Remember to vote in the polls if you have not, and to check back for other student comments all week; the comment section can be a great place for discussion/arguments.
Seemingly "Duh!" Scientific Studies Often Hold Value
I actually looked up one of the studies mentioned in this article: the one about the evolution of tickle-induced laughing. Granted, that may have been just because I had an image in my mind of a bunch of grad students in a lab tickling baby chimps and gorillas, and that made me happy.
And I also found their model of the evolution of this laughter to be interesting...
If you haven't heard this before, you definitely will this year in AP: Everything in Biology can be explained through evolution.
In regards to the original article, do you think there are "frivolous" scientific studies? Or is any and all knowledge worthwhile, simply for the sake of knowledge?
Coping With Excess
I thought this was an interesting idea...will humans eventually evolve to be able to handle Big Macs and not get obese? Not sure... the columnist makes a lot of good points, but I think the most important one may be one of the last ones:
Many factors — what you eat today, what you ate as a baby, levels of exercise, your gut microbes and so on — contribute to obesity.
Something very important to remember, all traits, especially human traits, are very complex and hard to ascribe a cause to.
And the pentailed tree shrew looks like a pretty cool guy...
even if there is only the one picture of him.
45 comments:
Ha ha. I really love the idea of a Duh! and Huh? periodical. It is really interesting how seemingly useless research actually has a lot of thought behind it. For example, the research about the effects of alcohol and makeup on a man ability to judge age accurately has real applicability in the court systems. In my opinion, there are not any "frivolous" scientific studies because all the studies have some sort of pursuit of knowledge behind them. However, studies with applications that can help society are funded much easier than a study to just gain an understanding of something that may hold no promise to furthering the human race in any way.
For the first article mentioned about the frivolous scientific studies, I feel that there are some studies out there that prove to be useless. Many of them confirm things that most people would consider common sense. One that I always think of when these "studies" appear is one that discovered that roads without guard rails or fences have more occurrences of accidents between automobile and animal. The thing that bothers me is that it is nice to con firm a theory, the only concern is that money, perhaps millions of dollars and countless hours could have been spent conducting this study when there are so many more important things that this time and money could have been used for.
Continuing on to the article about evolving to a state where excess is a way of life. I believe this to be happening already in the human race in the early stages. Those who live active lifestyles and have quick metabolisms can generally eat whenever and whenever they want without harming their bodies. Many of those who don't have this ability, but still eat unhealthy foods, generally are not very healthy people and coincidentally, they die much earlier in life and are more susceptible to several types of life threatening diseases. According to Darwin's theory of evolution based on "survival of the fittest," those who are active or have fast metabolisms are outlasting those who do not.
I believe that one day that your body will be able to handle big macs without getting fat but this will not prevent you from becoming obese because no matter what, other foods will be created which your body will not be able to handle. Your body will only be able to handle any intake of food through exercise and proper proportions of food. Also, even if your body were able to handle a big mac, this would not be healthy. Limiting yourself and making smart choices will help you become healthy. Big Macs are 540 calories and half of it is fat, so I would not see why you would want to eat something with barely any nutritional value even if your body could handle it.
I do not think that humans will eventually evolve to be able to handle Big Macs and not get obese. I feel there are too many unhealthy factors in a Big Macs to prevent you from getting fat. Almost half the calories are from fat, there is a large amount of sodium and very little vitamins. The human body needs more than what a Big Mac gives you in nutritional value. I believe even if you increase your levels of exercise that you will still get obese because your body just can’t handle something unhealthy.
On the topic of frivolous scientific studies, I think that most studies are worthwhile but there will always be some researcher with an advanced degree that can get away with a seemingly useless study. As you said, knowledge is important no matter how obvious it may seem. It could be entirely possible that by performing these studies, scientists might learn something that could help in a future study.
On the other article about evolving to a state in which the human race is able to survive excess, I think that this is entirely possible. Humans are an evolving and adapting species and obesity is already a huge problem in the United States and is spreading to other parts of the world.
Cat's wailing tapping into our parental need isn't surprising since isn't the need to care for something why we have our pets now. I understand when we first domesticated animals it was to provide needs so I’m not talking bout those ones or the farm animals- but the snowball kitty and spot the dog. I’d love to find out if once a couple has kids does it impact the rates of keeping pets, if it satisfies the need the pets were fulfilling previous.
