Discovering Nature

As a former field biologist, I love nature and all the beauty in the world around us. It is one of my most profound pleasures to watch the flora and fauna flourish, and to know my place is within the greatest web of all. Over the years, my mind has been awakened to the subtle push-pull of life-death that directs all life. I have come to understand nature in a deeper sense than most people ever will.

Of course, there are still many jigsaw-puzzle-piece mysteries in nature which are left to be explored by mankind. The scientist in me keeps me exploring the unknown, and searching for the best answer to questions by following the scientific method.

Please feel free to ask me questions regarding nature! I would love to explore the answers with you.

Please also feel free to explore philosophy and poetry with me; go to Adrianna's home page.



What Scientific Research Entails

As stated by the article "Scientific Method," (Microsoft. Encarta. Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com ) "No single path to discovery exists in science, and no one clear-cut description ca be given that accounts for all the ways in which scientific truth is pursued."

However, it is generally recognized that the scientific method provides the most objectivity and rigor, and therefore leads to the more accurate results. Hypotheses are formulated to explain a particular observation, then experiments are done to test and eliminate the possibilities.

Science can never PROVE that something is true. As stated by the article mentioned above "...agreement of a conclusion with an actual observation does not itself prove the correctness of the hypothesis from which the conclusion is derived. It simply renders the premise that much more plausible. The ultimate test of the validity of a scientific hypothesis is its consistency with the totality of other aspects of the scientific framework. This inner consistency constitutes the basis for the concept of causality in science, according to which every effect is assumed to be linked with a cause."

Peer review is essential in the sciences in order to validate the results by repeating them. Scientists have to be very careful to be objective when reporting their results. I know from personal experience that it is hard to come to a conclusion opposite of what you thought was true. I hypothesized that scientific journals reporting medical advances and other applied sciences would have articles strictly following the scientific method, whereas scientific journals reporting non-applied sciences would not. After randomly choosing both types of journals, I found that just the opposite was true. Scary, huh?

Field biology in particular is also physically demanding. Experimentation usually involves a study of flora and fauna within a large area. Thus, the field biologist tramps through thick undergrowth, climbs over rocky cliffs, and wades through swamps. The following are some examples of the use of the scientific method in studies I've been involved with:

  • What is the best method to satisfy both cattle ranchers and the wildlife in Idaho? We compared a control plot (where nothing was touched), to plots where either a burn took place or where cattle were kept, or a rotating system of burn, idle, and cattle. We pounded posts in the marsh to mark the plots and then did bird, mammal, and vegetation surveys.
  • Why do masked boobies in the Galapagos Islands always commit siblicide when the survival of two chicks should be reproductively advantageous to raising one chick? We compared the size, weight, and survival of chicks in control nests (where the first hatched chick always kills the second hatched chick) to experimental groups in which we forced the parents to raise two chicks.
  • What is the best timbering method for wildlife? We conducted bird censuses on 3 control plots, 3 clearcut plots, and 3 even-aged timbered plots in the Missouri Ozarks.
Back to Index



Symmetry in Nature

One of the more common questions that I get asked is if the first law of thermodynamics is entropy, why then is there so much symmetry in nature? The short story is that in order for organisms to find a mate, they have to stand out from the chaos. Thus they have evolved to be symmetrical. Refer to the following articles:

Kirkpatrick, M. and G. G. Rosenthal. 1994. Symmetry without fear. Nature 372:134-135.

Enquist, M. and A. Arak. 1994. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372:169-172.

Johnstone, R.A. 1994. Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372:172-175.

Back to Index



Can Evolution Explain Human Behavior?

Evolution does give us an insight into human behavior. There are not very many true scientific experiments done along this line, but the logic holds true. Let me give a few examples:

An experiment was done with mice in which a varying amount of mice were raised in the same size container. This mimics the rapidly expanding population growth and living constraints that humans experience as we go from country living to city living as a species. It was found that in the larger groups of mice, the next generation of mice became homosexual. Just as disease and predators are nature's way of limiting population growth, homosexuality also seems to be a natural way of limiting population growth.

While I haven't read of any experiments, you could make the argument that heros act because of the "survival of the fittest" rule. At first this seems counter-intuitive. The person is risking his/her life, and possibly wouldn't survive--how would this be survival of the fittest? Well, by becoming a hero, the person has just created a name that everyone will remember. When it comes to marriage for the hero's children, they will have better prospects than someone who wasn't as well known as a good person. This is called reciprocal altruism.

A somewhat opposite point of view is that ethics arise only indirectly from evolution. By evolving intelligence, humans also gained morality by default. Proponents of this way of thinking argue that morality is a product of cultural evolution and not of biological evolution.

However, I see cultural evolution as a part of biological evolution. The cultural trait of wearing earrings for instance is a way for the female to attract the best mate. Taken a step further, social grace in the Victorian age was the best way to gain the knowledge of and the attention of the best mates.

Sometimes cultural traits do indeed get in the way of survival of the fittest. On the other hand, there are always checks in balances in evolution, with a push to go one way balanced by the push to go another way. Take for instance the length of a peacock's tail. If it gets too long, the peacock will not be able to fly. If it gets too short, the peacock will not be able to attract a mate.

Back to Index





Graphics obtained at