and furthermore

My friend Joel posted a response to my previous post in his blog. I am pleased to note that we mostly agree. Rock on.

Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher

The Ten questions were written by Jonathan Wells, author of the creationist book Icons of Evolution. These questions have been going around for awhile and many people have responded. So here's my attempt.

• The origins of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

The origin of life may be hotly debated, but it has nothing to do with evolution, or with Darwin's theory of natural selection. Go ahead and argue that one all you want.

• Darwin's tree of life. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

*poking around in bookshelves*
Did I really get rid of my biology textbooks? oh well, they were old editions anyway. So, Wells has bad textbooks or has a reading comprehension problem. The major vertebrate groups as we know them, just as an example, are all post Cambrian. Sorry!

• Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

Easy one. They don't. Similarity of structure can be due to common ancestry or convergence, so there is no assumption that similar structure implies common ancestry. Also, Mr. Wells, you have to update your terms a little. The word you want is synapomorphies. Synapomorphies are shared derived traits, which in cladistic analysis are used to define taxonomic groups. Deciding which traits are to be defined as synapomorphies is part of a detailed and methodical process. The traits must be derived (meaning, different from what would be found in a hypothetical ancestor) and it helps if they are complex and specialized, such as a feather. Taxonomists collect many types of evidence, including morphology and genetic evidence, and conduct a complex analysis that yields a diagram of the most likely phylogenetic relationships.

• Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry - even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

Well, now I know for sure he has crappy textbooks. Maybe the textbooks wouldn't be so crappy if school boards weren't forced to select books with creationist crap in them. Call me crazy. I believe he is referring to Haeckel's drawings of embryos, which were used to teach the idea that "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." His drawings weren't "faked", they were just misinterpreted. Even when I was in high school in a much crappier biology course than you can find even in Kansas, I learned that the ontogeny-recapitulates-phylogeny thing was crap. It wasn't in my high school textbooks twenty years ago. I hope it's not in any textbooks now. All of that being said, I've taken graduate courses in developmental biology, and yes ... the more closely related vertebrates are, the more closely they resemble each other in their early developmental stages.

• The archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds - even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

The idea of the missing link is no longer seriously discussed in evolutionary circles, partly due to the influence of cladistics. To put it in simple terms, the likelihood of finding the fossil of the actual individual that was the common ancestor of different species is infinitesimally small. The "missing link" is now referred to as the "hypothetical ancestor," and we now assume that it is impossible to identify any given fossil as this ancestor. Therefore, you can point to any fossil and claim that it has no living descendants, and no scientist will be able to dispute it. This does not in any way weaken the case for evolution.

As for Archeopteryx, it's a damn beautiful fossil and everyone should look at it and marvel at it.

• Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection - when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

Did you expect scientists to be out with cameras photographing the event as it happened? Of course the photos were posed. And even creationists admit that evolution happens on this scale. I'll alert the ER that Wells will be arriving with a gunshot wound to his foot.

• Darwin's finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

So what you're saying is, environmental pressures caused beaks to change, then when the environmental pressures changed, the beaks changed back, and this is evidence against evolution because ... why exactly? I think Mr. Wells will be needing a wheelchair.

• Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Because the majority of mutations are either neutral or detrimental. next?

• Human origins. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Once again, Mr Wells has either been paging through textbooks from either the 1950s or from the new batch being ordered for Kansas public schools. In fact, I am not even sure what he is asking. There is a very strong fossil record of early humans. The scientists who discover these fossils fight tooth and nail over ancestry, because of academic politics. However, all agree that in the past, many different hominids wandered the earth, who looked similar to us but were clearly a different species. They also agree that we are descended from creatures like this. They may not agree whether we descended from A. afarensis or another line, but that's splitting hairs. Biologically, we are animals. We are not plants, we are not rocks, we are not fungi. We have brains, hearts, lungs, bones, and muscles, like every other vertebrate on the planet. If you want to put humans in a special category of animal, that's up to you, but to deny we are animals is ludicrous.

• Evolution as a fact. Why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact - even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

The theory of evolution isn't all about Darwin, and hasn't been for many decades. Darwin gave us a mountain of evidence in favor of evolution, and in the following century, additional information, especially from genetics, has turned the mountain into a mountain range. Our job as scientists is to look at the evidence and explain it in the simplest, most logical way. Evolution is far and away the best explanation for the evidence we have. Nitpicking at a stone here and there can't take down the mountain.


So there you are. I think it's great if students want to discuss ideas about evolution in class. It is too bad someone could not come up with better questions. These aren't meant to stimulate honest debate. They're written under the assumption that there is a conspiracy by biologists to dupe naive students with fake evidence. They're written so that students can antagonize teachers, not to help them learn. Then again, if teachers are prepared, maybe they can seize the opportunity to teach actual critical thinking.