Most research being done despite being the "duh" ones still needs funding. If it's obvious it's not having an effect on our knowledge basis then why even waste time and money on it?
I recently watched one of those dime a dozen survivor shows- the name I forget but the story line is all the same, Random people thrown into the Alaskan Wild. Within the first week the heavy set people (despite being muscle or fat) were already beat. They were used to having fuller diets so when they were reduced to berries their bodies couldn't handle the change and left them with no energy. However, the thin people which had lived always on small diets still had high energy and were actually caring for the lethargic heavy ones.
If we really would come to a sudden time of famine now I feel it'd have the same results. Our recent obesity is over our normal fluctuations and can be linked to the difference in food from 100 years ago.
In regards to the Huh? and Duh! article, the majority of the research done seems obvious and a waste of money. The one part that doesn’t seem quite so silly is that the study that men’s drinking doesn’t affect their ability to tell a woman’s age could be used against male sex offenders for picking up underage women in bars. One example of research that they discussed that seems obvious is was that toddlers became irritable when they were prevented from napping. For me that seems quite logical, since someone is tired or sleep-deprived, adult or child, they are more likely to be cranky. Also, the research done on hammering in the dark is part of a $1.5 million grant. A million and a half grant given to see how humans ‘use tools under different conditions’ seems a bit frivolous to me when there are poor economic conditions. It just seems to me that the money could be put to a better cause. If money was not an issue, then I see no harm in people doing any type of study they want, but it seems a little frivolous right now.
With the article on Coping with Excess, the information the writer portrays gives a good argument. Yet, it is not all genetics when dealing with obesity. One’s lifestyle, what they eat, and their genetics all play a role. If, by chance, some genetics change that help future generations against being obese, that is not the only thing they have to worry about. Yes, it might be easier for them to be healthy, but they’d still have to eat right and exercise.
For the first article the article was quite humorous because it indeed is interesting to learn
that every bit of research no matter how trivial has just as much work as some big
research. In my opinion, there are not any "frivolous"
scientific studies because all the studies have some
sort of pursuit of knowledge behind them and I agree totally with Richa B.
In response to the first article, I find it interesting how basic knowledge can be supported scientifically. By farther analyzing knowledge such as toddlers becoming irritable when prevented naps, scientists are able to obtain information that adds to common knowledge. Also research into these so called "frivolous" studies actually lead to a bigger picture. For example, the nap irritability study was linked with mental illness. I think all knowledge is worthwhile because you never know if one thing can lead to another.
I do not think there are any types of studies that are "frivolous." All knowledge can be useful. It may help uncover other mysteries and lead to a long awaited answer. Sure some of the knowledge may seem like common sense, such as how toddlers become irritated when prevented from napping. However, for something to be true it has to be proven. That is what science is all about...proof. Until something is proven a person should not arrive at a conclusion. In the history of our universe, discoveries and developments were not simply made by assumptions-they were proven. No study is "frivolous" and should not be overlooked. All knowledge, no matter how trivial, is useful.
The "Coping With Excess" article could hold the explanation why certain diets affect people of varied descent differently. For example, many people of oriental descent usually consume a lot of carb-heavy rice, yet, still maintain a slim figure when neglecting to burn off those carbs. Personally, I do not agree with this theory. I feel like humans are constant throughout the world. I could only be convinced after true results from the theoretical experiment that Olivia Judson proposed are yielded.
I do not think that humans will be able to handle excess foods and grease. More and more technology is being created to ease the amount of work people have to do; thus making people more inactive. Studies show that obesity is rising drastically in the United States, and if things continue the way they are, then obesity will just become a way of life. Humans will have to cope with the fact that they are obese, but they will not cope with excess and stay thin.
The Duh! and Huh! periodicals is a brilliant idea. It's interesting to see how much thought is put into useless research. I believe that there is no such thing as "frivolous scientific studies" because people are always curious and want answers to their curiosity. Though the research may seem useless, it's quite interesting to learn about. For example, the article talks about men being able to hammer better in the dark than women. Not many people would know that without research.
