A bit outdated but still pretty entertaining...
Or in German... :)
To New Readers...
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Warner Brothers: Amazing Cartoons...
A bit outdated but still pretty entertaining...
Or in German... :)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Who needs a Doctor to answer these questions?
Dr. P*****,
My name is A*** B******. I am trying to determine where I stand on the issue of macro-evolution. I have a few questions for you. I am not trying to persuade you. I am genuinely looking for answers.
1. I realize that there is lots of evidence for micro-evolution. One of the things that I have come to see is that has been told to me by numerous Professor's is that macro-evolution is a very weakly supported theory. What are your thoughts on this?
** I think when you are told that macroevolution is weakly supported, you aren't quite clear about the definition of macro vs. microevolution. Also, I'd like to know what professor told you that and what they are professors of (theology?, sociology?, nonsense?). Microevolution looks at the allele frequencies within a species and essentially any of the molecular evidence we have on individual species, which is plentiful. Macroevolution looks beyond an individual species and looks at how the relationships between organisms either contribute or hinder the survival of others. First off, the evidence for microevolution requires specific conditions to be kept at equilibrium, any shift in equilibrium points to a process of selection which supports macroevolution. So the evidence you look at supporting microevolution can be used to also support macroevolution. Now I don't know what more evidence you need to see that macroevolution takes place other than looking at how populations of organisms interact with each other. What more do you need to understand that the relationships between organisms is just as likely to drive the evolution of their neighbors. I'd recommend reading about botany. The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan comes to mind as an excellent example of coevolution through macroevolutionary relationships. Also keep in mind that looking at the evidence for microevolution also supports the macroevolution argument since allele frequencies can change based on the environmental relationships a species encounters. These are not mutually exclusive ideas; they are interrelated.
2. The way I understand macro evolution is that there is speciation that has occurred. For speciation to occur there need to be lots of radical changes in DNA. The radical nature of the change is necessary because there are many different combinations that make the same amino acids. Also, there are some amino acids that, when substituted, do not alter the folding of the protein substantially. Therefore allowing for the approximate function of the protein. Is this true?
** Macroevolution looks at populations through a process of selection by nature and it's environment. Speciation can be driven not just by changes in genes (which is the molecular necessity) but can also be driven by change in a species' environment. Again, I think you are confusing the evidence for microevolution (molecular and within a species) with evidence for macroevolution (interactions between populations and between organisms and environment - AKA natural selection). Also, just because the changes in molecular composition are radical in nature doesn't mean that they can't take place naturally through selection. Keep in mind, you're comparing two populations that have evolved independently of each other that have arisen from a common ancestor. So any changes in molecular evidence are based on the evolution of not just one species, but of two or more, which sort of feeds your interpretation that changes in molecular evidence need to be "radical." Also don't underestimate the power of changing a single letter in the genetic code. The only difference between someone with sickle-cell anemia and someone who doesn't have sickle-cell anemia is a single base pair mutation in DNA that changes a single amino acid. It is also possible to have a change in phenotype with the same genetic sequence by simply changing when the gene is activated during development (epigenetics). The whole idea that the DNA sequence is the only source of phenotypic change is a fallacious notion driven by people who have an elementary understanding of genetics.
3. One of the things that I believe is that everyone has their own personal biases and we defend them at all cost. I realize that this a vast generalization. Do you agree that this personal bias effects most research?
** It's not a bias if it's rationally supported with evidence and you have a comprehensive understanding of their argument. To dismiss what has been observed and proven demonstrates greater bias than accepting what has been proven without microscopic scrutiny. If you look at "most research" as you call it, there is a consensus to look at nature in a way that verifiably makes sense rather than a way that makes sense for the sake of making sense of complex systems. People who stoop to ID or Creationism as a viable alternative to explaining natural phenomena are generally identified as academically lazy and only a handful of professional scientist will stake their reputation with the scientific community to base their research on these ideas.
4. When looking at only biology, evolution makes sense. When looking at the big pictures (chemistry, physics, astronomy, and other science disciplines) that the evidence points toward a creator (whomever that may be)?
