After you've read Part II: Rise & Spread of Food Production, identify one point or issue with which you agree, disagree, or about which you would like to learn more. Use the SVHS databases or the Internet to find out more.
Your comment to this post should include the author, title, source, link or database title, and a summary of the source. In your summary, please explain why you choice this particular topic for further exploration.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWilkins, Alasdair, "Why Some Animals can Never Be Domesticated" http://io9.com/5756178/why-can-some-animals-never-be-domesticated
ReplyDeleteThis article lays out qualifications for an animal to be able to be domesticated. This goes along with Diamond's explanations of why some animals cannot be domesticated. The article starts off with the history of domestication, then explains what makes an animal possible to domesticate. Most of the ideas line up with Diamond's, such as the willingness to breed, the rate of growth, and the animal's diet. It then explains what happens when an animal is domesticated. The article does, however, lay out interesting subjects, such as whether or not all domesticated species are mutants, and whether or not humans themselves are domesticated.
“Animal Evolution During Domestication: The Domesticated Fox As a Model”
ReplyDeleteBy Lyudmila Trut, Irina Oskina, and Anastasiya Kharlamova
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2763232/
In chapter nine of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond states that many domesticated animals possess striking disparities from their ancestors. For example, many farm animals decreased in size after domestication, and many breeds of dog all vary greatly from wolves. After reading this, I wondered why many animals differ so greatly from their ancestors. This essay observes the evolution of domesticated animals and uses Belyaev’s domestication of silvers foxes experiment as an example of this evolution. Belyaev used artificial selection and kept foxes with the best temperaments and tolerance of humans in the gene pool. After fifty years of rigorous selection, the foxes varied greatly in coat color, possessed floppy ears and curly tails, and became quite dog-like - they would wag their tails when approached by humans and would seek human attention. Many believe that this artificial selection based on tameability changed the foxes’ genes to create greater variation in their behavior and appearance. However, it remains uncertain how and why this occurs. In brief, this source explains how animals evolve during domestication and taught me that the reason for these changes is still unclear.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402093938.htm
ReplyDeleteAncient Egyptian cotton unveils secrets of domesticated crop evolution
In chapter 7 of Guns, Germs, and Steel Jared Diamond explains ancient plant crop evolution through the difference their size, nut bitterness, or even seed dispersal mechanisms. These changes were brought upon due to the start of plant domestication in different regions of the world. As I wondered how these changes affected individual crops I came across the source above which showed me how cotton changed throughout the years. The researchers, led by Dr. Robin Allaby from the School of Life Sciences at the University of Warwick, studied the remains of ancient 1,600 year-old cotton at Qasr Ibrim in Egypt using high output sequencing technologies. Before, he began explaining his findings he stressed how evolution is normally categorized as a slow process. On the contrary, Dr. Allaby and his team found out that ancient cotton from that area actually adapted extremely fast due to the environmental stress, such as not enough water. This article corresponds with Diamond’s explanation of crop’s changing due to the location of domestication to put up with those conditions. Although, I also learned how extreme factors can make a plant evolve quicker than they would have in a more appropriate environment.
Source Information:
ReplyDelete“What Causes DNA Mutation?” by Elizabeth Sprouse
Link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/dna-mutation.htm
In “Part 2: Rise and Spread of Food Production,” Jared Diamond explains that a crucial reason for modern societal imbalances is the domestication of plants and animals. Chapter 7 details that domestication, in part, involves a genetic change brought about through natural and/or artificial selection, which is ultimately caused by mutations. Since these mutations played such an important part in world history, I chose this topic to learn more about genes and mutations.
The online article “What Causes DNA Mutation?” by Elizabeth Sprouse offers a thorough answer to my questions. The text begins by providing background about chromosomes and DNA composition and function, and presents a thoughtful symbol that relates destructive mutations to a broken traffic light in which “everything comes to a standstill.” Then, the article reveals two common causes for mutations: mistakes while a gene is replicating, and chemical or environmental factors such as tobacco or radiation. Lastly, the source provides three dominant types of DNA mutations: substitution of one base chemical for another, accidental deletion of a gene, and insertion of extra genetic code. Throughout the article, Sprouse emphasizes the possibility of mutations negatively affecting vital proteins and organs.
To analyze, Diamond mostly presents mutations in a positive light since they are ultimately responsible for domestication and thus the rise of civilization. The article, on the other hand, allowed me to comprehend the more negative side to mutations: their possibly-dangerous outcomes on organisms. Furthermore, the fact that mutations are caused by natural, often unavoidable factors – combined with Diamond’s idea that mutations cause genetic variation, natural and artificial selection, domesticated plants and animals, sedentary food-producing societies, guns, germs, and steel, and modern imbalances in society – lead to the conclusion that natural, unavoidable environmental factors in plants and animals are the ultimate cause of today’s national powers. This conclusion agrees with Diamond’s thesis for the entire book, that environmental variations, not cultural deficiencies, are responsible for societal differences.
In essence, this article increased my understanding of genetic mutations, their causes, and their effects on the course of history. It provides a new perspective about mutations compared with Diamond’s, but after some interpretation it ultimately agrees almost exactly with his arguments.
