Labels: human brain
Of course, for the peevologists among you, we have to admit that strictly speaking evolution cannot really be said to make mistakes: a process with no purpose (and zero compassion) can hardly be said to get anything wrong. It's a bit like criticising a baby's babblings.
But when you look at living creatures from a design perspective, there is no doubt that many parts and processes are deeply flawed and could be improved upon. This is what we mean by evolutionary "mistakes".
Take the human appendix, a narrow dead-end tube that is a relic of the much larger, cellulose-digesting caecum found in other primates. It is prone to becoming blocked, leading to life-threatening infections. Even if it plays a role in early immune development - a far-from-convincing claim based largely on studies of rabbits - there is no doubt that adults would be better off if the appendix shrank away later in life or had a structure less likely to become blocked.
Other organs, such as our lungs, seem more than adequate. But compared with bird lungs they are inferior in many ways: the VHS video of lungs to birds' Betamax. Can that be called a mistake? After all, we have managed fine with what we've got. But we'll never know what might have been had mammals inherited or evolved bird-like lungs - although perhaps one day we'll discover how well a (semi) human athlete with bird-like lungs will perform.
So what do you regard as evolution's greatest mistake? What are the worst "design" flaws in plants and animals? How would you redesign humans or other animals given the chance?
Yesterday we wrote about how fast food branding can make children perceive a hamburger as tastier than a similar meal wrapped up in plain packaging. Now there's another study showing that adults will rate a wine as tastier if it carries a more prestigious label.
In the experiment, Brian Wansink at Cornell University tested 41 diners' reaction to the wine at Spice Box, a student run restaurant. The diners were given a free glass of Cabernet Sauvignon to accompany their $24 prix-fix French meal. Servers told about half of them that the wine came from "Noah's Winery" in California. The other diners were told it originated from Noah's Winery in North Dakota ? a state better known for chilly weather than chilled Sauvignon blanc (think Fargo).
In fact, researchers gave all of the diners the same Charles Shaw wine. (To readers who might not already know, it's often referred to as "two-buck Chuck" by those who appreciate its inexpensiveness.)
Diners who received the "California" wine rated it as tastier than those receiving the same drink carrying the North Dakotan label. They also ate 11% more of their food and made more return reservations.
To confirm this branding effect, Wansink also conducted a similar test on 49 MBA students at a wine and cheese reception. Those who tasted the "Californian" wine gave it an 85% better rating and also liked the cheese more. The results appear in the journal Physiology and Behavior.
So while we might try convincing our children to avoid getting duped by cartoons on cereal boxes and gimmicky fast food, let's face the fact that we're just as easily persuaded by a brand. Now excuse me as I go place an order for some vintage from the Dakota Hills Winery?
Roxanne Khamsi, online reporter (image: el monstrito)