To be honest, the first article was too confusing for me to read. I found the second article interesting, if one were willing to give it all away in the name of science, I'd hope that they would contribute in the experiment. Personally, I believe that if shrews, caterpillars, and...rats... can evolve to remain in a healthy state after day after day of rich diets, then humans can too. The idea of the "thrifty" gene is funny, I never really thought about famines like that, I just thought that if one was down on their luck, everyone around them would be as well, as in if one farmer passed away then others would sure follow. Also, the Pope and Queen partied hard hahaaa.
I thought the Duh and Huh article was trying to say that it does not matter what any experiment anyone does. In the end there will always be a result that will either help everybody or everything, or ultimately harm everything. Even though the experiments seem crazy or idiotic, maybe something good will result from it. Basically, the Duh experiments were just so obvious that anyone can assume it the results. Although the results seem obvious it is important to have proof of one's findings.
I don't think that humans will adapt to eating Big Macs and not get obese but if such a thing were to happen then I think there would be some sort of food created that would start making you obese again. But why would you want to eat a food such as a Big Mac with so many calories and so little nutritional value. It just doesn't make sense. People need the right nutrition plus the exercise. So if it came to the point that Big Macs would not make you obese, it would be easier but you still need food with nutritional value and a lot of exercise.
In response to the first article, i do believe some reseach can certainly be considered to be frivilous. Many important problems exist for the scientists of today to solve. Important problems that could save lives or the enviornment if solved. When i hear that these very same extremely educated and talented individuals are spending their time researching belly button lint and hammering in the dark, even though it may have some limited thought and use behind it, upsets me. These people should be using their talent for real good, not for seemingly pointless research.
I think its interesting that cats' purrs sound different. A certain purr is meant to get their owner to give them food or water. I believe that and when I first heard the sound clip on the purrs I noticed the differences. I also agree with the part in the article that said that kids are more cranky when they dont get a good nap. I know when I was little that if I was tired or didnt get a good nap I was cranky.
I found the Coping With Excess article pretty interesting. Although I could see how humans could possibly adapt to a new diet, it seems unlikely that people could adapt their whole lifestyle to such a change. As fatty foods become increasingly popular, activity decreases as a result of new technology. It's difficult for me to believe that humans could grow to deal with excess fat without adequate exercise. There are a lot of other causes to obesity besides the type of food that people consume, such as stress. I think that just coping with an unhealthy diet wouldn't be enough to rule out obesity.
The 'Duh! and Huh?' article was quite interesting. All scientific studies are all knowledge worthwhile. No scientific study can be frivolous. There is always room for extra knowledge here and there. For example, psychologists may find an interest in the study of men being better than women are at hammering in the dark. This issue falls into the psychology behind gender.
Also, the study of neither alcohol (in him) nor makeup (on her) effect a man's ability to guess a woman's age just had an effect on a couple of my friends. My friends (in high school and do not use much makeup) were at a restaurant and the waiter asked them if they were interested in any alcoholic beverages. This 'Huh?' issue might just have a tie into our lives. This issue is also an important and serious matter because of male sex offenders picking up underage women in bars.
The way I see it is that everything has a purpose and use. These 'Duh!' and 'Huh?' studies may help us with something in the near future, but if not, they are a good use for the simple sake of knowledge and interest.
As for the other article "Coping with Excess," I truly agree with the last point in the article, "Many factors- what you eat today, what you ate as a baby, levels of exercise, your gut microbes and so on- contribute to obesity." Humans evolving to being able to handle Big Macs and not becoming obese may be possible. The human metabolism varies. If someone had an incredibly fast metabolism and an active lifestyle, he or she would be able to handle Big Macs and not get obese. This would draw us back to Darwin’s Theory: Survival of the Fittest. The idea of eating Big Macs sounds very unhealthy though. One may not be exactly “fit” and “healthy” if he would be living off Big Macs. They are extremely high in calories and lack the nutrition and vitamins that a human being should acquire.
In regards to the statement that everything in Biology can be explained through evolution, I have heard of this from vestigial organs, like the wisdom teeth. I heard that evolutionary biologists believed that early humans (like cave man era) had a much more boorish diet compared to today’s diet, so the earlier ancestors depended on the wisdom teeth to survive.