“The Origins of Agriculture” by Kent V. Flannery
ReplyDeletehttp://ecaths1.s3.amazonaws.com/americana2/ARA.1973.2.271.310%20(Origins%20Agriculture).pdf
Original Publication: Annual Review of Anthropology, Oct. 1973, Vol. 2: 271-310
In Chapter Six, “To Farm or Not to Farm,” Diamond traced the steps that led to hunter-gathers shifting to farmers. He came to the conclusion that many different factors led to this gradual change, including the unavailability of wild foods, increased wild plants available for domestication, an increase in technology that allowed harvesting, the increase of human population densities as food production increased and vice versa, and the dwindling hunter-gatherer population (110-12). This extremely important change in human history fascinated me.
Upon looking into this further, I found an article titled “The Origins of Agriculture” by Kent V. Flannery. Flannery comes to conclusions like Diamond does: by listing the evidence and making logical guesses. There is the most overlap with Diamond’s material in Flannery’s first section “The Origins of Agriculture in Southwest Asia,” so that is the one that I will focus on. Here, Flannery discusses wild cereal crops such as wheat and barley, listing them in a table showing their first appearance place and time. He then shows difficulties in harvesting these crops and what men must have done in order to produce them, such as the creation of harvesting tools, various facilities, and domestication.
Overall, this article is a good companion to the material that Diamond covers. They cover different precursors to explain the shift from hunting-gathering to farming, yet the theories of both authors coexist well without contradicting each other. In essence, this article strengthens Diamond’s points by filling in more information that Diamond does not detail in a book that looks at the history of the world, focusing on the developments of agriculture leading up to food production.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Domestication of the Horse in Eurasia"
ReplyDeletehttp://reveriemarie.hubpages.com/hub/Domestication-of-the-Horse-in-Eurasia
By: (Not given)
In chapter four of Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond said that the most direct contribution of domestication was shown by the horses of Eurasia. I wanted to know what region had discovered the uses of horses earliest.
Scientists have used both modern horse genetic data and data from an extinct wild ancestor of the horse, to recreate several possible scenarios using modeling to find strong evidence pointing to the western Eurasian Steppes. Horses were plentiful in the Eurasian steppes in fact, about 99% of animal remains from Botai societies in Kazakhstan consist of horse bones. This can also be seen by the horse-bone tools of the society, or the pottery created by the society.
"Domestication"
ReplyDeletehttp://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/domestication/?ar_a=1#page=1
While reading part 2 of Guns, Germs, and Steel, I became very interested in chapter 9 and how Diamond explained how many animals could not be domesticated and then gave the specific example of the zebra. Diamond went on to explain the many ways that humans have tried to domesticate zebras and for a given reason, it failed, such as trying to hitch zebras up to carriages and make them pull the carriages. This did not work out because, as zebras grow older, they get nastier and have a tendency to bite a person and not let go. In my opinion I believe that this is a form of domestication considering that they did have the zebras do what they were asked to do and were kept as "pets". After reading this part and slightly disagreeing with Diamond's theory on domestication, I decided to research more in-depth about what domestication really is. This article explains some of the purposes that animals are "domesticated" for, but what if they don't complete their purpose, are they no longer domesticated? From this article, I get the idea that the domestication of an animal is to have it do it's job that you applied to it, such as a horse, you may use it to plow or ride and they do their job but there are also many instances of horses biting or kicking their owners yet they are still considered domesticated. Same with dogs, we consider them domesticated because they act as pets but they sometimes abandon their jobs such as when they run away or some dogs may bite their owners as well. This also gave me reason to believe that Diamond's explanation of domestication is not completely right.
Grafting Trees: What Is Tree Grafting
ReplyDeleteBy Nikki Phipps
http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/tgen/grafting-trees-what-is-tree-grafting.htm
In chapter 7, “How to make an Almond”, Diamond explains that planting trees that yield fruits and nuts is harder than just planting cereals and legumes, or even the earliest fruit trees, and requires more time, thought, and effort. These trees cannot grow from seeds or cuttings, but instead can only grow from a time consuming process called grafting. The development of grafting was created by no accident in China a long time since the beginnings of agriculture. Diamond stressed that this process was no mere coincidence and was very difficult to do. I wanted to learn more about tree grafting so I could further understand the text. After reading the source I found about grafting trees, I found out that Diamond was right in saying that tree grafting is a difficult process. Each type of tree has a different technique for grafting, and the instructions for each technique are painfully specific. Once grafted, the tree needs protection and wrappings, and can begin to make fruit or nuts in a few years, reaching its prime in a few decades. This article relates back to Diamond’s discussion on domesticating plants.
ReplyDelete“Significant nutrient differences between wild prey animals and domesticated food animals” No Known Author
http://www.seespotlivelonger.com/home/sll/page_47/comparison_of_wild_prey_and_domesticated_food_anim.html
From Chapter 9 in Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond states “Several species of domestic animals have smaller brains and less developed sense organs than their wild ancestors, because they no longer need the bigger brains and more developed sense organs on which their ancestors depended on to escape wild predators.” I thought that this was interesting and I wanted to find out if domestic animals having smaller brains and less developed sense organs would make them less nutritious to humans. I found out from the web page that domesticated animals have more fat and less protein. Domesticated animals also have a lower mineral and antioxidant content. This makes it seem as if our ancestors should not have domesticated animals, rather than let them be wild.