Physical Anthropology Lecture Outlines _____________________________________________________________
SCOPES TRIAL CHRONOLOGY
I. 7-10-25 TO 7-21-25 SCOPES TRIAL
A. JOHN SCOPES - TEACHER (PLEAD NOT GUILTY); FOUND GUILTY & FINED B. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN - PROSECUTING ATTY. C. CLARENCE DARROW - DEFENSE ATTY. D. JUDGE RAULSTON E. STEWART - ATTY. GEN. II. 1926-27 APPEAL TO TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT A. REVERSED THE CONVICTION B. THUS THERE WAS NO CONVICTION TO APPEAL TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
III. BUTLER LAW
A. 1926 MISSISSIPPI PASSED A VERSION OF THE BUTLER LAW B. 1927 ARKANSAS PASSED AN ANTI-EVOLUTION LAW C. 1928 TENNESSEE PASSED A VERSION OF THE BUTLER LAW D. 1963 TENNESSEE REQUIRED TEXTS TO DISCLAIM EVOLUTION
IV. 1967 SUSAN EPPERSON CHALLENGED ARKANSAS'S ANTI-EVOLUTION LAW
A. RULING: THE LAW VIOLATED THE 14TH AMMENDMENT B. TENNESSEE REPEALED ITS ANTI-EVOLUTION LAW C. ARKANSAS RULED THE STATE LAW WAS VALID; TEACHING EVOUTION WAS A CRIME
V. 1968 APPEAL TO U.S. SUPREME COURT
A. RULING: THE LAWS VIOLATE THE 1ST & 14TH AMMENDMENTS
VI. 1960-70s CREATION SCIENCE & BALANCED TREATMENT
VII. 1981 MCLEAN VS ARKANSAS BOARD OF EDUCATION
A. ACT 590 - BALANCED TREATMENT ACT B. RULING: APPROVED IT C. ACLU FILED SUIT D. JUDGE OVERTON USED *CRITERIA TO RULE E. RULING: ARKANSAS BALANCED TREATMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
VIII. 1987 U.S. SUPREME COURT A. RULING: RULED AGAINST LOUISIANA BALANCED TREATMENT ACT MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS BOARD OF EDUCATION
JUDGE WILLIAM OVERTON'S CRITERIA
IX. DID ACT 590 HAVE A SECULAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE?
B. "THE ACT WAS PASSED WITH THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF ADVANCING RELIGION"
X. DID ACT 590 ADVANCE RELIGION?
A. PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED EXPERT WITNESSES TO ESTABLISH CLAIMS OF CREATION FROM NOTHING, WORLDWIDE FLOOD, RECENT BEGINNING OF THE EARTH, A CREATOR, ETC.
B. THE SPONSORS WERE MOTIVATED BY THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
C. "THE ONLY REAL EFFECT OF ACT 590 IS THE ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION"
XI. WOULD ACT 590 PRODUCE AN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND RELIGION?
A. COMPLIANCE WOULD INVOLVE FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES IN "DELICATE RELIGIOUS JUDGEMENTS"
B. AGREED WITH ACLU CONTENTION THAT "CREATION-SCIENCE IS RELIGION IN DISGUISE"
OVERTON'S SOLUTION TO WHETHER "CREATION SCIENCE" IS A SCIENCE
XII. DO CREATIONISTS' CLAIMS CONSTITUTE REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC CLAIM-MAKING? (SEE JURMAIN TEXT, PP. 19-20)
A. CREATIONISTS LACK SKEPTICISM, UNIVERSALITY, & DISINTERESTEDNESS
B. CREATIONISTS ARE DOGMATIC RATHER THAN SKEPTICAL
C. CREATIONISTS DO NOT ADMIT THE VALIDITY OF UNIVERSALLY OBVIOUS SCIENTIFIC FACTS
D. CREATIONISTS CONCLUSIONS ARE BIASED BY THEIR GREATER INTEREST IN ADVANCING RELIGION THAN IN DISCOVERING TRUTH
EX: THE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY REQUIRES MEMBERS TO TAKE OATHS CONCERNING THEIR BELIEF IN A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE GENESIS STORY, FIDELITY TO BELIEF IN GOD
