Recent scientific discovery indicates that certain body parts of animals may have evolved to their full potential in several body parts. The human eye has photoreceptor cells that can respond to light, which have evolved as far as is actually possible. They are each designed to respond to single photons of light, the smallest possible package light can come in. Sharks ability to find its prey by measuring micro-fluxes of electricity in water a millionth of a volt strong is now proven to be the most sensitive and efficient this system could get by the outermost laws of physics. Dr. Biack, a biophysicist, works on theories such as this for other animals. Currently he is studying the dynamics of a signaling system in fruit fly embryos called bicoids. Muscles are as close to being optimized as possible, all containing the same actin, myosin, and tropin that latch onto each other and create force. Dr. Todorov and his coworkers model different motions and determine the best approach to each, then comparing it with what is in effect, in actuality, in animals currently.
This article relates to all life in that it analyzes a broad range of current animal life on the planet, including human. Often we do not think of how we have the ability to turn on a light switch with our eyes closed, or while moving, or at all even in normal, stationary circumstances. However, it is actually a evolutionary miracle that we can, and it begs the questions what point are we evolving to? Obviously evolution may never bring everything to complete perfection, but the fact that things like photoreceptors in the human eye have evolved as far as they possibly can in a positive direction is astounding. The article asks and proposes a possible partial solution to the question: where is evolution ultimately going to take us?
I thought the article was well written, as a whole, and attracted my interest. However, the organization of the information could have been more clear. I felt the paragraph often jumped from one animal to an experiment to another experiment to another animal to a scientific concept and it was hard to keep track of the central hypothesis of the article at several points. Had the writer had a more clear sense of where he was going at the beginning of the article, the article probably would have been more straightforward and easier to read.
Greg Sargent
ReplyDeleteThe article is about how some body parts have evolved to their maximum potential, this is an excellent article. First, the article chooses a highly intriguing and thought provoking topic, when I was reading I thought to myself that the concept of evolution could not reach its maximum. The author does a wonderful example of explaining how it has been concluded that there is no evolutionary potential left, for example, “[eyes] are each designed to respond to single photons of light, the smallest possible package light can come in.” This concrete example helps explain the difficult concept to its readers. Secondly, the author provides the reader with a vast collection of sources and examples which illustrate the authors thesis that recent scientific discover indicates that body parts have maximized their potential to adapt. Examples range from human and shark eyes to fruit flies and clearly help illustrate the point of the author, backing his argument with scientific research. Finally, it shows that the researchers are working on applying this information, thus providing insight into the future: “Dr. Todorov and his coworkers model different motions and determine the best approach to each…” This is significant because it functions as a conclusion tying it into not just the facts, but real world application.
This article could be improved if the article dictated how there is conclusive evidence that the evolutionary process has no more routes to take, and is truly extinguished. For example, is it possible to develop the ability to see in the dark? Secondly, this article could have been improved if they provided the thoughts of the implications of the impediment of growth in a species renowned for continued expansion and progression.
In summary, this was an excellent and entertaining article, which used factual basis to support its thesis. However, I doubt the truth in their theory of finality because I believe there is always something to be discovered and there may be a whole new realm of discoveries that would rule this theory obsolete. I remain skeptically entertained.
“Seeing the Natural World with a Physicist’s Lens” is a very well written article in The New York Times about the optimization of some body parts of animals. Erin’s review of this article is very well done because she explained the main points of the article, referenced some of the quotes in the article, and related the information in this article to everyday life. First, Erin simply explains the main idea of the article, which is that some of animal’s body parts are believed to have developed to their full potential. Human eyes have photoreceptors that react to one photon, which is the smallest package that light can come in. She also gave an example of animal eyesight: sharks can find their prey by measuring micro-fluxes of electricity in water. Erin’s review was also very well written because of her reference to scientists. The article quoted many renowned physicists and other scientists; Erin referenced Dr. Biack to support her statement and Dr. Todorov to make an example of what his team of scientists is doing. Lastly, Erin’s review was good because she referenced it to everyday life. It is always interesting to think about how our eyes work, and that they are actually a very interesting part of our body. Their ability to see in light and dark and to adjust to lighting is amazing, and it is often not recognized by humans.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this review did have very good points, it could have been made better in a few ways. First, Erin could have included more details from the article. Even though she did refer to both the eyes and muscles, more details could have been provided with their relation to optimization. Also, the review could have been made better if there was more about the current events with this topic.
From this review, I wasn’t impressed, but I began to think about evolution more. It is interesting to think that our eyes are developed to their fullest potential because there is no smaller unit of light for them to detect.
Erin did a good job of choosing a interesting and captivating arrtical that expanded on topics that we have covered in class. Second she explained the main points of the article as well as, referenced some of the quotes in the article, and related the information in this article to everyday life makingit easier for the reader to understand. Also i liked that the artical used specific example of the evolution it was talking about becaus eit allowed the reader to understand the scientific backing of the statments being made.
ReplyDeleteOne way that Erin could have made this artical better would have been to show how it relates to the world today and discuss what new discoveries are being made that expands on the topic being discussed. Second she could have discussed the counter argument to this artical an example could be talking about how this tract of evolution is not over and that later in the futrue new developments will be made.
Over all i liked erins chocie of artical because it was interesting and addressed topics that we have gone over in class and i found it very interesting to learn about the different forms of evolution that has taken place in the human eye.
Although many inconveniences still exist, most of our biological parts are extremely advanced. That is to say that biological adaptations such as eyes have evolved to the outer limits of physical science. An example of this would be the photoreceptors in our eyes. Each receptor will accept the astronomically small signal of a single proton. There isn’t half or a fourth of a proton. Organs and body systems have progressed through evolution to incredible stages. Another example in nature is the shark, the shark has very precise electricity receptors. This ability is advanced enough to sense the electrical current of a battery from New York to Florida. In providing such effective systems, our bodies have optimized even at the cost of other functions. One functions that humans lack is precision. This is true especially in the case of muscles. To achieve a task such as a flicking on a light switch, our body ignores the details of our limbs as long as the job gets done. For example in the prior scenario, our elbows will probably be at a different height and distances from our body every time we try to turn on the same switch. This lack of control gives our organ systems their optimal ability. Our bodily abilities are scientifically bound. Mathematically calculating the efficiency of bacteria, scientists have said that their ability to find the most direct path to food is so accurate that even if they accounted for every molecule in the environment, they still wouldn’t be able to optimize it. Steadfast biological evolution has created impressive systems.
ReplyDeleteHumans can learn much from biology. If biological systems are at optimal maximization science can use their limits to approximate new laws and ideas. Biologically inspired design is a must. Engineers should read more into biology and humans should model innovations after biological systems. In addition, jumping off from this by studying the evolution of biological systems, scientists have a blue print for how to create such optimal systems. Every step to make an organism is encoded in DNA as well. This would increase interest in DNA mapping and the human genome project. Since biological components are probably the best ones, we should learn how to utilize them for our benefit. If plants are the best at generating energy, we should harness their biological ability to create fuel. Instead of innovating new ways to create things we should to look to biology for guidance.
The article would be better if there were more mathematical and scientific components in the explanation. The article was written for the average reader. Specific scientific testing and mathematical proofs would back the article better. These additions would add credibility and reliability to the article. The article should also go into how specific organ systems work in more depth. By informing the reader about this specific point, he will be able to get a better idea out of the article. The reader after the article would be more informed. The article also was written very well. The article was easy to follow and interesting. The interesting components of the article are important because they help attract average people. The article has slight problems, but was very informative overall.