** So you're telling me that the basis of all non-life oriented sciences are the result of creation? This is why religion and science cannot coexist if you take the literal interpretation of scripture as scientific proof. What you are advocating is that calculus is also a creationist idea, and if so then show me the evidence (heck, show me the scripture that tells me how to build a rocket to the fly to the moon). Physics is not a creationist science, it's observations are meant to explain what we observe and how things happen. If you took a creationist approach to physics, astronomy, or even chemistry, then you're erasing hundreds of years of calculus just to say that "God's behind all of this." So did a creator design the derivative or the integral? No, I'm pretty sure some mathematician developed that idea based on sound observations and quantitative evidence.
5. Were the pictures of the embryos of different species (Haeckel's, sp?) correct as drawn or were they faked?
** Haeckel's observations aren't fake. They are genuine, however, the explanation he chose to propose is what doesn't make sense. Granted, some of his drawings may have been drawn to fit his theory (suspicion of oversimplified drawings), his ideas were what are questioned. Specifically, the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is what we have dismissed. What this phrase means is that the biological development of an organism parallels the evolutionary development of the species, which is why he was interested in drawings of embryos. We have proven these ideas to be obsolete since we have disproven them using alternative methods (DNA).
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
A*** B******
My name is A*** B******. I am trying to determine where I stand on the issue of macro-evolution. I have a few questions for you. I am not trying to persuade you. I am genuinely looking for answers.
1. I realize that there is lots of evidence for micro-evolution. One of the things that I have come to see is that has been told to me by numerous Professor's is that macro-evolution is a very weakly supported theory. What are your thoughts on this?
** I think when you are told that macroevolution is weakly supported, you aren't quite clear about the definition of macro vs. microevolution. Also, I'd like to know what professor told you that and what they are professors of (theology?, sociology?, nonsense?). Microevolution looks at the allele frequencies within a species and essentially any of the molecular evidence we have on individual species, which is plentiful. Macroevolution looks beyond an individual species and looks at how the relationships between organisms either contribute or hinder the survival of others. First off, the evidence for microevolution requires specific conditions to be kept at equilibrium, any shift in equilibrium points to a process of selection which supports macroevolution. So the evidence you look at supporting microevolution can be used to also support macroevolution. Now I don't know what more evidence you need to see that macroevolution takes place other than looking at how populations of organisms interact with each other. What more do you need to understand that the relationships between organisms is just as likely to drive the evolution of their neighbors. I'd recommend reading about botany. The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan comes to mind as an excellent example of coevolution through macroevolutionary relationships. Also keep in mind that looking at the evidence for microevolution also supports the macroevolution argument since allele frequencies can change based on the environmental relationships a species encounters. These are not mutually exclusive ideas; they are interrelated.
2. The way I understand macro evolution is that there is speciation that has occurred. For speciation to occur there need to be lots of radical changes in DNA. The radical nature of the change is necessary because there are many different combinations that make the same amino acids. Also, there are some amino acids that, when substituted, do not alter the folding of the protein substantially. Therefore allowing for the approximate function of the protein. Is this true?
** Macroevolution looks at populations through a process of selection by nature and it's environment. Speciation can be driven not just by changes in genes (which is the molecular necessity) but can also be driven by change in a species' environment. Again, I think you are confusing the evidence for microevolution (molecular and within a species) with evidence for macroevolution (interactions between populations and between organisms and environment - AKA natural selection). Also, just because the changes in molecular composition are radical in nature doesn't mean that they can't take place naturally through selection. Keep in mind, you're comparing two populations that have evolved independently of each other that have arisen from a common ancestor. So any changes in molecular evidence are based on the evolution of not just one species, but of two or more, which sort of feeds your interpretation that changes in molecular evidence need to be "radical." Also don't underestimate the power of changing a single letter in the genetic code. The only difference between someone with sickle-cell anemia and someone who doesn't have sickle-cell anemia is a single base pair mutation in DNA that changes a single amino acid. It is also possible to have a change in phenotype with the same genetic sequence by simply changing when the gene is activated during development (epigenetics). The whole idea that the DNA sequence is the only source of phenotypic change is a fallacious notion driven by people who have an elementary understanding of genetics.
