Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2012 - 03:35pm PT
|
The OP has probably long since fled this thread, but... just in case he's still reading...
How long do you have for your segment on Evolution? Is it a full semester, or just part of one?
Most of my thoughts on how to teach Evolution revolve around that question.
But one other thought... look into The Selfish Gene. I read it in HS and it was a perfect level for me, and a huge eye-opener.
Cheers,
GO
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2012 - 03:57pm PT
|
The best way to teach evolution is the same as the best way to teach all science...by showing the evidence. Unfortunately, there's so much ground to cover in the curriculum and sometimes the beginner's background makes the evidence difficult to explain, so we end up teaching it a bit like articles of faith as well.
I don't mention religion when I teach evolution. My opinions on religion have no place in my classroom. If someone else brings it up, I just say that they need to learn the evidence and principles and be able to explain them and relate them to other concepts on exams, and however they choose to jive it with their religion is their own deal and falls outside of what we're working on in this class.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2012 - 04:34pm PT
|
I have been thinking about evolution in a variety of non-biological situations and thinking about the processes that lead to change. For instance with the evolution of automobiles, a large number of processes interact to shape changes. There is the steady evolution in technology, but there are also changes in fashion which seem to have a big effect in survival/marketability of different types of autos. Clearly, though, automobiles have evolved and changed drastically from their earliest ancestors. Each step in that evolution was an experiment on which later steps were built.
Evolution is the idea that things often change gradually and that small changes over time can add up to very large differences. We are surrounded by examples of this every day. In education, we learn a little bit at a time and our understandings gradually evolve. In climbing, our abilities gradually change with experience, each change building on previous changes.
The exact mechanisms of change are different from one situation to another, but I suspect the underlying principles are much the same.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2012 - 04:44pm PT
|
In the automobile evolution there is/was a creator ..... :-)
|
|
Bryan71
Trad climber
Sacramento
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 12:15am PT
|
I have taught evolution for years and I always begin by presenting Darwin as person and what he experienced. However, with that said, I almost always do a short unit on basic genetics BEFORE teaching evolution and how sexual reproduction creates random differences in DNA. Also genetics shows the mechanism in which traits are inherited. This basic knowledge of genetics makes teaching evolution so much easier.
On the actual teaching of evolution I use passages from both the Voyage of the Beagle and The Origin of Species. I show Darwin as a rational thinking person who made conclusions based on evidence. I then proceed to present a small mountain of evidence that supports evolution. I make sure to tie it back to genetics for extra emphasis on an actual physical mechanism as to why evolution works.
Hope that helps
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 12:28am PT
|
Theory is not a conclusion .....
|
|
skywalker
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 16, 2012 - 12:28am PT
|
Hey all,
Thanks for the posts, I am starting with some hemoglobin analysis and followed by hominid skull examination. Teachers should know this. I'm just concerned with Eve and Adam. And many students are well...in religious activities.
Ed great thoughts, Melissa too, Jaybro, to name a few. Just concerned with approach with human records and well... I'll leave it at that. Going to bed.
Get some some sleep and kill this thread if it becomes too "duke it out"
Thanks
S...
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 01:22am PT
|
Bryan71-
Glad to hear that someone else involves Darwin as a person in the discussion
and how he came to his conclusions. I'm teaching human evolution so I start
with primates, then the fossils, then the genetics since my students find that the
most technical part. We end with our changing understanding of "race" and what
it isn't, and the last night we watch Spencer Wells' Journey of Man, and discuss
the ongoing human genographic project.
I'd be interested in what all you cover in genetics when you do it first.
Maybe discuss this offline?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 01:46am PT
|
physical - non-physical
physical - non-physical
etc.
Contradiction...
The dance of opposites - one of the most obvious facets of existence. Take a gander at Jung. Or as Haley said, try doing math without a 0. The night doesn't, after all, contradict the day, nor does aggression contradict compassion, nor does the All contradict the many, or the one, or (fill in the blank).
Paradox does not exist but in language and in our heads.
JL
|
|
Melissa
Gym climber
berkeley, ca
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 01:56am PT
|
I'd be interested in what all you cover in genetics when you do it first.
Maybe discuss this offline?
I start with the story of Mendel, the pea-tending monk, as a parable of sorts for how anyone who is really observant, logical, and thoughtful about their world IS a scientist when I teach General Ed bio.
FWIW, we have a sociology prof. who is doing the Nat. Geo. ancestry mitochondrial/Y-chromosomal DNA sequencing project at our school. He got a grant to help cover the cost of teh sequencing. (I think it's like $100 full price, and our students pay $25.) It's a a really cool multi-disciplinary way to take on learning about genes, inheritence, and race (and to some degree, how recently our ancestors were wading around in the genetic pools of races other than those that we may consider to be "ours".)
I overheard an African American woman explaining to one of her friends what she was doing in her class. It was cool to hear her brimming with pride as she explained the connection to the origin of humanity in Africa and that the mtDNA was traced along a maternal lineage to her friend. The prof that started this project actually got Spencer Wells to come and talk to the participating students pro bono. So cool for financially struggling public ed.
(I may destruct the latter part of this comment to get it off the Google record just b/c I'm sure he (SW) has limited availability to do this sort of thing.)
