Have you ever noticed how you can smell a piece of freshly baked cake before you enter a kitchen and see it on the table? Don’t you automatically associate that delicious smell with something attractive that might please your taste buds as you enter the kitchen? For most people, that is certainly the case. (assuming they like cake). This very common experience made me think of whether smell has something to do with attractiveness. Can we on a subconscious level be attracted to certain smells emitted by people even before we actually see them? Do those smells affect our perception of how attractive someone is? If so, what are those smells?

Turns out that a study was done on whether females would be attracted to a certain scent in males over all others. 49 women and 48 men were assemble, each possessing diverse types of MHC genes (genes that are associated with the immune system of each individual). These women were given the sweaty T-shirts of men that wore them to sleep for 2 night in a row. He advised the men to wear odor-less cosmetics or no cosmetics at all (deodorants specially), to avoid sex and other interactions that might lead to differentiated odors in the participants. Women found that men with the most different MHC genes had a more appealing odor which they considered extremely attractive. The theor
y behind this is that evolutionary-speaking partners tend to seek those who have genes most different than themselves and a diverse immune system so they will pass on these wide range of genes to their offspring which could protect them from certain pathogens in the future. Of course, the study itself is not conclusive, it is just one of many that could reveal preference in scents over others. It is also important to note that all women tested were on the same time in their menstrual cycle periods and that those on the pill actually preferred men with similar MHC genes. So maybe in different periods of the cycle women may prefer different scents and on that particular one they may prefer scents that are different from their own.

This could mean that we have inherently programmed ideals of what a good mate should smell like and this preference is enabled by evolutionary factors. This could potentially help companies make scents for couples that may not be as attracted to one another as they were in the beginning of the relationship or even help us figure out other evolutionary traits found in humans and their purposes toward the betterment of the human race.

According to NYTimes, a geneticist called Carol Obe from the University of Chicago conducted a similar study where she took 411 couples in a Hutterite clan were tested since they have higher rates of intermarriage between themselves and research showed once again that partners had found those with MHC genes most different than their own in the community more appealing and had married them. 

Additionally, in another study women in their ovulating periods seem to find the scents of men whose body bilateral symmetry was greater more attractive than their counterparts. These women smelled 41 T-shirts of different men and it was found that most found men with higher symmetry more attractive during the peak of their ovulating periods (when they were most fertile overall.) This may be a mark of men who would give women the best possible offspring which would also be explained by the programming in of evolution in our bodies.

Of course, there are many other factors that contribute to the overall attractiveness of a person to another. Though controlled, all of these studies could have had third confounding factors present in them , like what the man ate during the days that could’ve affected their overall scent. However, we can assume that partner differentiation and maybe even symmetry have some evolutionary advantages that make people with these traits more desirable scent-wise.

A growing issue in our society is the battering and abuse of women in relationships with men. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, from 1994 to 2010, about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female. Approximately 1.3 million women are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States. This is an alarming number for females being physically injured in domestic relationships and should raise red flags as to why some men perpetrate these awful actions towards women and if there is a way to tell which personalities are more common when it comes to this sort of violent behavior. This sort of information could potentially provide information to women in relationships that could warn them about potential violent behavior from their partners.

This study published in Pubmed attempted to identify common characteristics found in men with tendencies towards abusive behaviors in relationships. They conducted a survey and interviewed with 572 men and their cohabiting partners by themselves in a room and asked them health-related questions and questions about physical and emotional abuse. The result was that 13.6% of men interviewed had performed at least one act of physical violence towards their partner and 34.9% had emotionally abused their partner beforehand. The answers to the questions overall showed that there was a positive correlation between abusive behavior and alcoholism, antisocial behavior, depressive symptoms and financial stress in the perpetrators. This could potentially warn women about mates who showcase similar patterns like men who constantly drink excessively , or who can’t seem to interact effectively with other individuals. However, there are flaws in the study which can’t be overlooked. First of all, all of these individuals were taken from the same county. Therefore, geographical factors might somehow influence  the results of the survey as a third confounding variable. Additionally, the men and women could have hidden certain abusive behaviors from the researchers which could’ve led to a faulty conclusion. Furthermore, human memory is fallible and so these individuals may have forgotten cases where they committed physical and emotional abuse which in turn may also  lead to an underestimation of abuse in the conclusions of the study.

