Daily Recap: Fri, 2/13

Friday the 13th...yikes.

The final day of Darwin Week brings us two true/false statements:

1. Humans are not evolving.
2. Before he died, Darwin recanted his theory and said that he was wrong.

As usual, I'll discuss these in later posts. Follow the links to see the discussions from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.

Investigating Technologies:
Still working on intervals 2 and 3. We should be ready to finish up interval 4 next week and move on to the last rotation of this suite.

Anatomy and Physiology:
Today was the heart anatomy lab. The primary focus of this lab was the dissection of a sheep heart. It was a lot of fun, and a great warm-up for Valentine's Day tomorrow!

Biology:
We began our evolution unit with an overview of what we'll cover during the next few weeks. We also discussed some of the controversy about the theory of evolution. Students were asked to fill out notecards with the following:
1. What do you KNOW about evolution?
2. What do you THINK about evolution?
3. What QUESTIONS do you have about evolution?

Have a great Valentine's Day tomorrow, and enjoy the three day weekend. We'll see you back in class on Tuesday.

Did Darwin rush it?

Yesterday's true/false statement:
"One of the biggest mistakes Darwin made was that he rushed and published his theory too quickly."

I didn't get the chance to address this last night, so I'll try to hit it quickly this morning.

Darwin began forming his ideas about evolution during his time aboard the HMS Beagle from 1831-1836. However, it was in the years after he got home that he really was able to piece all of the clues together to form his theory. If there was an "aha" moment for him, it probably came in 1838 after he read An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus.

So by the late 1830's, Darwin's basic ideas were set. But instead of rushing to publish them, he actually sat on them for 2 decades. He did this for a couple of reasons. First, he knew the cultural and religious implications of what he was saying. His wife Emma, who was a devout evangelical Christian, openly worried to him that she would not be able to spend eternity with him in heaven because of his work. At one point he told a friend that talking about his theory felt like confessing to murder.

Additionally, though, Darwin wanted to make sure he was right. For over 20 years he continued conducting experiments and gathering data to support his ideas. All the while, he kept a rough draft of his theory on the shelf in his study, instructing his wife to make sure it got published if he were to die.

Darwin first shared his theory with the public in 1858. Even then, he felt rushed into it. That year he got a letter from another biologist named Alfred Wallace. In this letter, Wallace shared a theory of evolution that was almost identical to Darwin's. Suddenly Darwin risked getting scooped on his life's work. So Darwin had his theory presented that year to scientists, and the next year published his seminal work On the Origin of Species (which he still considered to be simply a "rough sketch" of his ideas) to share his theory with the broader public.

So the statement above is obviously false. Darwin waited 20 years to publish his theory, and even then would have probably waited longer had he not been forced to come forward.

Maddow on Darwin Day

Last night, the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC featured a piece about Darwin Day and the creation/evolution controversy that continues to play itself out in the US. As usual, Kansas was featured as a good example of "what not to do". This piece also featured one of my favorite authors, Edward Larson. Enjoy:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Daily Recap: Thursday, 2/12

Happy Darwin Day!
And Happy Birthday Michael!

Today's true/false statement:
"One of Darwin's biggest mistakes was that he published his theory too quickly."

Follow these links to view the question from Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.

Investigating Technologies:
We continued working on intervals 2 and 3. We will move to interval 4 and wrap up this rotation next week.

Anatomy and Physiology:
We read an article from Scientific American dealing with human evolution and why our bodies tend to fall apart as we age. The assignment for this article was to complete a "Say Something" personal-response worksheet.

Biology:
1. We took the summative exam for our genetics units.
2. The latest Bio-Bulletin is now available.
3. We will start our evolution unit tomorrow.

You know it's a big day when...

Who's Kid is That?

Happy Darwin Day!

Quick Evolution?

True or false:

Evolution occurs so slowly that scientists are unable to witness it happening

Before we talk about the answer, lets get a little context for why I would ask this. One of the common misunderstanding about evolution is that it can't be proven because it occurs over very long periods of time and therefor can't be directly witnessed. While it's true that the ENTIRETY of evolution which has led to the present diversity of life on Earth took billions of years to happen, and species in nature often change very slowly, there are also well documented cases of organisms evolving, in the wild, in a relatively short period of time.

My current favorite example of relatively quick evolution can be seen in a certain strain of bacteria that has actually developed the ability to produce enzymes called "nylonases", which are able to break down and essentially feed on the waste products from the production of nylon. Nylon is a man-made fiber that was first produced in 1935, and the bacteria was discovered in a waste pond that where a nylon-producing factory was dumping its waste water.

By studying these bacteria, biologists were able to conclude that the nylonases were completely different than any other enzyme produced by these types of bacteria. Further testing also showed that these enzymes were specific to nylon, meaning they didn't work on any other material or chemical, and therefor probably arose after nylon began being mass produced.

By studying the genome of these bacteria, scientists eventually were able to pinpoint the exact spot on the organisms' DNA where the mutation occurred that caused the bacteria to stop producing a normal enzyme and begin producing the nylonase. In most instances, a mutation affecting a major digestive enzyme would be extremely harmful for an organism. In this case, however, it allowed these bacteria to flourish in a nylon-rich environment.

