PZ Myers. 2005 May 03. Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/ten_questions_to_ask_your_biology_teacher/>. Accessed 2008 Aug 08.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher
I'm feeling rather peeved about the failures of the media—in particular, this lazy parroting of Discovery Institute press releases. A ridiculous list of "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher", the product of the despicable Dr Wells and his worthless tract, Icons of Evolution, has been going around for years, and has been answered multiple times, yet it still gets published as if it were a serious challenge. I've addressed Wells' mangling of developmental biology, and there is a thorough demolition of Icons of Evolution on talk.origins; Wells scholarship is appallingly poor, and his questions are so misleading and dishonest that they are basically scientific fraud. In particular, the NCSE has done an excellent job of putting together brief, media-friendly answers to Wells' questions, and those answers need to be spread around more widely. So here they are, Responses to Jonathan Wells's Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher:
Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
Q: 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?
A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.
Q: HOMOLOGY. 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?
A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their 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?
A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.
Q: 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?
A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!
Q: 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?
A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.
Q: 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?
A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
Q: 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?
A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.
Q: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like 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?
A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to "justify materialistic claims" is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.
Q: EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
A: What does Wells mean by "Darwin's theory of evolution"? In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory. Wells's "10 Questions" fails to demonstrate a pattern of evolutionary biologists' "misrepresenting the facts."
Teachers, you should be aware that there are solid answers to all of these ginned-up "controversies" that the Discovery Institute is pushing, and none of them require invoking mythical designers or bizarre conspiracies by biologists.
Journalists, could you please take notice of the fact that there is an excellent resource you can turn to when creationists send you press releases? Talk to the National Center for Science Education. They're often ready with the answers, and if they aren't, they can tap into the science community and get them for you.
-
What I find staggering is that any biology teacher would miss a beat answering these "questions".
These are questions for the Elmer Gantrys to foam at the mouth about to their shock troops and to the media poodles. -
Somewhat OT: Roger Ebert reacts to Hart's B.C. strip that promotes Creationism. Matt Mendelson responds to Ebert.
Seattle Liberal explains evolution on dKos here with an interesting thread of comments and reports on a libel suit against Eugenie Scott here.
(via: Ed Cone)Æ -
This is (another) great post.
As a supervisor for science in my district, I would say that life science and biology teachers know the answers to these questions---they just avoid any situation that might bring them up. Most are petrified (figuratively) of having to face questions from parents and students.
However, teaching evolution is not an option.#: Posted by on 05/03 at 08:03 PM -
coturnix, thanks for those links.
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 12:04 AM
-
Slightly O/T, and it probably belongs in the thread below, but it would get lost at the bottom there. I get Biospace every day in my mailbox. When I go to the website to read the headlines, at the bottom of the page is a link to PR Newswire's compilation of health/biotech stories, sorted chronologically. Every weekday there are at least three if not four pages of press release headlines with links to the full release, fifty headlines to the page. Note that that's just the ones kinda/sorta related to health/biotech.
More to the point, that's why the science community needs to cultivate the University PR department. At least then its story gets out to all those readers of PR Newswire.
For those who are curious, I've investigated what the service does for a company I work with. This is from the membership sales pitch:The copy of your news release sent out over PR Newswire is viewed by the media as a valuable source for legitimate and accurate news. We are the primary source for immediate up-to-the minute information for journalists, investors and general consumers globally. Each day PR Newswire issues some 1,000 news releases - via dedicated newslines- to reach more than 22,000 newsrooms worldwide.
I can sympathize with the journalists who get inundated with this stuff; the BS detector has to be on at all times.#: Posted by Linkmeister on 05/04 at 01:32 AM - I think it's important that you provide these refutations of creationist arguments. Of these ten questions, I knew the answer to only two, the one about the Cambrian Explosion and the last one. As other people have said in the comment thread to "Lazy anti-evolution reporting," some scientists need to deal directly with the media to provide it exactly these kinds of refutations, not to mention pro-evolution stories. I know I learned from this post of yours, so I presume if it were published in a newspaper many others would, too.
