(no subject)
Dar Biology professor...
You have utterly failed at convincing me that macroevolution happens. Good job.
The two examples you gave are weak, at best (archaeopteryx and the Peppered Moths). Furthermore, drawing the conclusion that "because these two examples are real, Evolution must be true" (my paraphrase, you took a couple paragraphs to say it in) is remarkably bad logic, and an immediate turn-off for me. Thank you, though, for not adding "and everyone who doesn't believe in it is an unenlightened savage." If you had, I wouldn't be coming to class for the next week or so, until you finished up your section on Evolution.
Yes, I know that the class really isn't aimed at intellectuals of my caliber. However, I really don't think that that excuses some of the things you said today, as outlined below.
First off, the Peppered Moths. The Peppered Moths are an excellent example of natural selection at work. However, as you defined not fifteen minutes before, Evolution is change in a species over time. In the case of the Peppered Moths, no change happened to the species involved. Thus, the Peppered Moths are not an example of Evolution in action, by your own definitions.
Second, Archaeopteryx. While it's long been touted as an example of an intermediate form between raptors (dinosaurs) and birds, there's a fairly serious problem with the claim. Out of eleven samples found, they're all placed within the same Genus, the debate is whether or not they're the same species. If they really were an evolutionary intermediate, don't you think it's a bit odd that we'd find eleven near-complete Archaeopteryx fossils, and none of the similar (but different) creatures that must have existed before or after it? If there is a theory, why did you not take five-ish minutes in class to mention it?
Finally, you mentioned good old Charles Lyell. You spent a bit of time explaining Uniformitarianism, the belief that the only geological processes that have ever acted on the earth are the ones we see today - erosion, localized vulcanism, etcetera. It's a cute idea, and quite reasonable for the 1800s. However, you completely failed to mention that uniformitarianism can not explain a lot of geological features observed today, which could only have been formed by massive events. Case in point - the Columbia River Basalts. There's a plate of rock several hundred feet deep and roughly three hundred miles across right under our feet. It's a single rock, both structurally and chemically. This means that all the magma that made it came from a single source, and in a relatively short period of time (geologically speaking). Needless to say, we have never observed a volcanic event (the flows didn't originate from a single point or mountain) pour out eight and a half thousand cubic miles of lava.
How long, precisely, would it have taken you to mention that Lyell was wrong, that geological events can and do happen very quickly, and that the modern geological dating of the earth's age is based on events such as plate tectonics, which tend to happen at a more constant rate? It would have made your argument a lot stronger.
Ah well. I suppose I shouldn't expect too much from a 100-series class. Let's get through this and into the real interesting stuff as soon as we can. If you happen to look over and see me biting my tongue, it's not because I'm a wacky fundie Christian and I disagree with you, it's because you just stated something as fact that I think really needs a lot more support, or you've said something that I know is false because of science, not religion.
I'm trying my hardest not to dislike you. I know evolution is curriculum, and you have to teach it. Please, though, try to avoid the sweeping generalizations? Please?
Me.
In other news, I think I've developed a habit for very expensive speakers. Meyer sound, our favorite brand at work, makes a set of studio monitors. They're huge (12" by 16" by 16"), heavy (51 lbs each!), and remarkably expensive ($2,000 each, new), but they sound incredible. It's like sitting in a concert, rather than listening to recordings. If/when my current speakers die, I know what I'm getting next. (Preferably used.)
You have utterly failed at convincing me that macroevolution happens. Good job.
The two examples you gave are weak, at best (archaeopteryx and the Peppered Moths). Furthermore, drawing the conclusion that "because these two examples are real, Evolution must be true" (my paraphrase, you took a couple paragraphs to say it in) is remarkably bad logic, and an immediate turn-off for me. Thank you, though, for not adding "and everyone who doesn't believe in it is an unenlightened savage." If you had, I wouldn't be coming to class for the next week or so, until you finished up your section on Evolution.
Yes, I know that the class really isn't aimed at intellectuals of my caliber. However, I really don't think that that excuses some of the things you said today, as outlined below.
First off, the Peppered Moths. The Peppered Moths are an excellent example of natural selection at work. However, as you defined not fifteen minutes before, Evolution is change in a species over time. In the case of the Peppered Moths, no change happened to the species involved. Thus, the Peppered Moths are not an example of Evolution in action, by your own definitions.
Second, Archaeopteryx. While it's long been touted as an example of an intermediate form between raptors (dinosaurs) and birds, there's a fairly serious problem with the claim. Out of eleven samples found, they're all placed within the same Genus, the debate is whether or not they're the same species. If they really were an evolutionary intermediate, don't you think it's a bit odd that we'd find eleven near-complete Archaeopteryx fossils, and none of the similar (but different) creatures that must have existed before or after it? If there is a theory, why did you not take five-ish minutes in class to mention it?
Finally, you mentioned good old Charles Lyell. You spent a bit of time explaining Uniformitarianism, the belief that the only geological processes that have ever acted on the earth are the ones we see today - erosion, localized vulcanism, etcetera. It's a cute idea, and quite reasonable for the 1800s. However, you completely failed to mention that uniformitarianism can not explain a lot of geological features observed today, which could only have been formed by massive events. Case in point - the Columbia River Basalts. There's a plate of rock several hundred feet deep and roughly three hundred miles across right under our feet. It's a single rock, both structurally and chemically. This means that all the magma that made it came from a single source, and in a relatively short period of time (geologically speaking). Needless to say, we have never observed a volcanic event (the flows didn't originate from a single point or mountain) pour out eight and a half thousand cubic miles of lava.
How long, precisely, would it have taken you to mention that Lyell was wrong, that geological events can and do happen very quickly, and that the modern geological dating of the earth's age is based on events such as plate tectonics, which tend to happen at a more constant rate? It would have made your argument a lot stronger.
Ah well. I suppose I shouldn't expect too much from a 100-series class. Let's get through this and into the real interesting stuff as soon as we can. If you happen to look over and see me biting my tongue, it's not because I'm a wacky fundie Christian and I disagree with you, it's because you just stated something as fact that I think really needs a lot more support, or you've said something that I know is false because of science, not religion.
I'm trying my hardest not to dislike you. I know evolution is curriculum, and you have to teach it. Please, though, try to avoid the sweeping generalizations? Please?
Me.
In other news, I think I've developed a habit for very expensive speakers. Meyer sound, our favorite brand at work, makes a set of studio monitors. They're huge (12" by 16" by 16"), heavy (51 lbs each!), and remarkably expensive ($2,000 each, new), but they sound incredible. It's like sitting in a concert, rather than listening to recordings. If/when my current speakers die, I know what I'm getting next. (Preferably used.)