Language is the way we as humans interact with the world.  We use it to communicate with each other about the present, to speculate about the future, and to write down our past so it will not be forgotten.  No other species is able to do this.  Language is truly what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.  But how did this incredible ability evolve, and why is it not observed in other creatures?  There are many theories about the development of language, but I believe that it is the chance product of a complex and tireless brain constantly searching for connections.

The theory currently held by most scientists is that of neo-Darwinism.  This is the belief that language evolved by natural selection, just as any other trait.  Though no other animal possesses true language as humans do, research has revealed that chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest relatives, share certain neural characteristics with humans related to language (1).  In humans, two areas in the left hemisphere are very involved in the production of speech: Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area.  Both these areas are larger than the corresponding areas of the right hemisphere.  Though these areas do not control language in chimps and bonobos, the corresponding areas are larger in the left hemisphere than in the right, suggesting that a common ancestor had a brain with this asymmetry.  Many scientists take this to mean that this common ancestor’s brain developed language as it evolved into the modern human brain.  Chimps and bonobos still have these asymmetrical areas, but they never evolved into Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area as they did in humans.

We all eat to survive. We need calories, and nutrition, and for our cells to bed fed in order to function. Beyond that, though, lies a realm of questions. As humans, we have an interesting relationship with food. We crave certain foods, and are sometimes told that we’re craving just what we actually need- that if our body is craving orange juice, it may be because it’s lacking in vitamin C. However, quite often, we crave foods with little nutritional value (1). What is our body telling us then? Can we distinguish between something we greatly enjoy the taste of, versus something the cells in our body need in order to grow and replicate? With these cravings, has food- sugar in particular, become an addiction to us, like drugs? Researchers are finding foods with sucrose- the white, crystalline sugar, may have an addictive quality, perhaps explaining why we so often crave the foods containing this that we know aren’t very nutritionally beneficial to us.

From the very beginning of our academic experiences with biology, we were taught about basic needs. Most textbooks covered these basic needs in a systematic kind of way: they listed, discussed, explained, and moved on. We were tested on them: asked to recite, relay, and paraphrase. After going back, now about 12 or 13 years later, and looking at textbooks and websites, I realized how limiting these basic needs were. The most popular, seemingly most agreed upon basic needs of living organisms, were the needs for food, water, energy, oxygen, living space, and to be able to maintain the conditions inside of oneself, better known as homeostasis (1, 2, 3). While these describe physical necessities, I started to wonder about the importance of another major class- the importance of emotional desires- are these needs? Maybe we can’t measure, to the degree we can the physical, but there appears to be a major lacking in biology in attention to the more mental side of things. Maybe physical necessities keep numbers up and a heart ticking, but aren’t emotional desires a large part of what differentiates organisms? Aren’t our conscious minds- and understanding ourselves- a different, but perhaps just as real need- or desire- worthy of mentioning, even at the most basic biology level? If we’re taught in first or second grade about basic physical necessities- it seems that, in addition to teaching that food and water are necessary, we should be taught about emotions, even to the smallest degree that we could understand at that age.

If you were asked to pick something that you thought would trigger an undiscovered artistic talent, you probably wouldn’t reply, “degenerative brain disease”, but it’s completely plausible. In one such case, Tommy Mchugh was brought to a hospital, in 2001, because of a sudden onset of severe headache. Testing showed that he suffered from subarachniod hemorrhages caused by a stroke. After surgery he complained of what can be described as a “split mind disorder”, where his perceptions and personality were altered (3)(6). He began to compulsively express these altered perceptions through art, which he had shown no interest or ability in, prior to the stroke.  

Studies of these cases are suggestive of mild frontotemporal dysfunction. Specifically, Tommy’s tests of executive function showed impairment, mainly in tasks which required alternating between categories or tasks, but not to the extent found in previous studies of frontotemporal dementia. Clinical characteristics include; “…a profound alteration in character and social conduct, occurring in the context of relative preservation of instrumental functions of perception, spatial skills, praxis and memory”(7). Patients also experience a decline in social conduct, “breaches of interpersonal etiquette, tactlessness and disinhibition” as well as “impairment in regulation of personal conduct”(7). They also experience speech impairment and cognitive changes (7)

            The nervous system has so many different tasks to do every day that it is a wonder that there are not more mishaps in the day-to-day function of humans.  Despite the fact that overall, our nervous systems allow us to make it through everyday without falling over or running into things, there are cases where somewhere wires get crossed and the usual predicted outcomes do not occur.  One of the easiest examples to observe is anything to do with sensory input, because so many different things in our environment go into a single experience every instant of our lives.  There are people with synesthesia who associate smells, tastes, or colors with certain words, or other kinds of sensory recombinations.  Another interesting example is that of how pain is experienced and interpreted by the nervous system.  As I thought about this function of the nervous system in relation to other senses, the phrase “blinding pain” entered my thoughts and would not go away.  I began a search of this phrase that does not really make sense upon further thought but is used so frequently in common discourse.