An additional study published in Pubmed that specifically sought to find a relationship between certain traits in men and their abusive tendencies found the same as the previous study in concerns to anti-social behavior. It seems that on the scale, men with abusive tendencies seemed to be more prone to having anti-social behavior in their daily lives. These abusive men were also found to have a higher chance of having been subjected to physical or emotional abuse in their childhoods. This study only consisted of 21 participants so the sample size was relatively small. However it gives us some potential insight on the causes and signs of an abusive partner. Both found a positive correlation between anti-social tendencies and physical and emotional abuse, so that could definitely be impact when it comes to defining what is is that causes men to become abusive and how scientists may be able to advise others on how to prevent such a behavior from developing successfully.

I was not able to find further studies on the topic. This is probably because it is a private issue that many do not wish to report on and when they do so, may understate or respond inaccurately to the questions (if a survey/interview is conducted). Also experimentation on this topic is hard because we cannot subject others to physical harm since that is undoubtedly unethical in the scientific world. All that scientists can rely on is information that is already there and many times the information provided may not be so reliable. A theory that could explain the development of abusive tendencies lead to battering of women may be previous childhood abuse, as shown in the second study listed. However as we far as we can tell from these two studies, anti-social behavior may be warning characteristics for these sorts of individuals. According to PsychCentral, anti-social disorders may be associated with people who lack empathy, display arrogance, inflated self-appraisal and superficial charm. They may also be overtly aggressive towards others for nonsensical reasons. By knowing what qualities to watch out for, maybe women will actively attempt to avoid men who display them which may reduce (slightly) the rate in which women enter abusive relationships. On a final note, we should also not ignore abuse perpetrated by women to men. However, I chose to focus solely on the abuse from men to women as this abuse is more frequently heard of and is statistically occurs more often than the other way around.

In the past few years, I have noticed that certain plastic bottles have marketed that they are BPA free and safe for use. I then proceeded to wonder why they actively removed that “BPA” agent from the bottles and if this certain chemical was dangerous. What I found out was that BPA has been banned by many countries around the globe like France and Canada since some scientific research shows that BPA is may be inherently toxic. Turns out, along with BPA, there are may be thousands of other chemicals found in water bottles that may be detrimental to our health as we drink from them on a daily basis.

A study funded by the German Federal Environment Agency was conducted by German scientists to test water bottles and the chemicals actively found in them. They tested around 18 different water bottles from different companies and found nearly 25,000 chemicals present in the sample water bottles. They were looking specifically for EDC (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals)  which are known to to disrupt estrogen and androgen activity in the body and result in reproductive and developmental problems for individuals. 13 of the 18 commercially-sold water bottles tested showed significant anti-estrogen chemicals that disrupted these receptors by 60% and 16 out of 18 showed anti-androgenic chemicals in levels that could inhibit activity by 90%. They also tested tap water which showed no signs of any of these EDC chemicals. The chemicals found in these water bottles include maleates and fumerates which have been associated as EDCS and were found in most of the plastic bottles tested. According to Dr. Jennifer Landa, these EDC chemicals, though toxic, are not lethal or overwhelmingly detrimental to the general population. However, children and pregnant women should definitely be extremely cautious in avoiding contact with these substances. She states that EDCs may cause “stunted growth, early puberty, premature birth, infertility and early menopause – just to name a few.”

Though this is one particular study, the results are extremely alarming and should be taken into consideration, especially for individuals with high risks of complications from these chemicals like pregnant women and children. I find it very unlikely that this study could be a fluke, unless the methods used to chemically analyze the components in the plastic of the water bottles was faulty in some way.

