Foundation Seminar 091-22 Answers to Hour Test #1

 3:20-3:52 pm, September 28.
Problem #1: A recent, fairly esoteric, theory suggests that human evolved near, or even in, shallow water. Use Darwin's model of evolution, and your own observations of humans, to SUPPORT this theory.

Darwin's model for the "Origin of Species" hypothesises that slow changes in enviromental conditions lead to the preference of species that adapt to these conditions. If humans evolved near water (or if the conditions changed such that humans HAD TO live near water) than some of their PHYSICAL characterisitcs must have adapted to that condition.

When compared to a control group, namely: other great apes such as gorillas and chimpanzes, humans MAY have these characteristics due to their evolution near shallow waters:

I. Little body hair. In water body hair has only disadvantages such as lower mobility and higher chance of entanglement. On land hair can provide insulation.(Ref: My daughter. I have too much body hair, so I have to use other references...)

II. Women have more head hair, so that infants may have something to hold onto. (I have little hair on my head, so again I have to refer to someone else.)

III. Humans are unable to survive without a daily supply of fresh water. Other apes quench their thirst by eating roots and fruits. (I've seen it in the movies....) This result correlates with the fact that many humans live near water, but that fact alone is not a support. (Circumstantial evidence).

IV.
 
 

Problem #2: In the story "Flowers for Algernon" who is the person that proves that intelligence enhancement surgeries must fail? Is the failure of the ``experiment" a good, or a bad, consequence? According to Daniel Keyes, why do bad experiments happen?

Charlie Gordon himself proves that his surgery is doomed to fail. He describes that discovery as a GOOD consequence of science (Letter to Dr. Strauss, pg 628). It is my opinion that according to Daniel Keyes `experiments' with REALLY BAD RESULTS happen, at least in part, because scientists, even the best and the brightest, are driven by immoral considerations. In page 620 Charlie describes an argument between Dr. Nemur and Dr. Strauss after which he says: `...it is as if I'd seen both man clearly for the first time' referring to Nemur's emfatuation with publishing and getting a position in Princeton and Strauss efforts towards fame and glory.