XIII. DO CREATIONISTS DISPLAY THE QUALITIES OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS?
A. THEY DO NOT ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN SCIENTIFIC INTELLECTUAL LIFE; FEW PUBLISH IN STANDARD SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
XIV. DO CREATIONISTS DO WHAT SCIENTISTS DO? (PUBLISH IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS AND SUBMIT CLAIMS ABOUT CREATIONISM FOR PEER REVIEW)
A. THEY DO NOT PRODUCE OR DISSEMINATE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE OR SUBMIT CLAIMS FOR PEER REVIEW
B. MANY DO HAVE ADVANCED DEGREES FROM PRESTIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PH.D.s IN BIOCHEMISTRY, ETC. FROM BERKELEY, HARVARD, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA)
XV. ARE CREATIONISTS EMPLOYED BY LEADING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS?
A. THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYED BY LEADING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
XVI. DO CREATIONISTS HAVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS?
A. ARGUMENTS ASSERTED BY CREATIONISTS ARE NOT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OR LABORATORY DATA
B. THEY LACK EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (EXPLANATIONS, PREDICTIONS, EXPERIMENTATION, OBSERVATION)
OVERTON'S DECISION
1. ARKANSAS'S BALANCED TREATMENT STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
2. CREATIONISTS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN A DISINTERESTED SEARCH FOR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
3. CREATIONISTS ARE NOT SCIENTISTS & DO NOT FUNCTION AS SCIENTISTS
4. CREATION SCIENCE HAS NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT OR EDUCATIONAL VALUE AS SCIENCE
5. THE ONLY EFFECT OF ACT 590 IS THE ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION CELLULAR GENETICS (CH. 3)
I. CHROMOSOMES A. HOMOLOGOUS CHROMOSOMES (AUTOSOMES) B. SEX CHROMOSOMES II. CELL DIVISION A. MITOSIS - SOMATIC CELLS B. MEIOSIS - PRODUCTION OF GAMETES 1. REDUCTION DIVISION
2. HAPLOID NUMBER
3. DIPLOID NUMBER
III. GENES A. LOCUS B. ALLELES C. GENOTYPE 1. HOMOZYGOUS
2. HETEROZYGOUS
3. HEMIZYGOUS D. PHENOTYPE MOLECULAR GENETICS (CH. 3)
I. DNA (DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID)
A. DOUBLE HELIX 1. NITROGEN BASE 2. BASE PAIRS 3. NUCLEOTIDE B. REPLICATION C. PROTEIN SYNTHESIS 1. mRNA - TRANSCRIPTION 2. TRIPLETS / CODONS 3. RIBOSOMES 4. tRNA - TRANSLATION
II. SOURCES OF VARIABILITY A. MUTATION
1. CROSSING OVER 2. DELETION 3. TRANSLOCATION 4. INVERSION 5. DUPLICATION B. EXAMPLES
1. TRISOMY 21 2. SICKLE CELL MENDELIAN GENETICS (CH. 4)
I. PRINCIPLES OF INHERITANCE
A. INHERITED TRAITS 1. MENDELIAN
2. POLYGENETIC
3. PLEIOTROPY B. GREGOR MENDEL 1. PRINCIPLE OF SEGREGATION
2. PRINCIPLE OF INDEPENDENT ASSORTMENT
3. DETERMINING THE RESULTS OF MATING -
GENOTYPE & PHENOTYPE
II. EXAMPLES OF INHERITANCE: A. ABO BLOOD SYSTEM B. Rh BLOOD TYPE SYSTEM C. SICKLE CELL D. BREAST CANCER E. APO-A1 MILANO III. GENETIC ENGINEERING DARWIN AND EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
