61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 09:21 am
@farmerman,
Oh, Pennsylvania. I totally agree with you then. Smile
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 09:32 am
@farmerman,
Speaking of teachers reminded me of a conversation in the pub last week.

A chap who repairs domestic appliances in situ remarked that teachers had the most untidy houses.

Being a scientist I naturally enquired as to the size of his sample and in working out his call-out frequencies and how long he had been engaged in this important work, ill-rewarded as it is compared to that of pontificating about a spear fragment in a bone and who got to the US first, we calculated he had made 30,000 visits in a fairly small town over his career.

So on that evidence I would assume teachers are untidy. The repairman offered the explanation that it was because teachers were so busy what with marking homework and classwork and preparing lesson notes. Which I laughed at having been a teacher myself for six years. I think teachers are untidy people in general. I was myself very untidy. I didn't ask if his daughter was a teacher.

I think that there is a psychological explanation. Once people become teachers they come to feel themselves superior personages and those of that ilk naturally find menial domestic tasks beneath their dignity and avoid doing them as much as possible. One has to admit that many menial domestic tasks are a bit undignified. (Know what I mean Squire?)

Anything can be expected of such a bunch of tosspots when acting in a body and complaining about what they do is as daft as complaining about the clouds obscuring a vision of a partial eclipse of the moon.

Of course it might simply be that teachers have untidy minds and evolutionary considerations have driven them into teaching when finding they were unemployable in other businesses.

For Education as a business see Veblen's The Higher Learning in America.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:14 pm
@wandeljw,
I only have a vested interest in Pa's curriculum lately. However PA has one of the more clearly defined science requirements. Other states are waaay behind so I dont know whether the "suspicion of professional scientists " is any more defined in these states.
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:18 pm
@farmerman,
Illinois politicians don't bother with "suspicion of professional scientists" or any manipulation of science education. They are busy with other shady activities. Smile
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:20 pm
@wandeljw,
Best pols that money can buy out there
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:24 am
Is there any chance of the two members who thumbed down my last post offering an explanation of why they did so?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 05:40 am
@spendius,
yeh, why would anyone even give a **** to bother?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 06:18 am
@farmerman,
To bother with what? Thumbing down or offering an explanation? I can't understand why anybody would thumb any post down. It proves it bothered them sufficiently.

I also can't understand why anybody would give a **** to bother wondering why anybody gave a ****.

It is relevant to this thread that the teaching profession is in a parlous state. That it is is often mentioned by high level politicians.

My post offered a possible explanation based on a sociological consideration of an observation made by someone who hadn't performed any surveys with loaded questions on samples as low as 1,000 with no reference to how the 1,000 were selected. Why would my repairman friend notice such a thing if there was no truth in it?

It is well known that results of polls are partly conditioned on the time of day the questions are asked and the locality.

We can all "not give a ****" about any post and there's the end of A2K.

Anonymous thumbing down is cowardly. Anti-democratic. Anti-American and inimical to communication.

One might well thumb a post down and then make a post saying "I thumbed your post down because..." That's fair enough.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2011 06:29 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I can't understand why anybody would thumb any post down. It proves it bothered them sufficiently.


I think you are correct for the most part thumb downs are used when people do not see it your way.

I think we all should find a term used to call people who thumb down post without reviling who they are or at least making a argument against the post!

We also have others that travel in packs and they will thumb up other post that are in their group so I would not let it bother me if I were you!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 08:02 am
There have been a large number of interpretations concerning the allegorical significances of Shakespeare's characters.

In relation to Caliban in The Tempest. That Caliban represents "the people". He represents "Understanding apart from Imagination". He is "primitive man abandoned to himself" and that "Shakespeare was addressing the Utopian thinkers who were predecessors of Jean Jacques Rousseau and telling them that their hero goes on all fours at times". Caliban is the "gross genius of brute matter". A "servant monster". A "plain fish, and no doubt marketable". He "gabbled until Prospero taught him language". He considered "service a form of slavery".

Mr Daniel Wilson offers that Caliban, the offspring of Sycorax the powerful witch obviously representing the Matriarchy in what Jungians would call its "Terrible Mother", aspect represents the missing link between man and brute and is Shakespeare anticipating Darwin.

Caliban is the personification of the "grosser passions and appetites" according to Professor Dowden. He would people the world with Calibans got out of Mirandas if not subjected to strict control.

"It is essentially Ariel, an airy spirit, -- the imaginative genius of poetry but recently delivered (circa 1600) in England from the long slavery to Sycorax--who frees the higher imaginative powers", the Prof says. Our "imaginary friend" Setanta would say time after time.

Shakespeare is "the poet of concrete things and real", Mr Dowden claims.

And who wants a nation of Calibans? Why--that's easy--Media. The producers of the junk. They have on Ignore the consequent re-enslavement to Sycorax. It is keeping quiet about that or even pretending it is a good thing. Which it is for those getting the profits. And obviously for the feminists.