There is also the famous chemical BPA (bisphenol A). BPA is a chemical found in plastic water bottles that has been the focus when it comes to health issues in the population who consumes them but has not been completely banned by the U.S. government. A study done by scientist Francis A. Champagne and his colleges and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America showed that pregnant rats and their offspring showed an impact in  “DNA methylation, gene expression, as well as anxiety-like behavior” when they were administered low doses of BPA. The research hasn’t deeply affected much of the beliefs about BPA since it was administered in animals; many still find it hard to truly consider results in rats as applicable to humans. However, if there is even a slight chance that this chemical may cause all those changes in one’s body, I personally believe it would be better that individuals limit their contact with plastic bottles containing BPA. Additionally, another study was conducted on the effects of BPA from drinking canned beverages severely increased an individual’s obesity and metabolic syndrome. Researchers tested 76 random Caucasian adult males for levels of BPA and its potential relationship with the diseases listed above. They found that the males who had higher levels of BPA in their bodies also had higher rates visceral adiposity (abdominal obesity) and found a positive correlation between high BPA levels and metabolic sydrome. However, the study may not be free from confounding variables like race and gender. Since only Caucasian males were tested the results of higher obesity rates and metabolic syndrome could have to something to do with something in the Caucasian population and males and not necessarily with BPA. Or maybe BPA affects these two groups more than others, which would also shed further negative implications on the BPA chemical overall. Lastly, since only 76 individuals were tested maybe the test sample was too small to acquire highly plausible results.

I believe that more randomized controlled studies and meta analysis on them  should be conducted to be certain about the risks of BPA. However, if other nations are actively prohibiting BPA from being used in plastic and other materials, one can assume that there is truly something wrong with this endocrine inhibiting chemical and that the American population should also be protected from it. One can assume that it would be safer to find a replacement for such a potentially hazardous chemical than completely ignore it until more research is conducted, being that it could likely harm people in the long run if it does indeed generate health complications.

After many years of lacking knowledge about my blood type, I have finally found out what my blood type actually is. To my surprise I discovered that I have a rare blood type in the overall global population:  AB- blood. Statistics show that only 3.4% of the world’s population have AB+ blood and only .6% have AB- blood. This new-found information about myself made me wonder whether my blood type could impact me and what were its beneficial or detrimental effects on my health.

Some very different studies have found interesting differences between blood types when it came to developing certain diseases or have neurological problems with age. A study published by Kristine Alexander, Ph.D., postdoctoral fellow in medicine and Mary Cushman, M.D., M.Sc., professor of medicine at the University of Vermont College of Medicine, revealed that people with AB blood had an 82 percent higher chance of developing neurological problems like dementia and memory loss. The sample size of the study was relatively big, consisting of 30,000 individuals who were followed for 3.4 years. They relied on information collected twice a year through phone surveys that measured the cognitive ability of participants in the study. They focused on 494 individuals whose skills regarding memory, learning and other cognitive functions were severely or moderately reduced in that period of time. After taking into account possible third variables like race, sex and geography, they concluded that the individuals with AB blood in the study were the ones with prevalent negative cognitive results as the years passed.

Of course, there is room for chance in the study and it could’ve been a false positive/fluke. However, the sample size itself was remarkably big and so it leaves less room for the possibility of coincidence. We don’t know if these surveys were actually reliable sources of data on these individuals but we can assume that they were since many scientific websites spoke about this same study and summarized it effectively. Furthermore, there could always be the presence of third variables in the study even when taking into account factors like gender, race and geography. One example of a third confounding variable could be the employment of each individual and how their respective tasks in their jobs could affect their cognitive processes. However, the results were extremely high when it came to the percentage of people with AB blood and cognitive dysfunctions so we can assume there might be something going on. Scientists predict that the mechanism behind this increase in the rate of gradual cognitive impairments in AB blood is the presence of more factor VIII in this blood than any other, a protein that is also related to cognitive impairment.