3. One of the things that I believe is that everyone has their own personal biases and we defend them at all cost. I realize that this a vast generalization. Do you agree that this personal bias effects most research?
** It's not a bias if it's rationally supported with evidence and you have a comprehensive understanding of their argument. To dismiss what has been observed and proven demonstrates greater bias than accepting what has been proven without microscopic scrutiny. If you look at "most research" as you call it, there is a consensus to look at nature in a way that verifiably makes sense rather than a way that makes sense for the sake of making sense of complex systems. People who stoop to ID or Creationism as a viable alternative to explaining natural phenomena are generally identified as academically lazy and only a handful of professional scientist will stake their reputation with the scientific community to base their research on these ideas.
4. When looking at only biology, evolution makes sense. When looking at the big pictures (chemistry, physics, astronomy, and other science disciplines) that the evidence points toward a creator (whomever that may be)?
** So you're telling me that the basis of all non-life oriented sciences are the result of creation? This is why religion and science cannot coexist if you take the literal interpretation of scripture as scientific proof. What you are advocating is that calculus is also a creationist idea, and if so then show me the evidence (heck, show me the scripture that tells me how to build a rocket to the fly to the moon). Physics is not a creationist science, it's observations are meant to explain what we observe and how things happen. If you took a creationist approach to physics, astronomy, or even chemistry, then you're erasing hundreds of years of calculus just to say that "God's behind all of this." So did a creator design the derivative or the integral? No, I'm pretty sure some mathematician developed that idea based on sound observations and quantitative evidence.
5. Were the pictures of the embryos of different species (Haeckel's, sp?) correct as drawn or were they faked?
** Haeckel's observations aren't fake. They are genuine, however, the explanation he chose to propose is what doesn't make sense. Granted, some of his drawings may have been drawn to fit his theory (suspicion of oversimplified drawings), his ideas were what are questioned. Specifically, the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is what we have dismissed. What this phrase means is that the biological development of an organism parallels the evolutionary development of the species, which is why he was interested in drawings of embryos. We have proven these ideas to be obsolete since we have disproven them using alternative methods (DNA).
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
A*** B******
Thursday, July 9, 2009
UFT: New Teacher Summer Series
Mark your calendars
The New York Botanical Gardens: Meet the Education Directors
In this session you will meet the directors of education for each of the botanical gardens, learn what resources the botanical gardens have to offer as well as how to integrate garden curriculum into your classroom experience.
- Tuesday, July 21
Queens Botanical Garden
4 - 6 p.m.
- Wednesday, July 29
Brooklyn Botanical Garden
4 - 6 p.m. - Thursday, July 30
Staten Island Botanical Garden - Chinese Scholar Gardens
3:30 - 5 p.m. - Thursday, September 2
New York Botanical Garden, Bronx
4 - 6 p.m.
Ways to Save
UFT headquarters, 52 Broadway
Tuesday, August 25
10 a.m. - 1 p.m.
- Learn how you can save on supplies for your classroom, travel, phone, computers and much more
- Where to find free supplies and materials
- Union and DOE sponsored discount programs
Lunch will be provided.
Grant writing for Classroom Resources
UFT Headquarters, 52 Broadway
Tuesday, September 1
1 - 4 p.m.
This session will focus on how to find and write grants for classroom resources. This is a working session, you may bring your laptop or one will be provided for use during the workshop.
Getting Off On the Right Foot: Planning to Succeed as a Classroom Manager
UFT headquarters, 52 Broadway
Wednesday, September 2
10 a.m. - 1 p.m.
Learn strategies for setting up, maintaining and adjusting your classroom to the classroom management needs of your students. We will address hard to handle situations as well as the standard set-up issues. Lunch will be provided.
Welcome Conference: Beginning the Journey
UFT headquarters, 52 Broadway, 2nd Floor
Sunday, September 13
9 a.m. - 1 p.m.
We invite you to join the Especially for New Teacher Network. This welcome event launches our year-long network where we examine research-based essential elements of instructional and classroom management.
Fee: Free admission to all events.