In the short run I mean when as Keynes said we will all be dead. Eat the seedcorn folks. You have already saddled the kids with vast debts and fucked their heads clean off their shoulders. Enslavement to Sycorax will hardly be noticed and certainly never admitted.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 08:14 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I do smell all horse-piss; at which my nose is in great indignation.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 09:56 am
@izzythepush,
Professor Dowden wrote--

Quote:
And when Stephano and Trinculo appear, ridiculously impoverished specimens of humanity, with their shallow misunderstandings and vulgar greeds, this poor earth monster is possessed by a sudden Schwarmerei, a fanaticism for liberty!--

" 'Ban, 'Ban, Ca'-Caliban,
Has a new master: --get a new man.
Freedom, heyday! heyday, freedom! freedom! heyday, freedom!"


Then a little later--

Quote:
The leaders of the revolution, escaped from the stench and foulness of the horse-pond, King Stephano and his prime-minister, Trinculo, like many leaders of the people, bring to an end their great achievement on behalf of liberty by quarrelling over booty--the trumpery which the providence of Prospero has placed in their way.


And that is exactly what will happen when these anti-IDers have demolished religion. That's why they never tell us what we will get out of it.



izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2011 10:51 am
@spendius,
Shakespeare was never very kind to systems other than monarchies, Coriolanus springs to mind, and i Henry VI p2the character of Jack Cade is portayed as a black hearted villain.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2011 01:15 pm
Quote:
SVP Dispatch: Dinosaurs and the Proofs of Evolution
(Brian Switek, Smithsonian.com, November 2, 2011)

What can dinosaurs teach us about evolution? Charles Darwin mostly ignored them during his career, and evolutionary patterns are often easier to study in creatures that left more numerous fossils, such as trilobites and the tiny, armored plankton called foraminiferans. Yet, as paleontologist Jack Horner explained during a lecture at the 71st annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology last night, what we have come to know about dinosaurs can illustrate big-picture evolutionary facts.

Despite the fact that Horner was addressing an audience of scientifically minded peers, his talk was very simple. I wouldn’t be surprised if it became a regular lecture on Horner’s speaking circuit to schools and public venues. There were no technical graphs of data points or tables of measured variables. Instead, Horner began with the nuts and bolts of how to find a dinosaur in the Montana badlands. Many people have the impression that paleontologists just walk out into the badlands and dig holes, but as Horner pointed out, simply digging random holes won’t help you find anything. Dinosaurs are gifts of erosion—we find dinosaurs when they are already coming out of the ground. From there, Horner explained, he typically tasks a cadre of graduate students with the back-breaking parts of the excavation and soon whatever there is of the dinosaur skeleton becomes exposed.

Once those bones are out of the ground and cleaned up, all the fun technical nitpicking can start. Horner used dinosaur color as an example. Although I was disappointed that he didn’t mention our recently gained ability to detect the colors of some dinosaurs from fossil feathers, Horner pointed out that we don’t really know anything for sure about the color patterns of most dinosaurs. Horner also mentioned his own work on some evolutionary patterns among Cretaceous dinosaurs in the Two Medicine Formation, specifically whether the horned dinosaur Rubeosaurus was gradually modified into Pachyrhinosaurus in a straight line of descent through several other transitional types within the geologic formation or whether the different dinosaurs in question represent a branching evolutionary pattern. “We paleontologists love to argue about this,” he said, and pointed out that the assembled group had come to the conference to argue, after all. But, Horner quickly added, we don’t argue about the fact of evolution. We can go back and forth indefinitely about the minutiae of paleobiology and the patterns of evolutionary change, but vertebrate paleontologists agree that evolution is a fact.

So what do dinosaurs have to do with the fact of evolution? Horner outlined five different proofs of evolution: three proofs that Darwin cited, a “test” proof, and what Horner called the ultimate proof. The first on the list was simply descent with modification. Horner cited the many strange breeds of dogs and chickens as an analog for how organisms can become drastically modified over the course of history. Humans specifically selected for those changes in the domesticated animals, but as Darwin illustrated in On the Origin of Species and other works, the changes that dogs, chickens and other animals have undergone underscores the fact that the same thing is happening due to entirely natural causes every second and every day. To greater or lesser extents, lineages of organisms change over time, and the fossil record demonstrates this beautifully.

Next on the list were rudimentary features: structures that once served a particular function but became vestigial organs that don’t carry out that same function anymore. (Keep in mind, though, that “vestigial” does not mean “useless.”) Horner cited the modified wings of flightless birds and the remnants of hind limbs in whales as modern day examples, and identified the small forelimbs of Tyrannosaurus as another. Since the time the tyrant dinosaur was discovered, paleontologists have been asking, “What did it use those arms for?” Horner concluded that Tyrannosaurus probably didn’t do more than scratch its belly after a big meal with them. That point is debatable, but we do know that tyrannosaur forelimbs did become greatly reduced in size during the evolutionary history of their lineage. Horner’s hypothetical “chickenosaurus” even made a cameo here. Tweaks in the genetics and development of chickens can cause the reappearance of long-lost traits, such as teeth, and by carrying out these experiments Horner hopes to understand which genes and developmental quirks were key in the evolution of birds from non-avian dinosaurs.