Additionally, another study was conducted to identify certain blood types and their relationships with other diseases. In this respective study, scientist Arash Etemadi and his group accompanied a sample size of 50,045 70 year-old individuals during the course of 2004-2008 to see if individuals with certain blood types had higher chances for vascular disease, higher mortality rates and certain types of cancer. What they found is that people with non-O blood types had a 55% greater chance of developing gastric cancer and 15% were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease then O blood types. They also found that type A blood types have higher chances of having high cholesterol than the other blood types.

This study was controlled randomized study and it took into account variables such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, place of residence, education and opium use. There is no chance of reverse causation in this study, since a certain disease cannot cause blood type but there are chances of third variable being the real culprits in disease. For example, maybe many individuals in the A and B blood types have a propensity to eat certain foods that increase their chances of developing gastric cancer. The sample size was big enough to reduce the likeliness of chance in this study, but there is still a possibility that it was a fluke and so other studies should be conducted to evaluate whether the results were in fact not a fluke.

Overall it seems that O blood types have the advantage when it comes to not developing certain diseases in comparison to other A, B and AB blood types. Yay for the Os! This is good news since the majority of the world’s population is comprised of individuals with the O blood type. However, scientists tell individuals with non-O blood not to worry about these results since there are other factors that may decrease someone’s likelihood of developing certain diseases like frequent exercise, a healthy diet and abstention from negative habits like smoking and drinking.

If you’ve ever had a family member get pregnant you’ve probably wondered what they can and can’t eat while carrying their babies for 9 months. What is more likely to lead to a healthy baby and what are some foods that could actually harm the fetus and lead to complications in a baby?

Turns out that according to Parenting Science, ” A fetus begins swallowing amniotic fluid at around 12 weeks, and by 28 weeks, an unborn baby is developing a powerful sense of smell”. It said that studies have also found that babies can recognize the smell of their own amniotic sacs and prefer breasts dabbed with foods their mothers consume during pregnancy.  In this particular study scientists tried to see a pregnant woman’s food choices could affect her baby’s food preferences after it was born. Julia Mennella and her colleagues gathered a group of 46 pregnant women and told some to:

1. Drink water during the pregnancy and stop after the baby was born

or

2. Drink water during the pregnancy and begin drinking carrot juice after the baby is born

or

3. Drink water only and completely avoid carrot juice altogether

So what they tested was the “effects of flavored amniotic fluids on fetus and babies” (1), the “effects of consuming milk that carry the flavor or carrots” (2), and compare those effects to those of fetus’s who did not come into contact with carrot juice at all during the pregnancy.

The results showed that in fact, most children who were exposed to the carrot flavored juice prenatally and while breast-feeding preferred carrot flavored cereal over plain cereal 5 months after they had been born. They also made fewer negative facial expressions to carrot-flavored cereal. Additionally, researchers observed that there was no effect for children who did not come into contact with carrot juice prenatally or when breast-feeding.

This study is a controlled study but we do not know if It was randomized, therefore that lack of knowledge prevents us from fully trusting its results. The overall size of the pregnant women could have also impacted the study since only 46 pregnant women were tested and divided into 3 groups which would render around 15 women per regimen which makes the results more prone to chance or inaccuracy. We also don’t know what the women’s eating habits were or if they ate more carrots or drank different juices with carrots in them which could’ve affected the results of the study.

However, we shouldn’t completely ignore the findings because if, in fact children’s eating preferences are influenced by their mother’s eating habits while they’re in the uterus and when they are breast-feeding this could lead to great theories on wide-spread obesity and other diseases caused by the eating habits of children and adolescents. In other words, if their pregnant mothers eat certain foods and indirectly induce their babies to eat them as well after being born, by telling mothers to completely avoid junk food and other unhealthy foods children could potentially be turned away from eating those foods later on in life. This prevention could maybe have a big impact on decreasing childhood and adolescent obesity as well as other diseases like diabetes.