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 02:34am PT
|
Werner says, In the automobile evolution there is/was a creator ..... :-) Which makes it particularly interesting. Even with creators, there is evolution. Creators keep creating changes on top of older creations, and for a variety of reasons. A perfect creator might have created the perfect car and been done with it the first time, but no, cars keep changing incrementally in somewhat unpredictable ways. Human creators at least, rely on evolution.
I just read Howard's very early post that evolution is about the fact that everything changes. When things change slowly enough it is easy to believe that they have not changed. So as Howard suggested, it can be nice to start off with observations where change is rapid enough to be easily observable.
|
|
Jonnnyyyzzz
Trad climber
San Diego,CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 05:58am PT
|
evolution/ natural selection is a fact and you can find plenty of examples of it working in fossil records. Natural Selection runs into problems when trying to use it to explain biology that is irreducably complex. ie, where a system of many parts can not develop over time through small mutations, All the parts need to be in place and working together at the same time to be an advantage that natural would select for. If one part is missing the system won't work and natural selection would not pass it along. Also evolution/ natural selection dose not explain the how life got started. Natural selection dose not start to work unless you already have cells that can self replicate and have DNA that can mutate and pass on those genes. DNA, it's vast amounts of coded information and the complex functions of a cell scream design. Just like you would never look at Mt Rushmore and think that wind and rain carved the faces into the rock. The Idea of design dose not have to mean or invoke a GOD nor should it be seen as unscientific if science is the scearch for truth no matter what that truth is. Design in life should be part of the talk in the classroom without people freaking out over the idea that maybe there might be something going on that we don't understand yet.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 06:22am PT
|
Natural Selection runs into problems when trying to use it to explain biology that is irreducably complex. ie, where a system of many parts can not develop over time through small mutations, All the parts need to be in place and working together at the same time to be an advantage that natural would select for. If one part is missing the system won't work and natural selection would not pass it along
Turns out, this has been shown to be wrong again and again. They (evolution doubters) used to say this about the wing, the eye, and various other complex organs or parts. All can be shown to have, indeed, been the products of evolution, pure and simple.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 08:39am PT
|
Melissa, thanks!
I had my haplotype tested years ago by Brian Sykes at Oxford
so I bring in my charts from that and show the class and explain
how genetic testing has been used in my family to discover history
beyond our great grandfathers when they had hard to trace common
last names.
Actually taking the genographic test as part of the class would be the
absolute best! It would be especially interesting in the multi cultural
American military environment.
I guess Mendal's example is interesting too in contrast to Darwin,
in that some people make their discoveries adventuring far from
home but much can be discovered right here by careful observation,
as you say.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 09:11am PT
|
In the automobile evolution there is/was a creator ..... :-)
Yeah Werner, a tool making primate that evolved to be a creator of cars. The old Paley's Watch analogy. It was weak when it was proposed in 1802. The leap between a car maker and a universe-maker is substantial.
Jonnnyyyzzz, +1 what eeyonkee wrote. IR is weak. Better to ask the nearly blind man what good is a partial eye? The apparent complexity of something is not a valid argument for the necessity of a designer of any kind. See Mandelbrot sets, fractals etc.
Hey skywalker, I've often thought that when discussing to fossil record it might be better to discuss more recent fossils. Animals and later forms of humans (from 10s-100s of thousands of years ago and not 10s of millions)look more like modern animals and people and might be something the kids could relate to better.
|
|
splitter
Trad climber
Hodad surfing the galactic plane
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:02am PT
|
education is the best way to free people from poverty
Poverty will always be with us!
A massive drought could throw a whole continent into poverty & despair.
So could war.
You guys are dreaming if you believe in some manmade utopia here on earth.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:24am PT
|
Natural Selection runs into problems when trying to use it to explain biology that is irreducably complex. ie, where a system of many parts can not develop over time through small mutations, All the parts need to be in place and working together at the same time to be an advantage that natural would select for. If one part is missing the system won't work and natural selection would not pass it along
I don't get why people who do not study or even understand the basic ideas of evolution make claims about what it can and cannot explain. That entire statement is bunk and any scientists that has even read just a few books on the subject would know it is flat out wrong.
When teaching evolution, it should be taught just like teaching any other area science. One thing that is interesting about subjects like evolution is that they touch on many areas of science. Biology and chemistry are obvious but geology has a big impact on evolution since both change very slowly over great expanses of time. Even culture and psychology come into play if you think about small things like animal breeding and how they could affect evolution.
Evolution is an interesting subject to me because it fits in with my interest in machines. To me, there is a mechanism to it and to the lifeforms it affects.
Dave
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 10:28am PT
|
Listening to creationists try to discuss science and evolution is like watching as bunch of kids at the Special Olympics build an atomic bomb. It's a complete fiasco but also a tiny bit scary.
|
|
Jonnnyyyzzz
Trad climber
San Diego,CA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 11:19am PT
|
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2012 - 12:14pm PT
|
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Jonnnyyyzzz, The key word in your quote is "if". No such organ has been found. IR "researchers" have found zero to support their hypothesis.
And (drum roll) here's the rest of Darwin's quote that directly follows the quotemined segment you posted, "...But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct. We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind" Charles Darwin The Origin of Species Chapter 6
There are organs that lack a complete explanation for how they evolved, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If we had a better fossil record (more and better preserved specimens), we would likely have a better answer for how various organs evolved.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!