Missed Assignments FM week2

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”?

Gould makes critique of the conical  structure of pre-assumed evolutionary lineage and uses the information he gathered in the Burgess Shale to assert his idea that it is not entirely accurate in its mode of biological development. What the structure suggests is that all animals were derived from the same source, or original organic being and develop in a linear way toward naturally selected variety. This he dismisses as a sort of hierarchical chain of previous generations. 

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?

By focusing on phylogenies, he is able to construct a modeled argument for the logic of tracking back through the evolutionary map. He is able to take past archaic models and reinterpret them to fit a more accurate and thoughtful concepts.  Gould comes to the idea that the structure of evolutionary paths follow the trend of more of a “bush,” than a tree in the sense that there is a rise of disparity and diversity, and then through the process of natural selection there is a collapse of disparity followed by a rise in 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?

Gould means by “replaying the tape of life” is that by rewinding the tape of life is to create a scenario where all prior patterns were erased, and replaying the “tape” of life from the beginning.  By doing so one might see that the wide range of catastrophic climate or variable environment changes that would occur, inevitably, some of the species would naturally propegate foreward to become modern adapted animals, but these changes would incur different adaptive qualities to their “present” identity. In essence it would be decided by chaotic and random natural selection, but I believe if one were to replay the tape, very similar results might occur because the environment is still the same Earth. I think Cuvier would have not liked to entertain the the idea of such a chaotic system, for his own limited research and religious beliefs in his time, but I don’t think he would be opposed to it so much as uncomfortable.

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

Disparity is the range of distinctly different species of animal that do not share an obvious common link in morphology.  Diversity is a range of species that have developed a wide range of adaptations and appearances, but on a base level, are more greatly related. Humans have a wide range (perhaps not on the grand scale) of “races” but ultimately, they are all Homosapiens. In other words, they are diverse, but not disparate. If one were to put a caterpillar next to a butterfly, they would show more disparity because of greater morphological difference as opposed to the human body plan, which is more or less slightly varying allometry.

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?

The American Museum of Natural Selection has changed the mammal display from time based – to an order based on phylogenies of how animals branched off in a form of linear succession that is not hierarchical. It is important to view this in the frame of dynamic evolution rather than one of temporal succession because it more accurately tracks the change rather than cramming a lot of information into hard lined time based chapters of superior species and primordial animals.