Additionally, a study posted on The Journal of Physiology performed experiments in which 114 rats were studied and impregnated rats were given junk food and some were given healthy foods. The results showed that mothers who had been fed foods high on fat and considered “junk foods” gave birth to offspring that had a predisposition to eat those same sorts of “junk foods” and weighted more than their rat counterparts whose mothers ate a regular, healthy diet prenatally. The findings also showed that the rate of obesity and weight gain was much higher in offspring who ate healthy foods after being born from a mother who only ate junk food during pregnancy than those who ate unhealthy foods after being born from mothers who were given healthy foods while they were impregnated. The mothers who were fed high-fat foods also gave birth to offspring who had a higher propensity to eating those junk foods as children.

There is no doubt that this study was a randomized control trial and there were enough test subjects to get an accurate result free from error. However there are still possibilities of a false positive and a potential fluke, even if it is only a 5% chance. There is no problem with the Texas sharpshooter problem in the study because scientists were testing for weight gain and predisposition to eating certain junk foods in offspring after being born. The only problem people can find with this study is that it wasn’t done on humans, but animals. However, the rat’s physiology is very similar to human physiology and if these foods can affect these animals I would say there is a high chance it could also affect us. Additionally, a study in humans would be unethical because of complications that could potentially arise in pregnant woman and babies from eating unhealthy foods.

So the question is, should pregnant woman completely avoid unhealthy foods to prevent risks for obesity and other diseases in their child’s future? I believe that these studies would drive me to stop consuming all sorts of junk foods to protect my baby and his/her health, especially since my family history is comprised of members with diabetes, cancer, heart disease and high cholesterol. Though many of these findings may not be enough to turn some people away from eating what they like and following the cravings of pregnancy, to me they are sufficient enough to change my diet completely if I ever become pregnant. Hopefully as more studies and meta analysis are conducted more data will be found and if it turns out that, in fact, women should not eat these foods maybe we would see a reduction in childhood and adolescent obesity and other diseases associated with unhealthy diets.

In a period of time where most wish to enjoy their life to the fullest it seems that monogamy is becoming rather extinct, especially for younger generations. The hook-up age has been consuming the lives of many young people and several have given up in long-term exclusive relationships. Furthermore, there is also to issue of infidelity. Sometimes, they may actually engage in monogamous relationships but end up cheating on their partners which goes against the concept of monogamy. So are animals and humans made to be monogamous? If so what can cause monogamy?

According to CNN, only 3 to 5% of all mammal species on earth “practice any kind of monogamy”. Additionally, only one species is considered to be highly inclined to monogamy in the animal world. That species is called the prairie vole whose rate of monogamous relationships is extremely high compared to other animals.  This extremely small percentage in the findings leaves us the question of whether we are also included in that small percentage of monogamous inclined “animals”.

In this article in The Guardian, Christopher Opie, an anthropologist at University College London performed a study attempting to find out which of the most probable theories in the scientific world concerning monogamy were compatible with animals that are prone to monogamy. Three of the most likely theories for the cause of monogamy are as following: The offspring might be demanding and so the prospect of monogamy and parental fidelity might be consistent with successful reproduction and care of offspring, “male guarding” might occur in the case where males might stay close to protect their mates against male rivals and the third is that males seek to protect their offspring against other males of the same species that might kill off the offspring so that the females will become fertile and they will have the chance to impregnate them. When I read these theories I definitely thought that the first theory was probably the most well-founded because even now we see in human relationships that if parents stay together to care for their children together in the same household,  the children usually have greater chances to develop successfully into adults.