I just want to say, i actually LOLed to the Huh? Duh! article. Despite its humor though, i believe that taking that much time and effort to prove things which may be entirely useless and/or obvious is wasteful. Thus, I agree with many of the other AP students that this effort could have been channelled to something more beneficial, i.e. new technologies to reduce global warming. In this economy, money should not be carelessly spent on research that may not be helpful at all. I'm sorry, but do we really need to know that the cause of belly-button lint is abdominal hair? I think not, my friends.
The second article was definitely a much more helpful research study in my opinion. This theory of the "thrifty" gene could change the way we view certain foods in society today. I agree that if the species which evolved based on their diets could change, so could the human race.
By the way, Oliver's last comment in his comment made me LOL again.
In regards to the first article, I believe that Duh! scientific studies have no real value. The money that is spent on these frivilous studies could be better spent on worthwhile studies, such as a cure for cancer or even the cure for the common cold. I am sure that the people conducting the studies believe that their research is important, but in the scheme of life, how important is it to study tickle-induced laughing, or to see who hammers better in the dark.
I think that the Duh and Huh was stupid. It is common sense that kids get cranky when they do not nap or people with high IQ's make wise decisions. They should add people who smoke are less likely to quit the longer they smoke. The scientists who did these studies had nothing better to do but waste money on this research about obvious things.
Knowledge is never useless. Keeping that in mind, any study (whether it be conducted on a large or small scale) teaches individuals something more about life, people, and the world. In my opinion, any and all knowledge advances people's horizons of thought. In other words, even if a piece of knowledge is trivial, humans always have something to gain from it.
Humans will not be able to handle Big Macs without getting obese. In my opinion, everybody's body handles food in a different way. To clarify, some people have faster metabolism rates, while others do not. Regardless of this fact, eating an overly excessive amount of fatty foods will cause individuals to become obese. In my opinion, the body has its limits. It can only endure a certain amount of unhealthy food.
The Huh and Duh article is a waste of time. It is made up of just common sense and useless facts. There are so many more usefull things that scientists could study. Why waste money and time on finding out that men can hammer better i the dark than women? No one cares about that stuff.
The article about excess was interesting and brought up some ideas that I actually ca believe. It would make sense that people with more fat would have a better chance of surviving through a famine and it also makes sense that those people would pass on their genes to their children because of the benefits storing fat had at the time. And I do believe that in today's environment (not everywhere but at least in the US) these genes hurt us more than they help. It will be interesting to see how these low carb diets affect future generations for example.
Coping with Excess was a very interesting article. The fact that animals such as the pentailed tree shrew could consume large amounts of alcohol without getting drunk or experiencing any health problems was amazing. The fact is humans could eventually develop to a point where eating fatty foods would become natural. Human systems could adapt because they have to cope and digest this food. Evolution is constantly occurring due to the environment and this is just a change in our eating pattern. Thus I believe that we can eventually adapt and evolve to a point where we can eat this kind of food regularly.
To me, the Duh! and Huh? article is basically pointless. I don't understand why scientists would take so much time to prove facts that the rest of the population just takes for granted and already accepts as truth. It makes perfect sense that toddlers get irritable when prevented from napping because almost every other person gets irritable too. The only part that I found worth researching more was the fact that a man can always identify a woman's age despite her attempts to look younger, even if he is intoxicated. Like the article said, this proves that most male sex-offenders are completely aware that they are preying on under-aged women, yet try to lie about it. This could help prove their guilt if more research was done on the subject.
In regards to the duh and huh article, I don’t think there was a need to waste money on studies that have obvious conclusions. Also, for findings like women versus men hammering in the dark, I don’t think that’s necessary. The article says that it was meant to study how people of different ages use tools in different conditions- all it seems to mean is that there is a relationship between light and gender. The study proving the relationship between abdominal hair and lint isn’t really going to affect much of anything people do…it’s just a new study that exists without really improving qualities of life.
