" refers to a fossil discovered in Piltdown, England in the early 1900's. A strange piece of skull was discovered by a laborer digging in Barkham Manor near the village of Piltdown. He passed his discovery on to an amateur archaeologist named Charles Dawson, who then set about digging in the same area to try and find more fossils of what he believed to be the first early man discovered in Great Britain. This was very important in Great Britain at the time, because most of the surrounding countries had found remnants of early man, but the British to that point had come up empty.
In December 1912, Dawson along with Sir Arthur Smith Woodward presented their findings and claimed that the earliest man had lived right there in England. Shortly after a second sight unearthed more remains from what was believed to be "Piltdown Man", and the scientific community in Britain was ecstatic. However, in 1953 the news comes out that the entire Piltdown Man theory is a hoax. the fossils were put through a chemical test and determined to be much younger than Dawson and his team had claimed them to be.
As far as significance, Dawson and his team believed this to be the "missing link", however we know this term to be incorrect. Instead, this find would been another example of how closely related humans and our ape ancestors are. This is the case because the find itself was an ape-like jawbone with human-like teeth.
As far as the scientists and the faulty data, I think emotion played too big a role in validating the findings. The circumstances being what they were at the time, Dawson had to have felt a lot of pressure to deliver something that was a major discovery for Great Britain. It isn't hard to imagine the findings being hurried along and fudged scientifically in the name of Great Britain and Dawson himself.
The events that proved the Piltdown Man fossils to be a hoax began over 40 years after the discovery. In an effort to authenticate and date the fossils, a representative from the museum they were being kept in performed a chemical test. What it proved above all else was that the skull was far less old than  was initially proposed(it had also been stained a different color), which proved Piltdown Man could not be who they had claimed him to be. Upon microscopic examination, they also determined that the teeth had been filed down. This was done to make it appear to be human when in fact it was not. The jaw that was found was also not human-it was very likely from an ape.
With regard to a specific test, it was a fluorine absorption test that disproved the stated age of the skull. This would test the level of fluoride found in bone, which it would have soaked in from the groundwater in soil it was preserved in-which in turn would prove its' age.
I suppose it is possible to remove the human factor from science, but it would be a catastrophic move in my opinion. Scientists are the ones that form their hypothesis based on tests they conduct, and sometimes it is a hunch that provides the spark for these tests. No machine would ever have the hunch or intuition of the great scientific minds we have all been fortunate enough to benefit from.
With regard to the life lesson that can be learned, it always critical to have a healthy dose of skepticism when findings have not been properly tested or verified by the right sources. Science does not root for any particular findings, it just tells us the truth if we test correctly and are willing to accept what we discover.

                                    COMPARATIVE PRIMATES: DENTITION PATTERNS

Primate #1: Sifaka  

The Sifaka lives in dry deciduous forests as well as spiny forests, where it feasts on a herbivoric diet of flowers, fruits, buds, tree bark and more. It is on the endangered list for two reasons: the first is their forest habitats are being destroyed, and second they are hunted in some regions for their meat. With regard to their dentition patterns, the Sifaka is unique. Their pattern is 2 incisors, 1 canine, 3 premolars and 3 premolars. Their upper incisors are very small and slightly angled. In the mandible, it displays what is referred to as the "toothcomb"-which is 6 teeth in a row together, much like a comb. It also has high, shearing molar crests, which helps the Sifaka to shred the leaves, flowers, and fruit that it eats.

Primate #2: The Spider Monkey

Spider Monkeys are found in tropical forests, from southern Mexico to Brazil. They stick primarily to the upper layers of the rainforest, foraging in the high canopy. Their diet consists mainly of fruits, but they also eat flowers, leaves and occasionally insects. Like the Sifaka, they are also facing significant habitat destruction, but are far more in demand for their meat, mainly due to their large size. They are listed, depending on which species, everywhere from vulnerable to critically endangered. With regard to the dentition, their pattern is 2 incisors, 1 canine, 3 premolars,  and 3 more premolars.  Spider monkeys use their incisors to eat the fruit they love so much.

Primate #3: The Olive Baboon

The Olive Baboon is found in 25 countries throughout Africa. It can thrive in a number of different habitats, from grasslands, to rainforests and deserts. It is considered an endangered species. One major difference with the baboon vs. the previous 2 animals would be the fact that it is omniverous. It will eat everything from a large variety of plants, to small invertebrates and mammals, to some birds as well. It's dentition pattern is 2 incisors, i canine, 2 premolars and 3 premolars. This slight difference in its' dentition pattern allows the baboon to be the omnivore it is.

Primate #4: The Lar Gibbon

The Lar Gibbon is found almost exclusively in rainforests, but they also inhabit dipterocarp and bamboo forests as well. It is considered frugiverous, which means that fruit makes up over 50% of its' diet. It also eats leaves, insects and some flowers. The Lar gibbon is also on the endangered list. Like the Olive Baboon, the Lar Gibbon's dentition pattern is also 2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 premolars, and 3 premolars. Though its' dentition pattern might indicate that the gibbon has adapted to a diet similar to the baboon, that is not the case. As I mentioned it is primarily a fruit eater.

Primate #5: The Chimpanzee

Chimpanzees, or "Chimps" for short, in the wild live mainly in the grasslands and rainforests of Africa. They are on the endangered list due to hunting, habitat destruction, as well as disease. with regard to their dentition pattern, it is the same as the baboon and gibbon-2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 premolars and 3 premolars. Much like the baboon, the chimp has a variety of dietary choices, from small animals to plants to fruits.

Conclusion: With regard to the dentition patterns of all 5 primates, the conclusion I came to is the baboon and chimpanzee have a pattern that allows them to chew and consume a wider variety of foods. The Sifaka and Spider Monkey's patterns indicate that they are herbivores, consuming a diet of mainly leaves, flowers and some fruit.