Creationists strike back ... in the classroom

I ran across this article in the Christian Science Monitor.

Now evolving in biology classes: a testier climate

To sum up: Some biology teachers report that a challenge to evolution is coming ... from their students. This is exactly what I have seen happening for years. Proponents of creationism have been systematically getting smarter, coming up with arguments against evolution, and spreading their teachings in churches, books, videos, CDs, websites, you name it. All this time, evolutionists have either been blissfully unaware of the rising organized resistance, or have discounted its power.

Now, science teachers are reporting that students are coming in to class armed with specific ways to challenge the teacher and the curriculum. They're armed with "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher." And teachers are saying that their job is getting tougher and tougher.

Personally, I think it's great that students are challenging teachers. Although I am a hardcore evolutionist, I have no problem with creationism being discussed in schools. Creationist teachings are being promulgated in churches across the country. The majority of evolutionists I know seem to be opposed to any mention of creationism in school. But if creationism isn't critically discussed in schools -- where will it be discussed? Where will it be seriously challenged? Some of these kids are receiving a steady diet of crap science and bad logic, and they're being told that the secular world is their enemy. But if no one ever points out the problems with creationist teachings to them, then what? Then we have set up an us vs. them scenario, where good Christians learn everythign about evolution in the pulpit, and secular scientists are the enemy.

One of the greatest lessons I learned from the Jesuits at Georgetown was that ideas are nothing to fear. The way to the truth is to question and examine ideas critically. False ideas collapse under scrutiny. I don't find the idea of creationism a threat at all. In fact, if after carefully examining the evidence, someone concludes that the creatures of the earth were created as they are in seven days, more power to them. But I hope they get there after carefully examining the facts ... not Darwin's interpretation of the facts, or a teacher's interpretation, or a pastor's interpretation, or a creation scientist's interpretation. In my view, the facts lead inevitably to the conclusion that evolution happened. Whether you like that idea or not doesn't change its truth.

As for how science should be taught in school, I think it has to be based in evolutionary theory. There is no way around it. Evolution and natural selection provide the underlying logic for our modern understanding of biological processes. Of course, in Kansas, they are trying to redefine what science is, so any number of alternative theories can be taught in school as legitimate science. ReluctantCynic wrote an interesting reflection on this debate in his blog.

Tomorrow: How would you respond to the Ten Questions To Ask Your Biology Teacher? I'm going to give it a shot.

Knitting gallery update

Pictures of the Springtime shawl are posted in my knitting gallery.

Shenandoah

Taken in Shenandoah National Park, Saturday 14 May.

They don't make kevlar like they used to

...Or else, someone lied about my bike tires having a layer of kevlar. Here, see for yourself. Here's my bike. Click on the specifications button and scroll down to "tires." SEE?? I didn't make it up! They promised me Kevlar!

You will have already guessed, I got me a flat this evening during my bike ride. Whoops, I didn't have a spare tube with me. Now I know why my dad always carries several. Luckily, I was just 2 miles from home, so I walked it, while the metal nuts on my bike shoes crunched on the asphalt the whole way. Some people are such jerks, I tell you. Half a dozen bikers blew right by me without even asking if I was ok. One very nice man stopped to see what was wrong and offered me a tube. Since I had only a short walk, I thanked him and declined. Whoever you are, if you're reading this, you rock.

When I first noticed the tire making the dreaded wubwubwub sound, my first thought was, CRAP! someone dropped tacks on the trail! Or else I ran over glass and didn't notice! or maybe it was a titanium razor blade! Because, these tires arent' supposed to pop. Kevlar. see? So, I got off, and had a look to see what the evil culprit was. Want to see? here it is.



Yep. It's an itty bitty rock. It's the size of an apple seed. Apparently I have to start going around guys like these now, becauase my nonkevlar tires can't handle it. So, I will have to see if I still know how to change a tire. Liisa suggested that I try Slime Tire Liners, which promise to guarantee against punctures. I think I'll be doing that.

Breaking news

This just in: Texas is a big state.

Right now I’m working on a project that involves an unnamed government funded entity in the great state of Texas. One of my co-workers just pointed out that they use “Texas is a big state” as a reason for everything. Why do they need federal funding for this program? “Texas is a big state.” Why are these plans so complicated? “Texas is a big state.” Where is the inventory we requested? When will we get this document approved? Why haven’t they made a decision yet about this or that? Well, these things take time, because… you know.

So, consider my error to be your example. Should you, in the future, find yourself dealing with the State of Texas in some capacity, you would do well to always keep in mind that Texas Is A Big State.