I. GEORGE CANNING’S LEFT BUTTOCK & THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES A. A CHAIN OF IMPROBABLE CONSEQUENCES B. EVOLUTION AS A CHAIN OF IMPROBABLE CONSEQUENCES II. DARWIN’S MIDDLE ROAD: A. SCIENTIFIC INDUCTIVISM? OR EURIKAISM? B. INFLUENCE OF THE CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT ON THEORY
III. INFLUENCES ON DARWIN'S THOUGHT
A. ERASMUS DARWIN – ALL LIFE FROM A SINGLE SOURCE B. THOMAS MALTHUS – ON POPULATION C. CHARLES LYELL - UNIFORMITARIANISM D. LAMARCK - INHERITANCE OF ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS E. ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE
IV. DARWIN'S SYNTHETIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION (CH. 4)
A. EVOLUTION (MUTABILITY OF SPECIES) B. COMMON DESCENT C. MULTIPLICATION OF SPECIES D. GRADUALISM E. NATURAL SELECTION 1. DIFFERENTIAL REPRODUCTION VS. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
V. THE MODERN SYNTHESIS PRINCIPLES OF EVOLUTION
I. THE BASIS OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY A. POPULATION GENETICS 1. POPULATION
2. GENE POOL
II. THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION: A. MUTATION B. RECOMBINATION C. GENETIC DRIFT D. GENE FLOW E. ADAPTATION F. NATURAL SELECTION III. MUTATION A. MUTATION RATE 1. EXAMPLE: CHONDRODYSTROPHIC DWARFISM B. ADAPTIVE V. DELETERIOUS MUTATIONS 1. PREADAPTATION
a. EXAMPLE: CROSOPTERYGIANS IV. GENETIC DRIFT A. RANDOM FLUCTUATION IN SMALL, ISOLATED POPULATIONS B. FOUNDER EFFECT / SEWALL WRIGHT EFFECT V. HARDY-WEINBERG FORMULA A. GENETIC EQUILIBRIUM B. p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1 C. TEST OF H-W EQUILIBRIUM
VI. GENE FLOW
VII. ADAPTATION VIII. NATURAL SELECTION A. DIFFERENTIAL REPRODUCTION B. DIRECTIONAL SELECTION C. STABILIZING SELECTION 1. BALANCED POLYMORPHISM D. DISRUPTIVE OR DIVERGENCE SELECTION APPROACHES TO HUMAN VARIATION (CH. 15)THE CONCEPT OF RACE
I. RACE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
A. THE AGE OF DISCOVERY
B. 18TH CENTURY ENLIGHTENMENT
1. DEGERANDO
C. 19TH CENTURY CONCEPTS OF RACE & CIVILIZATION
1. CUVIER
2. THE SOCIOPOLITICAL MILIEU
a. MONOGENESIS b. POLYGENESIS c. DEGENERATION
3. HERBERT SPENCER & SOCIAL DARWINISM
a. SCIENTIFIC RACISM
4. RACIAL CRANIOLOGY
a. ROBERT BENNETT BEAN
d. PAUL TOPINARD
(1)CONCEPT OF "TYPE" (2)CEPHALIC INDEX
e. PAUL BROCA
(1) BRACHYCEPHALIC (2) DOLICHOCEPHALIC THE CONCEPT OF RACE (CONT.)
II. RACE & THE TEACHING OF ANTHROPOLOGY - 3 PHASES:
A. 19TH C. - MONOGENISM VS. POLYGENISM
B. EARLY 20TH C. - FRANZ BOAS
C. 1960-1970s: SPLITTERS VS. LUMPERS
1. 1975-1979 THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF EDUCATION
III. RACE IN PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY & FORENSICS
A. MORPHOLOGY & DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ANALYSIS
B JURMAIN & NELSON TEXTBOOK (1994 & 2000 COMPARED)
IV. THE SOCIAL MISUSE OF RACE
A. THE BELL CURVE (MURRAY & HERNSTEIN)
1. INTELLIGENCE & MISMEASUREMENT
V. CLINES VS. TAXONOMY
HUMAN ADAPTATION (CH. 15) - (NOT COVERED IN LECTURE)
I. BIOLOGICAL ADAPTATION
A. GENETIC ADAPTATION B. ACCLIMATIZATION C. CULTURAL ADAPTATION
II. SKIN COLOR
A. KERATIN B. HEMOGLOBIN C. MELANIN D. GLOGER'S RULE
III. ADAPTATIONS TO COLD & HEAT
A. HYPOTHERMIA B. VASOCONSTRICTION C. BASAL METABOLIC RATE D. |