For example, in this study in the Europe PubMed Central, children in nuclear families were generally found to be less likely to be in poor health, lack health insurance, demonstrate poor behavior and be more likely to have behavior and emotional issues in the past 6 months. This study seemed to not suffer from the Texas sharpshooter problem or the file-drawer problem since the this study took into account various factors like race, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, family income and poverty status to analyze specifically the “physical health and limitations, access to or utilization of health care, and behavior or emotional well-being for children under age 18”. Therefore they were very specific about what they were truly analyzing and the elements they would observe, negating the presence of the sharpshooter problem. They also used to same criteria for nuclear and nonnuclear families which would also extinguish any sharpshooter problems. However, thought this study seemed to be properly randomized, they used a widely-given survey to evaluate these factors for one child of each household, which doesn’t take into account other children in the household which could impact the findings of this study. Also, we don’t know what questions were asked in the study or if the participants interviewed suffered from participant bias when getting questioned by the interviewer. We also don’t know if the study suffered from research bias, where maybe the interviewers unconsciously displayed certain traits or even distinct tones of voice that could’ve affected the participant’s answers to the questions.

Going back to the original study, I thought the first theory was the correct one about animals staying in pairs and monogamous relationships for the betterment of their overall offspring. Opie and his group of researchers conducted an experiment by taking “a family tree of 230 animals, including lemurs, bush babies, monkeys, apes and modern humans, and collected information on their mating behavior, rates of infanticide and paternal care.” He ran a simulation that showed evolution for these animals from 75 million years ago till now. He ran this simulation several times to try to fully grasp why these species evolved to be relatively monogamous. His findings showed that what lead to monogamy was high rates of infanticide, which means that animals would kill other’s offspring. Therefore, the fathers stayed with the females to protect them and their offspring from other males attempting to procreate with the impregnated females. His conclusion was that what made them stay monogamous was the instinct to care for their offspring and ensure a successful development and upbringing when it came to them.

However, we cannot truly count on this study because some of the animals studied were not truly monogamous and it was an observational study and not an experimental one. An observational study has more room for third confounding variables and can often be prone to error and chance because no experiment is being conducted to collect concrete data. For example, a third variable could be the animal’s respective mating seasons and how that affected their behavior toward monogamy.

There are still many valid reasons as to if humans and some animals are truly monogamous and what causes monogamy in the animal kingdom. Scientists still don’t have a concrete answer to this question but they’ll keep on conducting studies and meta analysis on these studies to identify what factors truly influence monogamy.

Most have probably wondered if human kind can ever inhabit other planets. How incredible would it be if the population could not only travel to space, but also colonize it? All could take advantage of resources found in other planets, like fresh water, which seems to be at a steady decrease on Earth from over-consumption,  waste and pollution. Additionally, with almost 8 billion people living on this planet, overpopulation is increasing at an alarming rate and through the progression of technology, pollution, deforestation and other negative factors seem to be affecting the planet, causing climate change and holes in the ozone layer.  Could living and spreading human kind between other planets be the solution to these distressing issues? If so, are there any planets that could potentially fit the bill?

According to CNN, a few planets have been recently discovered that could potentially host life, much like Earth. They are thousands of light-years away which corresponds to trillions of miles and are located in another solar system, one that holds 5 different planets and a host star. Only three are considered potentially adequate for hosting human life: Kepler 62-c, Kepler 62-f and Kepler 62-e.

Studies have concluded that Kepler-f is the planet that most resembles earth. It is located in the “habitable zone” of a star, which is the area where a planet is most likely to hold liquid water in a solar system. According to William Borucki, Kepler science principal investigator at NASA Ames Research Center, “Kepler-f could be rocky with polar caps, land mass and water as well. It goes around its star once every 267.3 days (Earth days, that is).” Because the planet is at least 40% larger and farther from its host star than Earth, it receives less light from the star than Earth does. According to NASA, “The size of Kepler-62f is now measured, but its mass and composition are not.” This basically means that though it is possible that Kepler-f is a planet where life could thrive, there are certain elements of it that have not been tested. These elements include atmosphere and elements that make up the planet’s surface.