It is a rather frightening and rather unnerving thought that psychosurgical procedures can be traced back to Neolithic times, roughly 40,000 years ago (2, 6, 7).  Current psychosurgical techniques are by no way in a state of perfection so one can only imagine how crude and often fatal these ancient procedures were.  Modern psychosurgery can better be understood through a more recent historical investigation of the era of neuroscientific inquiries that was going on during the 19th century (2). 

The first indications of skull surgery come from the archeological unearthing of skulls with holes carbon dating back to 1500 BC (2).  Further study of the bone surrounding the hole, evidence of proper healing, and estimation of the individual’s lifespan indicate that the hole was in fact surgical in nature rather than some sort of head wound.  This ancient method is called trepanning and was more than likely used in order to release demons and evil spirits that were thought to be trapped in the skull and were linked with madness and brain disease.  In many cases the reasons for trepanning were completely bogus and purely based on religious and spiritual beliefs and therefore showed no benefit. However, in other sincere medical cases such as strong headaches, brain tumors, intracranial pressure due to hematomas, hydrocephalus, etc., this procedure potentially had some therapeutic effect and is actually a technique that is still being used to this day to relieve intracranial pressure.   This procedure was performed without any sort of anesthetic and took about 30 to 60 minutes to cut through the skull.  If the tool used to make the hole in the skull does not touch the brain itself, the patient had a relatively high chance of survival. 

In America today, the tension between science and religion seems only to be growing. The country is rapidly becoming more religiously conservative than it has been for the last several decades, sparked in part by the conflict with Islamic extremists in the Middle East. Between the push and pull of evolutionism and creationism, though, is the Intelligent Design camp, or ID for short, which is gradually gaining much steam and becoming a way for people to reconcile perceived conflicts between Christian religious beliefs and scientific evidence, which seems to support the evolutionary theory.

The book begins with a river in Prussia. In the 18th century, there was a series of bridges in Konigsberg that connected the banks of either side of the river to each other an island in the middle. A popular topic of discussion in cafes at the time asked if you could cross each bridge only once and come back to where you started. A man named Euler finally solved this problem. It's not significant that he solved it. The significance is in how he solved it.

Euler abstracted the bridges into a series of nodes and links. The nodes were the landmasses the bridges connected and the links were the bridges themselves. Using this graph, Euler discovered that the only way such a feat is possible is if the nodes with an odd number of links are either the starting or ending point in the traversal. That means there can only be two such nodes. Unfortunately, all the nodes on the Konigsberg bridge graph had an odd number of links so the answer to the problem is no.

This is important because Euler representing a real-life construct and as graph which had inherent properties through which its behavior could be deduced. Considering that graphs are just small networks, this discovery is significant.

Linked discusses "scale free networks," which are networks that consist of a huge number of small nodes connected to a small number of huge hubs via links. Scale-free networks can be found in naturally occurring systems such as the food web and social networks and in man-made systems such as the Web. Despite their dissimilarities, they all share some important properties.

 In understanding biological evolution as a meaningless process with no certain destination or endpoint whatsoever, many questions are raised.  How does this explain the meaning that we as a human species have applied to our existence?  What, then, is the purpose of art or culture that we have created?  What about the moral standards we have applied to our societies?  It might be difficult to accept or admit that the moral codes, on which we base our governments, religions, and all social structures, may just be a by-product of the evolutionary process.  However, this fact may prove to be the reason that so many differing, and often contradicting moral codes may exist.  Additionally, we are also able to explain the reasons for which the evolutionary process came about.

The evolution of humor and how it impacts evolution

The theory of evolution dictates that we as humans are the products of a random process consisting of natural selection and common descent. Furthermore, our existence as a human species is rooted in innumerable variables beyond anyone’s control as well as an ancestral heritage consisting of apes. Beyond just our physical arrival, there are cultural ramifications of evolution that distinguish the human species from any other evolved animal. “All the achievements of human culture – language, art, religion, ethics, science itself – are themselves artifacts… of the same fundamental process that developed the bacteria, the mammals, and Homo sapiens” (Dennett, 144). Over the course of our time here, the human species has experienced developments of moral codes, growth of languages, and a widespread interest in the arts. Humans have expanded their meaning to transcend just survival, but also to include morality, pleasure, organization, and culture. A quality unique to humans is our proneness to engage in humor – for the most part, we enjoy laughing, telling jokes, and being funny. I claim that humor is a necessary trait in the success of evolution and serves as an adaptive quality.