-
Interesting article from the teachers' points of view in today's Christian Science Monitor.
#: Posted by Republic of Palau on 05/04 at 04:47 AM
-
thx!
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 07:17 AM
-
Sigh. Maybe I'm just restating the obvious...but Wells' comments about materialism hit on a theme. I'm really starting to think that for most of these guys, this has nothing to do directly with evolution or religion. Rather, it's about how we determine and define truth and reality. Do we use facts, analysis, the scientific method? Not just in matters of science but our everyday lives? Or do we rely on faith and certainty, typically drawn from a religion? Isn't that much of the debate we're having right now, in national and global politics?
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 08:01 AM
-
Does anyone have a list of 10 questions to ask ID Creationists? Something like:
1) What is the theory of Intelligent Design?
2) What scientific evidence is there for this theory?
...#: Posted by on 05/04 at 10:17 AM -
Link, PR Newswire is a racket. I've never used anything off it, and I don't know any other reporter who has, either.
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 11:47 AM
-
Harry, I realize that. I'm just pointing out how big the flood of material is. The other thing about it is that it costs $125/year membership plus $650 per press release, and despite the cost, it's very heavily used by all manner of organizations.
#: Posted by Linkmeister on 05/04 at 12:14 PM
-
PR Newswire is generally used by groups without the moxey to figure out what news is, and how to make real news on their own. It gives a bad PR guy something to show the boss to justify keeping the bad PR guy on the payroll. Good PR guys are too busy taking calls to figure out what the PR Newswire is . . .
I think I have noted on this blog before that for quite a while last fall the DI folks were absolutely striking out with their press work. Stuff would show up on the PR Newswire, but nowhere else. QED.
Just my biased view.#: Posted by on 05/04 at 12:24 PM -
I am often saddened as to why people honestly object to evolution. I mean really, on one hand you have years and years of scientific discovery on the other you have talking snakes.
Why is this even a topic in this nation? It is truly confounding. Are we really backward?
also...........
'use facts, analysis, the scientific method? Not just in matters of science but our everyday lives? Or do we rely on faith and certainty, typically drawn from a religion?'
What other options are relaible past facts, analysis,logic, and a scientific method. When religion is such a hodgepodge of ideas no one can agree upon.#: Posted by on 05/04 at 02:13 PM -
Those answers are wonderful. They're clear consise and to the point. But I wonder if in a high school situation a more Socratic technique might not be more effective. For example, a response to the first question might be, "That's a pretty advanced question. I'm afraid the rest of the class might not be a familiar as you are with the Miller-Urey experiments. Could you tell us a little about how they were designed and carried out, what the results were, and how their conditions differed from those of early earth? You can't? That's ok, you can prepare a 10 minute presentation for next Monday and we'll discuss it then." This could discourage students from turning the class into a game of "Stump the Teacher" and might convince them to pay attention if for no other reason so they can learn enough about evolution to dispute it.
#: Posted by on 05/04 at 06:09 PM
-
"That's a pretty advanced question. I'm afraid the rest of the class might not be a familiar as you are with the Miller-Urey experiments. Could you tell us a little about how they were designed and carried out, what the results were, and how their conditions differed from those of early earth? You can't? That's ok, you can prepare a 10 minute presentation for next Monday and we'll discuss it then."
That's not a response to Stump the Teacher but a game of Patronize the Student Instead of Answering his Question. -
Shalom Alon Levy,
As a teacher I would, of course evaluate the student's question based upon what I know about the student. Having said that, however, I tihnk Beth's response is spot on. A student who feels it necessary to ask someone else's question is not really interested in learning.
B'shalom,
Jeff -
The thing is, when one asks questions, you actually have to UNDERSTAND what the hell your asking. That, actually, we would be an appropriate response to a student...sort of asking in a roundabout why if they even know what they're asking about.
#: Posted by on 05/05 at 06:58 PM
-
A student who feels it necessary to ask someone else's question is not really interested in learning.
Don't be so sure. The student may ask such questions because he's interesting in tripping you, but he may also ask them because he wants to know the answers to them.