In regards to the Huh? and Duh! article, I think it's funny how so many useless and obvious theories are published and granted large sums of money. The economists had to be scientifically informed that inherently "smarter" people handle money in a more efficient way. I think this 'discovery' is purely common sense. Similarly, the all-day preschool programs had to be shown a proven study in order to believe that 2-to-3 year-olds are negatively affected by the elimination of naps. But, no matter how ridiculous and obvious these studies appear at first glance, they seem to be necessary to convince authorities of their accuracy. It's almost sad that people cannot rely on common sense and instinct. They must be spoon-fed and convinced of obvious truths.
In regards to the second article, I do believe that people's bodies would adjust and evolve over time to allow for the consumption of unhealthy foods. However, the negative effects of training the human population to do so would be devastating. For many generations, the population would be incredibly lazy, fat, and generally unhealthy. This unhealthy diet change could also have other unforeseen consequences. Obese people tend to contract certain diseases, such as diabetes. These diseases could be passed on, even if many generations later, obesity itself isn't a problem. Encouraging this evolution could even lead to a shorter lifespan. I think a better alternative would just be exercise and a healthy, balanced diet. I don't understand why it's so difficult to make healthy decisions and go for a run every once in a while. That road is healthier and less risky.
In reference to the frivolous scientific study article I feel that no scientific study should be considered unimportant or unnecessary. Any new information would be an important addition to what we know about the world around us.
I feel that scientists should focus on relevant topics that can be beneficial to society. Some information is useless and is not worth the time, effort, or expenses. For example, knowing that abdominal hair causes belly button lint is not helping any cause that I know of. The seemingly unnecessary experiments like the hammering in the dark are fine as long as they have a greater goal in mind.
“Coping with Excess” highlights the connection between pentailed tree shrew's immunity to alcohol overtime and humans' potential immunity to obesity. In my opinion, over time humans will become immune to obesity because we can evolve like the rats and caterpillars did in the experiments.
The Duh and Huh article was almost as pointless as the examples that were given. It is obvious that toddlers become irritable when prevented from napping and cats make humans do what they want by purring. Stating those facts make you say DUH because i feel that most people know that pointless research is done. Scientists waste massive amounts of money on these types of research just to get some recognition, when they could be focusing on more important issues.
“The Duh! And Huh!” Periodical was very different. Knowledge can never be useless! Like Galileo’s “study” that the world is round and rotates around the sun. Something that seems so obvious to us now was thought to be ridiculous and a waste of time. Agreeing with Akanksha that any study conducted can broaden the knowledge of one.
The periodical on “Coping with Excess:” was interesting. I believe that we will not be able to eat Big Macs without being obese. Everyone’s body has different metabolism rates. Like the documentary “Super size me “, in 30 days of living off of Mc. Donald’s supper size meals had deteriorated the narrator’s health. On the other hand what Matt stated about evolution is possible, but we will never live to see the change. Evolution is a slow process.
The Huh and Duh article shows that while some studies may seem meaningless, they may offer some greater knowledge that could have of been overlooked. While there are many other things that scientists could research, there is the possibility that these experiments might lead to an accidental discovery, for some of the world's greatest inventions were created by accident. These studies show that people are thinking outside the box and that creativity can lead to things which benefit mankind.
Sharvari
When I first read the “Duhh and Huhh?” article I was surprised to discover that researches that seem useless and logical to even perform actually have a deeper purpose behind them. For instance, these "seemingly" pointless researches not only present data but also try to determine the reason why strange phenomena occur. I believe that researches, which seem useless and time wasting, are as significant as researches which try to answer more important scientific issues. However, my only objection to these types of researches is the time and money that is put into it. Living in poor economic conditions, I believe that we need to wisely use money by spending it in researches that would solve the bigger scientific mysteries present in our world and those which would directly affect the people.
However, the second article amazed me the most because the author used many good points while explaining his hypothesis. He even backed up his idea with an experiment, which confirmed his hypothesis. I was also stunned by the way the author came up with his hypothesis after a discovery in the rainforest. This shows that small discoveries, such as the one in the article, can lead to different ideas and expand the way of thinking. And, in my opinion, this is how science continues to grow. However, in terms of the author’s experiment, since almost all human genes known to be associated with diseases have counterparts in the rat genome, I think that his data could be used to predict how humans could resist the excess in food without being affected by any consequences when he used the rat as his first test subject. However, I still don’t completely agree with the author’s ideas because many factors, such as exercise, genetics, and environment, play into obesity and one cannot say that humans can one day evolve to withstand the consequences of overeating, since everyone’s body and metabolism is different.
