Analysis Of Your Inner Fish By Neil Shubin

1811 Words 8 Pages
Neil Shubin’s documentary series “Your Inner Fish” explores the relationship between humans and all other living organisms. Shubin delves into human evolution to uncover similarities that connect humans with the world around them. The anatomist studies fossils, embryos, and various other parts to compare humans to fish, reptiles, and primates. Shubin challenges the common beliefs about evolution by recognizing the corresponding features between humans and seemingly unrelated organisms. The three-part series takes viewers on an adventure into their deep ancestral history as it slowly uncovers a timeline of human evolution. Each episode displays multiple examples of science in action. Anatomists and archeologists alike engage in the practices …show more content…
Tucker performed science in action by performing an experiment with skin tissue in order to determine the gene responsible for formation of the skin features. Example two relates to Lab #11, “Diversity and Adaptation”. “Skin organs” are relatively small features that allow organisms them to eat, survive, and reproduce. “Your Inner Reptile” featured actor Michael Barrien, who suffers from a mutation in his EDA gene that prevented his features from developing properly. His inability to sweat and lack of teeth emphasizes the importance of adaptations in organisms. The EDA gene allowed organisms to adapt and evolve billions of years ago.
Scientists were trying to figure out which gene was responsible for the development of “skin organs”. In the experiment, the scientist cut out skin tissue from the lower jaw of a bearded dragon. After dissection, Tucker placed the tooth bud in an incubator to observe its growth. The section of the bud that contained the EDA gene displayed a size increase after incubation. The results allowed her to conclude that the EDA gene is responsible for the growth of scales, feathers, and other
…show more content…
This example relates to Lab #3, “The Functions and Responses of Living Systems”. In the lab, we conducted a controlled experiment by exposing worms to various drugs and compared their reactions. Although no drugs were administered to the human or monkey in example three, both subjects were exposed to the same scenario and scientists compared their results to draw conclusions on intelligence.
Scientists were trying to answer the question of which species had more intelligence. To determine the answer, they exposed an object to both a human and a monkey and observed whether or not they understood object permanence after the object was hidden. The investigators reached a surprising conclusion when the monkey understood object permanence, but the toddler did not. They concluded that at younger ages, monkeys are more intelligent than humans. This evidence is not sufficient because as Shubin stated, intelligence is a broad spectrum that cannot be determined by one specific

Related Documents