RSVP: Space is limited! Registration
Refreshments will be available at all events. You may bring a guest but you MUST RSVP
Jeannette Downes
UFT New Teacher Advisory Committee Leader
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
CNN vs. BBC Websites
This is a no-brainer. CNN is far more inferior to the BBC. For the purposes of academic interests, the BBC reigns supreme. For the purposes of politics, sports, and amusement, CNN may pull a slight lead.
In terms of locating teaching resources, I found both networks to be sort of hit or miss in different ways. CNN has occasional websites that are interesting and interactive in terms of illustrating statistics and such, however, they are not tools that are useful for a science class.
When I started as a fellow, I used to read CNN's dedicated section on education and science, but within a matter of months, those sections have all but vanished (or replaced with racial inequity sections - "Black in America 2" or by focusing on political implications/consequences of science). The BBC have held true to their well-rounded reporting and have kept all subject areas covered in their reporting.
The BBC, however, has these wonderful teaching resources for all subjects. Such as these regularly posted audio slide shows about various topics. The only inconvenience is that the new slide shows can be on any topic and may not be useful to you when they are released.
One slide show in particular that I used in class was about the Art of Camouflage. I had used this audio slide show to demonstrate to my students that nature's ability to select for sneaky creatures is a part of this evolutionary process of natural selection. Aside from the remarks about the commentator's funny accent, the lesson worked out really well.
In terms of locating teaching resources, I found both networks to be sort of hit or miss in different ways. CNN has occasional websites that are interesting and interactive in terms of illustrating statistics and such, however, they are not tools that are useful for a science class.
When I started as a fellow, I used to read CNN's dedicated section on education and science, but within a matter of months, those sections have all but vanished (or replaced with racial inequity sections - "Black in America 2" or by focusing on political implications/consequences of science). The BBC have held true to their well-rounded reporting and have kept all subject areas covered in their reporting.
The BBC, however, has these wonderful teaching resources for all subjects. Such as these regularly posted audio slide shows about various topics. The only inconvenience is that the new slide shows can be on any topic and may not be useful to you when they are released.
One slide show in particular that I used in class was about the Art of Camouflage. I had used this audio slide show to demonstrate to my students that nature's ability to select for sneaky creatures is a part of this evolutionary process of natural selection. Aside from the remarks about the commentator's funny accent, the lesson worked out really well.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Scopes Revisited... Again...
Some article pulled from an e-mail I received about the NEA and what-not. This link describes the events that took place when scientists visited the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
What is mind boggling to me are the closing sentences of the article:
"More than 750,000 people have visited the museum since it opened. Each day, busloads of children from Christian schools throughout America arrive at the Creation Museum for special guided tours."
Doesn't this prove that religious anecdotes don't belong in science classes? In what way is this museum supporting scientific discovery? How are these conclusions validated through an empirical process? Where's the disclaimer that states that these events have not been scientifically verified?
The responses and reactions of the scientists are understandable. I just can't help but feel totally ashamed of Americans who so viciously defend this ideology without actually comprehending the evidence they so quickly dismiss. They seem to represent a very misinformed portion of the population and it reflects very poorly on us as a nation that used to be the forefront of scientific research... It's places like this "museum" that make America's general public the laughing stock of the international scientific community.
Enjoy this clip, he's really funny...
Here's the first of a series of clips in response to creationism videos posted on YouTube. These are EXPERTS in their respective scientific fields.
What is mind boggling to me are the closing sentences of the article:
"More than 750,000 people have visited the museum since it opened. Each day, busloads of children from Christian schools throughout America arrive at the Creation Museum for special guided tours."
Doesn't this prove that religious anecdotes don't belong in science classes? In what way is this museum supporting scientific discovery? How are these conclusions validated through an empirical process? Where's the disclaimer that states that these events have not been scientifically verified?
The responses and reactions of the scientists are understandable. I just can't help but feel totally ashamed of Americans who so viciously defend this ideology without actually comprehending the evidence they so quickly dismiss. They seem to represent a very misinformed portion of the population and it reflects very poorly on us as a nation that used to be the forefront of scientific research... It's places like this "museum" that make America's general public the laughing stock of the international scientific community.
Enjoy this clip, he's really funny...
Here's the first of a series of clips in response to creationism videos posted on YouTube. These are EXPERTS in their respective scientific fields.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