This is a perfect example of evolution in nature. Random DNA mutations cause some organisms to develop traits that make them better adapted to their environment. These organisms are more likely to reproduce and pass on the genes containing those beneficial mutations. Over time (in some cases long period of time, but in this case only a few decades) the population of organisms becomes significantly different than its biological ancestors.

Daily Recap: Wednesday, 2/11

Early release day.

Tomorrow is Darwin Day. Today's true/false statement:

"Evolution happens so slowly that scientists are unable to actually witness it."

This will be discussed in a later post. Follow the links to view the posts from Monday or Tuesday.

Investigating Technologies:
We are continuing with intervals 2 and 3. In order to stay on schedule, we will need to wrap up this harbor rotation next week.

Anatomy and Physiology:
We briefly discussed the two systems of circulation in the body. The pulmonary system takes blood from the right side of the heart to the lungs. The systemic system pumps blood from the left side of the heart out to the organs and tissues of the body.

Biology:
We spent our (short) class periods today finishing up and approving our action plans. These will need to be finished by next Friday if you want to retake the genetics exam. Don't forget that tomorrow we will be taking the genetics summative assessment.

Headbang Hero

For the gamer who has everything?

Evolution of Homer

As part of Darwin week, I am looking for evolution clips in popular media. I begin with The Simpsons:

Is Evolution Legal?

Today's question asked if the following statement is true or false: "In Kansas, it is illegal to teach evolution without also teaching creationism", and students were pretty evenly divided on how they felt about it.

The statement, for the record, is completely false for reasons that I'll go into in a moment. But let me begin by saying I was surprised by the number of students who thought it was illegal to teach evolution PERIOD.

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools to be unconstitutional as a violation of the establishment (what is commonly, but perhaps incorrectly referred to as the "separation of church and state").

In response to this ruling, states begin issuing "equal time" laws which stipulated that evolution would be taught, but equal instructional time must be given to teaching creationism. In 1982, these laws were declared unconstitutional by a federal court's ruling in McLean v. Arkansas. In 1987, the Supreme Court issued a similar ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard. With this ruling, the court not only declared it unconstitutional to require "Creation Science" to be taught alongside evolution, but also declared that teaching "creation science" undermined the provisions of a comprehensive science education.

In response to the Edwards decision, creationist groups began removing all references to God or the Bible from their materials. This movement culminated in "Intelligent Design", which was declared unconstitutional by a federal court judge in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling.

I guess the take home message from all of this is that:
1. It is unconstitutional to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public school science classes.
2. It is unconstitutional to require the teaching of creationism (in any form) in public school science classes.
3. This is true in Kansas, along with the rest of the United States.

It is important to keep in mind that these court cases are not made in judgement of any particular religious belief. They do not, or cannot, speak to the validity or truth on any one particular belief system over another. All they do is define, legally, what the bounds of science are, and therefor what can and can't be taught about the origins and diversity of life (including humans) in public school science classes.

Daily Recap: Tuesday, 2/10

Darwin Week question of the day:
Tell whether the following statement is true or false: "In Kansas, it is illegal to teach evolution without also teaching about creationism."

Yesterday's question is discussed here.

Investigating Technologies:
Continuing with intervals 2 and 3. The rocketry group finally got a break in the weather during first period that allowed them to launch their rockets from the first rotation.

Anatomy and Physiology:
We took notes over the structure of the heart. This should set us up to do the sheep's heart dissection on Friday.

Biology:
1. On Thursday we will take the district's summative assessment over genetics. Since this will cover both applied genetics AND molecular genetics, we spent most of the class period reviewing material over DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis.
2. Tomorrow I will be approving action plans for the genetics test retake. Please have those ready when you come to class.

Science and Religion

I just read a great article about science (specifically evolution) and its relation to religious faith.

One of the things that mars our culture is the fracture between faith and science. It impoverishes our inquiry into the realities that make up our life and world. This is a false opposition.
[...]
It is a mistake to treat the theology of creation in the Book of Genesis as a scientific textbook. It does unfold a profound and valid truth about the world in which we live, its order and purpose. The Book of Genesis speaks about the relationship between God and creation and especially about the place of humanity in that relationship. That wonderful narrative of creation offers us a first vision of an “ecology of holiness” in which every material and living thing has a place and its creativity is consecrated in goodness by God. The account of creation in Genesis is pointing us beyond the question “how?” to the question “why?”
[...]
The anniversary of Darwin's birth is an invitation to renew the conversation between science and faith. Christianity can contribute to the progress of science, not only by encouraging scientists in the search for truth, but by inviting them to consider these wider questions that go to the heart of our common and necessary search for understanding.
[...]
This alerts us to the question that lies within all our other questions: the choice that humans alone have to make between good and evil. It is a question planted at the heart of Genesis's account of creation. It is as much a question for the scientist as for the believer. It, too, is about our freedom. Darwin's theory does not take away the reality of that freedom and the moral responsibility it gives us.

