lecture17.0218.rev - Remaining Review Sessions for Exam 1....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Remaining Review Sessions for Exam 1. Tuesday -- Feb 19 -- 6:00-8:00 pm;  Aud D Angell Hall -- GSI led  review -- bring your questions! 1. Tuesday -- Feb 19 -- 2:00-5:00 pm;  206B West Hall -- special office  hours in Tom Fricke’s office
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Remember! There is no theory of evolution,  just a list of creatures Chuck  Norris has allowed to live.
Background image of page 2
Question from a Student (1) Last lecture you talked about a weakness for the Eve Hypothesis to  be, "very different interpretations for "archaic" Homo sapiens such  as Neanderthal", what did  you mean by that? Thanks,
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
My answer: If we accept the Eve hypothesis, then we wouldn’t argue that  Neanderthals (or Neandertals, variant spellings okay) are direct  precursors of Homo sapiens sapiems -- rather, we’d argue that they  are representatives of a speciation event -- a sidebranch in the story  of getting to us -- with no durect contribution to our genetic  heritage.
Background image of page 4
Question from a Student (2) I had a question about something you said in Friday's lecture.  You were talking  about the mtDNA and how you can get your cheek swabbed and through  analysis of your mtDNA, you could find out what area you are from.  I'm just  wondering how that wouldn't then make race a biological reality then?  Or  maybe it's not a biological reality because there would not be any exact place that the mtDNA is traced to, it would just be to large general area(s) with no exact  lines of separation.  Hope that makes sense, but can you clarify this for me, not  that I'm trying to say that race is a biological reality though.Thanks,
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
My answer (see Ctools -- announcement folder,  clarification on “race”)  Nope.  It means that the cultural categories for "race" overlap with  some really good biological explanations for similarity.  Notice, I  say "overlap" -- not "based on."  So the similarity we see is not  because race is biological.  It's because of history and ancestral  location and reproductive processes -- people living closer together  were more likely to marry and have kids.  It makes sense that they'd  have greater similarity, but the cause isn't "race" -- rather, the cause  is relationship.
Background image of page 6
Will the Kottak chapter on food production be on the test? Thank you.
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 8
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/04/2008 for the course ANTHRO 101 taught by Professor Peters during the Winter '08 term at University of Michigan.

Page1 / 24

lecture17.0218.rev - Remaining Review Sessions for Exam 1....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 8. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online