 A picture of Kepler-f above.

While we don’t know if we can potentially inhabit other planets in the future, Kepler-f and a few other planets recently found are some of our best hopes for space colonization and human expansion outside of Earth. As technology improves, scientists have been able to pinpoint planets such as Kepler-f and as humans become more knowledgeable about them maybe one day humans will be able to call Earth their second home.

There are various theories dictating how humans came to evolve into exactly that, humans. Some scientists theorize that we’ve evolved from primates or shared common ancestors with them due to our similarities in behavior and mutual natural instincts. According to PBS, though that exact idea is not proven, what we do know is that we came from a line of Homo Sapiens which were much like ourselves but with their own distinct differences. In a way, we are the future of a species that survived a plethora of diseases. Our existence at the present time was a result of  natural selection in an evolutionary process that goes far back to prehistoric times when disease and transmission rates were drastically excessive. Popular Science states that many of our ancestors survived the Spanish Flu epidemic, the Black Plague, which annihilated 30-60% of the European population in the 14th century, and many other epidemics that occurred throughout history.  Many of us are direct descendants from these individuals and have antibodies and genes that are able to fight against a wide range of these infections and diseases. These evolutionary processes allowed us to have progressive genetic mutations which make up our current species. So now what? Are we in a process of evolving right at this moment in time? And if we are how can we tell that this process is occurring like before?

Mental Floss points out 5 different observations that could potentially reveal the evolution of mankind at this period of time. First of all, most humans drink milk. Surprisingly, a few thousand years back, humans were not able to consume milk because they were lactose intolerant which meant their digestive systems were not receptive to it. The only times they could ingest milk was during the breastfeeding period of their lives. Nevertheless, as agriculture grew and raising farm animals developed, people started fostering a “genetic mutation” that allowed them to drink milk due to its myriad of healthy components.

Secondly, we do not require our wisdom teeth anymore and around 35% of us are being born without them. While our ancestors required wisdom teeth and bigger jaws to chew on harder food groups, our current food is much softer and easier to chew, rendering wisdom teeth useless in our current society.

Additionally, as stated before, we are progressively propagating genes to future generations that fight off past infections, allowing offspring to be more successful in fighting off the bacteria and viruses around them.

Not only that, but it’s been observed that our brains have been shrinking from the last thousand years until now. According to Mental Floss, “the average volume of the brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,3500 cubic centimeters, which is equivalent to a chunk the size of a tennis ball.” Some rationalize that this decrease is taking place because the human race is becoming more and more unintelligent, which others speculate that the brain might be morphing itself to take up less space but work faster and more efficiently by becoming smaller.

Overall, these observations may be keys in figuring out if we are truly evolving as a species. Because humans are such an adaptable species, natural selection has favored them in the long run through genetic mutations and transformations in the body and mind that might affect us in the future.

Hi everyone! My name is Natalia and I’m from a city in Brazil called Rio de Janeiro. I lived there for 10 years of  my life and moved to a small town in New Jersey when I came to the U.S. It was definitely not as exciting as Rio, but like many others species, humans are able to adapt to any environment. (Got the science bit?) Anyway, I’m currently majoring in criminal law in the College of Liberal Arts. There are aspects of science integrated in my major, though they aren’t your usual, typical science elements. Nevertheless, I’ve always loved science because I love exploring the world and how all of its components come together cohesively and function in thought-provoking ways. The reason why I didn’t choose science as my major is probably because my intuition pointed towards criminal law and the justice system. However, it would probably be a second or third choice in my book in case criminal law doesn’t work for me. I love nature, the beach and being outside. Here is a picture of me this summer in Praia Vermelha, a beach in Rio de Janeiro.

As you can see, Rio is a beautiful place. Here is our most famous icon : Christ the Redeemer. Many tourists go to Rio every year to see this beautiful statue. Anyway, I’m super excited for the class and hope everyone, including me, enjoys themselves and learns new things through the class.