True knowledge comes not from scientific or religious dogma. True knowledge is found in the continual search for truth...both physical and spiritual.

Man and Monkeys

Common responses to evolution questions:

Teacher: What do you know about evolution?
Student: It says that man came from chimps/monkeys.
Teacher: So what questions do you have?
Student: If man came from chimps/monkeys, then why are there still chimps/monkeys alive today?

One of the biggest obstacles to teaching the theory of evolution in biology class is getting students over the false preconceptions of what the theory really says. In order to kick off our "Darwin Day" activities, I had each of my classes reflect on these statements, and describe whether they thought the following statement was true or false: "The theory of evolution states that man evolved from monkies/chimps."

This statement is false. Evolution (descent, with modifications, from common ancestors) gives us a picture of the history of life on earth that looks much like a family tree. If we use this analogy, then humans occupy a distinct branch of that tree. Chimps, being our closest living "relatives" would occupy a second branch that is near but distinct from ours. If we go back down that family tree a ways (back in time) there is a "common" ancestor that both chimps and humans evolved from. If we continue traveling backwards, we would come to an earlier ancestor that all primates evolved from. In this way, as we travel backwards, we would continually come to points where we share a common ancestor with all mammals, all vertebrates, all animals, all multicellular lifeforms, and eventually we would reach the trunk of the tree that represents the common ancestor to all life.

To use the vocabulary of this analogy, then, chimps would represent our "cousins" rather than our "grandparents". But, in reality, all organisms would represent differing degrees of cousins. The ancestral species--the true "grandparent" on our family tree--would be represented by a species that shares similarities with both chimps and humans, but is probably distinct from anything living on Earth today. So humans DID NOT "come" from chimps/monkeys. Humans and other primate species DID evolve from a common ancestor. But the same can be said for any two organisms or any variety, human, chimp, monkey, or otherwise.

He's a Freshman

For those of you who haven't seen it yet. This is our freshman basketball team getting schooled:

Plan of Action ideas

For those of you who are writing a "plan of action" in order to retake the biology test, keep the following in mind:

1. Use the information from your test analysis worksheet to identify those areas where your test performance was week. This way, you can specifically address those weaknesses. There's no need to waste your time studying what you already know.
2. You will need to have some way of documenting your work. If you are re-reading textbook sections, you will need to be able to turn in something that "proves" you did that. If you don't hold yourself accountable to actually producing something tangible, then you aren't likely to follow through with actually doing it.
3. Try something different. Sure, it's always helpful to review notes and textbook passages, but don't be afraid to be creative when writing your "plan of action". Your brain tends to get bored from looking at the same stuff over and over again. By exposing it the same information in a new way, you'll increase the likelihood of remembering the information.
4. Set a goal for the retake test and subtract your score on the original test. This will tell you how many points you need to improve. For instance, if you scored 65% on the first test but want to get an 80% of the retest, then you need to improve your score by (80-65) 15 points. Since each question is worth 2 points, then you will need to answer 8 more questions correctly on the retest. Look at your test analysis graph to help you identify what topic(s) would most efficiently help you get those points.
5. Try one or more of the following as part of your plan of action:
-Research 5-10 websites that deal with the topic(s) you are reviewing. Summarize the content of each and how it relates to what you are studying.
-There are many other types of biology textbooks in the classroom. Read and summarize the section(s) from one or more of these that deal with your topic(s).
-Get copies of the reading guides for the section(s) from your teacher and complete them
-Re-do the chapter assessment or section assessment questions. Try to complete them
without looking at the original assignment. Don't just try to rush to get them done...use
them as a thoughtful review.
-Write your own sample test questions and then answer them. This would be especially
helpful to practice working genetics problems.
-Use one of the alternative textbook resources available in the classroom. The study guides,
reading guides, and assessments from other textbooks can be great reviews.

Try to remember here that that idea is not to "get it done", but to "get it right". Take this opportunity to use your test score to help yourself learn.

Daily Recap: Monday, 2/9

Countdown: 3 days until Darwin Day! Today's question is whether the following statement is true or false: "The theory of evolution states that man evolved from monkies." This will be answered in a later post.

Investigating technologies:
All groups should be working on finishing the team briefs and task lists for interval 2, and then beginning the project work involved with interval 3.

Anatomy and Physiology:
We shuffled the weekly schedule a little bit to accommodate for early release day on Wednesday. Basically everything is pushed back one day. We decided to use today as a work day to get on top of some of the assignments for chapters 14 and 15. The heart lab that was scheduled for Wednesday will now be on Friday. The lab will ask you to participate in the dissection of a sheep's heart, so you might not want to miss Friday.

Biology:
Tests from last Friday were returned. You will have the opportunity to retake these exams if you do the following:

1. Complete the test analysis worksheet and graph
2. Use the information from the analysis graph to identify weaknesses in your performance on the test. Then write a "plan of action" that you can use to help address those weaknesses in getting ready for the retest. This plan of action will need to be approved during class on Wednesday.
3. To prepare the the retest, you will need to complete the activities listed on your plan of action.
4. Turn in your plan of action and completed tasks on February 20th to be allowed to retake the exam.