In response to the coping with excess article; although many might disagree that the human body could never adapt into being able to consume such unhealthy foods like big macs without becoming obese, I disagree. The human body is extremely complex and over generations it would not surprise me that something such as adapting to eating unhealthy and high risk foods would become a big deal. After all the body has evolved over time, and adapted to vast amounts of altercations in humanity, why wouldn't it be able to adapt to eating fatty foods which lack vitamins and other healthy resources?
Regarding to the "frivolous" scientific studies article, I believe although some studies are in not in a high demand and prove most common knowledge they are still important to the scientific community. All knowledge is important and even though these studies point out the obvious, someone may have never realized this knowledge and this study will assist them. This is highly unlikely but could be possible in the case of someone transferring between cultures that would have different exposures to different experiences. More importantly these studies could possibly discover a link between some traits that was previously unknown. For example a study on the relationship between primates and tickle-induced laughter could lead to a study on the relationships between the patterns of laughter shared between a monkey and a human, thus improving knowledge on the process of evolution.
The "Coping with Excess" article brought about very interesting possibilities which I would have never considered. With the way our society is now in regards to obesity, countless diet pills, diet plans, and other supplements, it would be extremely ironic if all we had to do to lose the weight was just to continue eating the same fatty foods that make us obese. In theory this seems to make sense, but unfortunately it would take many years before we started to see the effects. Maybe by the time our great great grandkids come around all those Big Macs we eat wont be as effective on them.
I agree with many of the other AP bio students. The first article is ridiculous to say the least. Many of those scientist are wasting money in a struggling economy to prove facts that are obvious just to be recognized for something. Instead of spending 5 years and 1.5 million dollars to find out how humans use tools under different conditions, they should be using that time and money on finding cures for cancer, or something more important.
I think the second article was actually interesting. It would be ironic if in a few generations people could eat unhealthy food that causes diseases such as diabetes, and not get sick.
I believe that in the future, the descendants of people who are currently obese will be able to consume large quantities of food without becoming overweight. However, this would mean that their minimum intake would also rise, since it would be difficult to have a normal intake range of a day where you eat three normal sized meals a day vs. two meals at McDonald's.
While I do appreciate the Duh! article's candor, I personally believe much of what the article claimed as fact may not hold true in different cultures. For instance, in a South American tribe, where alcohol is not given a stigma by society, tribesmen consume greater amounts of alcohol (BAC) than we westerners can take. These people, with probably more alcohol than blood in their veins, behave civily and look like saints compared to many if not all American drinkers. The same concept can be applied to IQ and how we measure intelligence. Will the witchdoctor who is highly revered by his people be able to make the same financially drastic/sound decisions that Bernia Madoff made?
I find that the Duh! article has many interesting topics such as hammering in the dark, abnormal hair collecting more lint and young monkeys laugh when tickled. The section on the monkeys is not as surprising since we have many similiarities with primates that they could also laugh when tickled. The hammering in the dark is a very strange topic of study considering I have never heard of a study anything like this. The most interesting topic was the abnormal hair collects more lint. I think that the dedication of the experimenters to take 3 years and get 503 pieces of lint is incredible. I am not surprised that once the hair was gone, there was no more lint because without the hair, the lint would stay in the shirt.
Personally, I dont think that humans will evolve to be able to consume Big Macs and not become obese. Big Macs are loaded with unhealthy factors proved by the movie "Supersize Me" where the man becomes extremely unhealthy just by eating McDonalds over a period of time. There is a lot of saturated fat in big macs with little to no vitamins - extremely unhealthy. Even with an increas eof excersise and countless days at the gym, i beleiev that the human body will never evolve to handle a big mac regulary and not become obese.
I do not believe there are any frivolous studies. Many of the studies in the Duh! article may seem to be frivolous however I personally found most of them interesting and funny. Even the ones that did not appeal to me were knowledgeable and fall under the category of "sake of knowledge". Besides, the more knowledge the better, because sometimes frivolous information to some people can be useful to others.
Post a Comment