MRF Museum w.2 questions

1 - In Wonderful Life Gould hypothesizes on cultural values, assumptions, and what kind of logic are evident in the original interpretation of the Burgess Shale, and then the change in thinking that led to its recent re-interpretation. What model of biodiversity and evolutionary change does Gould argue resulted in the earlier error in classifying the Burgess Shale animals? What is the original cultural/historical source of that model, or what he calls “iconography”?

The model that lead to misinterpretation of evolutionary change was the idea of classifying species into a canonical ladder system. Although visually it aids in showing a progressive movement, it does not serve biological and scientific justice, but rather misconstrues reality. Gould suggests that we should value species by how they branched into existence and evolved, because we grow by the aid of other species, not by just one factor, as it seems to demonstrate in the ladder system. The fossils of the Burgess Shale were categorized into modern groups, which did not tie with their ancestral background ( that may have been represented had they made a  branching diagram). It seems that he lightly brushed upon the primitive, but did not give it the same implied worth that he thought the more “advanced” species were in this chain, where at the very top lies homo sapien evolution.

2 - Notice that much of Gould’s argument centers on discussing evolutionary tress (phylogenies) of the kind you constructed on a small scale. At the end of the chapter we see he is interested in the overall shapes (“topology”) of the phylogenies. Why? What does he claim that the shape of phylogenies imply about how evolution happens over long stretches of time that had been neglected by biologists? What kinds of causal factors alter the course of evolution, the shape of phylogenies, and the eventual designs of organisms that we see today?

Phylogenies imply biodiversity and more intricate evolution of a certain species; the larger and more complex, the scope of diversity increases, thus an assumption of higher sophistication and implied worth as a species. The lower a species is placed in the cone of these phylogenical systems, the simpler these animals are perceieved to be, so they are not looked at with the same integrity as the species above it hold. They are of “lower class” but in a biological sense. Advancement and newer forms are also placed above these older forms of life, also giving it a higher strata of importance.  

This ranking system is skewed, and does not serve as an equal base that all animals should be based on. Why is it that human interpretation of nature, even fundamental evolution, is biased to the degree of worth?

It strikes me as a quintessential need that we have to always classify things into categories: good or bad, old or new, etc. However, there always seems to be some sort of moral ethic mixed into these categories, as if we are placing scientific evidence into a bourgeoise hierarchy, with humans at the pinnacle of interest and the other species at the bottom.  

This is why I feel that there is such injustice in slaughterhouses, and why we try to sway mass audiences in believing that animals are meant to be eaten, because we see ourselves at the top of this evolutionary ladder. Why is it that cows are of less importance or do not carry the same integrity as a dog? Why do some find it appaling to eat a cat, but justifiable to eat a rabbit? The power we feel we hold upon the rest of the animal and plant kingdom is what is truly appaling in my opinion- we should view all animals to be placed on a same field, for we did not just spring about from one individual factor or species.

Rather than ladders, Gould sees that species should be viewed by phylogenies based off of bushes, with twigs branching off in different directions. It should not stay rigid in size or shape, as species do not evolve in this manner. By having this model, it makes it clearer to note that species do evolve with an increasing cone of diversity.

2b - Related: What does it mean to “replay the Tape of Life” and why is this an interesting idea to Gould? Relate Gould’s preferred model with the views of early Catastrophists – what would Cuvier (if alive) like and not like about Gould’s interpretation?

I find that one of Gould’s most striking points is his annotation towards evolution being unpredictable. This is why the ladder system is not scientifically accurate, as it does not question or put other factors into perspective, making it seem that the transition from one stage to the next was effortless. Animals that evolve with the change of time, climate, and competition is at the core of how a species can survive, thus “survival of the fittest” comes into play. Replaying the “Tape of Life” would alter certain factors, but one key aspect that I think was not thoroughly looked at was adaptation. No matter the severity of the circumstance, the animals that strive in the wild for thousands of years have done so because of their endurance to adapt. Without this, they cannot evolve and the species would come to a halt.

3 - What is “disparity” versus “diversity”? Give an original example (one not given in the reading).

Diversity stems off from the idea of variety, an accumulation of something, wheras disparity is the difference of two things, but can also reflect on something that is incongruous. Diversity is also refererd to as difference in body plans. I believe evolution is defined by factors of disparity, as it cannot be contained and is ever evolving. We can try to predict the outcome of a species, but are always surprised at a phenomenom or discovery of a species that was unknown before.

An example may be animals that are hosts of each other. This act alone is disparate, as it normally should not exist- the fact that one depends on the other,without causing each other harm, or being a predator, is a trait that has evolved through time. This reminded me of the “Natural Histories project” with the story of the hummingbird nostril hitchhikers. 

4 - In the reading Evolution by Walking what is so interesting about how the American Museum of Natural History has

changed their mammal display? Why is it significant in how we think about biodiversity in his opinion?

By changing the perspective of the viewer, by having them walk through the mammal display with branching evolution, the museum displayed a more accurate picture of what may happen in nature. It does not follow a linear path, ending with homo sapiens at the end of this evolution. Rather, they displayed their animals by showing when they “branched off”. I think this reverts back to Gould’s emphasis on the importance of viewing animals on a equal playing field, where a hierarchy completely erases this notion. I found the subcategories to be an innovative way to display evolution more accurately and unbiased. The categories chosen began with the Paleozoic era, and ending with skull formation and eye sockets near a snout, displaying elephants and sea cows.