Westerberg at the 9:30 Club, 4/29/05, w/Andrew

At first I thought he was the bassist and I just hadn't looked at him before, then I realized someone else was playing bass on the other side of the stage. I turned to John and said, "Is that just some random dude from the audience?" Apparently, it was. Andrew, whoever he is, was having the time of his life singing the last two songs in Paul Westerberg's set Friday night. Oddly enough, the guy behind me had nothing to say about Andrew, which was strange, since he had been screaming insults at Westerberg for the last two hours. Maybe he was hoarse, or maybe he was finally happy that Paul had done I.O.U., which is what the guy had spent the whole night screaming for, sometimes during other songs, when he wasn't screaming "It's 2005, you bastard!" or "That song sucked, you bastard!" He liked that phrase a lot.

I never saw the Replacements back in the day, but now I think I have an idea what the shows must have been like. Westerberg is, shall we say, full of himself. He has perfected the art of simultaneously of lapping up the adoration of his fan, while flipping the proverbial bird to the audience. Several times he played the intro to a song then stopped, saying "Ha, I was just fucking with you." About two thirds into the set, he seemed to abandon whatever set list he might have put together and spent a lot of time just messing around on stage. I went to the restroom during one of the lulls, and when I came back, he hadn't played any actual music. At the end of the show, he just disappeared. I assumed he'd gone off stage, but apparently he was lying down behind his amp, still playing guitar, while the intrepid Andrew got to sing some pretty good songs. He did a better job remembering the lyrics than Westerberg did, actually.

What, you wanted a set list? Here it is, from Google groups.

> Stain Yer Blood/AAA/I'll Be You/Kiss Me On the Bus/If I Had A
> Hammer/Knockin' on Mine/Merry Go Round/Live Forever (Billy Joe
> Shaver)/Someone Take the Wheel/Makin' Me Go/Let the Bad Times
> Roll/Now I
> Wonder(played "on his knees")/As Far As I Know/Born For Me/High
> Time/Valentine/Love Untold/Different Drum/Anyways All Right (1st half
> only)
> segue into Vampires & Failures (beginning only) segue into Mr. Rabbit
> (done
> to V&F's tempo, then uptempo for last half)/Breathe Some New Life
> segue into
> Like A Rolling Stone/Little Mascara/Psycopharmecology/ ? (song i
> can't read
> my writing or remember)/How Can You Like Him/Sadly Beautiful
> (beginning
> only) segue into Lookin' Up In Heaven/What A Day For A Night/ Achin’
> To Be/I
> Wanna Be Your Boyfriend (Ramones)/If Only You Were Lonely (request
> from
> girls at front of stage)/Can't Hardly Wait/several aborted songs
> (Whippin
> Post/Free Bird/ Round & Round/Voodoo Child/etc.)/Folker (with Jingle
> incorporated in middle)/Nevermind/I.O.U. (Paul goes behind amps to
> lay down
> and play, a fan "Andrew" jumps up to sing and is escorted off, Jim
> and Kevin
> ad vox at end of song)/ Alex Chilton and Left of the Dial (with
> "Andrew"
> invited back to sing both and Paul still behind his amp playing on
> his back)
>
> encores:23 Years Ago/Skyway/Borstal Breakout

It was, as the reviewer in the Washington Times said, a train wreck. But it was vintage Westerberg, and I'm glad I finally got to see him.

Oh, and then there was the jumping guy. He showed up in our vicinity about an hour into the show. He may have been there there the whole time. That would be impressive. He was an older guy -- well, older than me. His hair, his face, and his clothes were all graying and slightly worn, as if he'd been crumpled in the of the back of someone's closet with the dirty Doc Martens. For the entire hour and a half he was in front of me, he pogoed. Violently. I did not know anyone could jump up and down so enthusiastically for such a long stretch at a time. He wasn't completely in control of his bounce, either, because he was jumping forward, backward, and to the side, occasionally smacking into someone. I was worried he was going to break my nose with his elbow. I was even more worried that the jumping guy in front of me, the screaming guy was behind me, I was in the middle, and I was much smaller than both of them. Praise the gods, the jumping guy did not jump on the screaming guy, and I made it out of there in one piece.

Adventures in apartment hunting

My current project: You may have seen Paul Rademacher's site where Craig's List real estate listings are hooked up to Google maps. It's a great little application, and I'm using it right now for my apartment hunt. I just wish I could customize it further. What I want to do is superimpose that map on WABA's map of bike paths. I don't care how close I am to the Metro, restaurants, fitness clubs, whatever. I just want to be within a couple of blocks from the main bike paths. One of my favorite local rides is the Arlington Triangle. I've been living right next to the W&OD section of this loop for the last three years. It's perfect for bike rides after work during the summer, and ski runs in the winter. If any of you DC people know of an apartment building somewhere on this trail, I'm all ears.