In a phrasing that sounded appropriately Victorian, Horner then moved on to evolutionary proof from the “geological succession of organic beings.” Simply put, we find fossils in layers, in successions of strata that together span hundreds of millions of years. Fossils are not all together in one big clump (as would be expected if the entire fossil record were attributable to the biblical flood as many young earth creationists claim). You’re not going to find a prehistoric horse in the 150-million-year-old Jurassic limestone quarries of Germany, and you’re certainly not going to find a dinosaur in the 505-million-year-old rock of the Burgess Shale. But Horner said that he encourages creationists who want to believe in alternate histories to go looking for the out-of-place fossils they think they’re going to find. “I encourage people who don’t believe in evolution to look for horses in Jurassic Solenhofen limestone,” Horner said, especially since those searches may be much more useful in turning up new specimens of the feathered dinosaur and archaic bird Archaeopteryx.

Horner covered his last two points very quickly. The “test proof” for evolution, he proposed, comes through testing genetic relationships. We don’t yet have genetic material from Mesozoic dinosaurs, and we may never have it, so paleontologists will have to continue to rely on anatomy as they strive to sort out the dinosaur family tree. But the ultimate proof has nothing to do with the animals themselves. The ultimate proof of evolution, Horner quipped, is “ego.” Scientists are constantly arguing with each out about the patterns and processes of evolution, and scientists love to disprove ideas. Anyone who managed to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution doesn’t happen would be the most famous scientist of all time, yet no one has been able to do this. Despite the best efforts of scientists to disprove ideas and their penchant for arguing over the nature of nature, the evidence for the fact of evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2011 04:10 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Despite the fact that Horner was addressing an audience of scientifically minded peers, his talk was very simple.


That's an assertion wande. I would have used "Because" rather than "Despite" and the evidence for my view is contained in the sentence. The talk was "very simple". The scientist, as somebody once said "always sets himself soluble problems". The cunning and the precision of scientific experiments is to be expected if the outcome is predicted beforehand.

And "a straight line of descent" is a bit iffy to say the least.

Anyway-that's by-the-bye. What do you think of the idea that a religious building is a generator of divine energy which a secularist could define as energy created by the fact of being human?

The use to which the energy is put could be said, bearing in mind all the nasty things that have been done in the name of religion, to fulfil the prime evolutionary principle of the survival of the fittest. The style of the use being a basic cultural determinant.

For example--the cathedral representing in stone the feminine principle and the Islamic dome the masculine.

Hence the religious building is evidence of evolution although they don't lend themselves to easy and simple things like getting well paid for digging holes and exercising a penchant for control freakery over a bunch of gauche students and an audience which has to be addressed in a "very simple" manner.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Nov, 2011 06:12 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
Anyone who managed to show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution doesn’t happen would be the most famous scientist of all time, yet no one has been able to do this.


Piece of piss wande with regard to civilised human beings and those are what populate schools.

Are you trying to introduce into schools the theology of the animal world?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Nov, 2011 07:20 pm
@wandeljw,
Anybody can apend time blowing smoke up ones ass with fog factor and POWERPOINT, Horner has the unique abilit of making the difficult analyses seem obvious and simple.

Hes got a gift of communication, ever since paleontologists became interested in systematics and population trends, theyve been treated with more respect by the geo community.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2011 04:50 am
@farmerman,
That's all a matter of opinion fm. Now you understand sorites you will know that "more respect" means very little.

What do you think of the idea of a religious building being a generator of divine energy as I defined it earlier?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2011 06:18 am
@spendius,
Im sorry but I have to decline any comment on your previous post. I see no relevance.(Im sure we are all aware of your "gifts" but I need to understand your attempts at grounding in the subject)
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Nov, 2011 07:18 am
@farmerman,
I am simply providing a scientific justification for the religious building or artwork and, by extension, the religion which inspires it and is inspired by it.

You have actually declined to admit the existence of "divine energy" or to deny it. That it is created by a delusion is neither here nor there: its existence is the essential thing.

I have offered no view on the utility of the use of such energy.

I've been reading King Solomon's Mines among other things. When Ignosi, the new king, places his foot on the chest of the headless corpse of the previous king he gets into a "chant", "a paean of triumph", Haggard styles it, "so beautiful, and yet so utterly savage, that I despair of being able to give an adequate version of his words." Haggard compares it to a reading of Homer he had heard somewhere when the "sound of the rolling lines seemed to make my blood stand still."

The chant begins--"now our rebellion is swallowed up in victory, and our evil-doing is justified by strength .

The importance of such wisdom is obviously lost on the NCSE and its footsoldiers. It might be on Ignore of course.

The whole chant is in italics.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 04:04:03