Rigorous Evidence For Evolution
Ian Chua
the earth?
References to peer-reviewed journal papers will be appreciated.
Friar Broccoli
Concerning human evolution and on the theory that seeing is
believing, you can start with this:
STS 5
Mrs. Ples
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.6 million years
Brain Size: 485cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts5.html
STS 71
Species: Australopithecus africanus
Age: 2.5 million years
Brain Size: 428cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sts71.html
KNM ER 1813
Species: Homo habilis
Age: 1.9 million years
Brain Size: 510cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER1813.html
KNM ER 1470
Species: Homo rudolfensis
Age: 1.8 million years
Brain Size: 775cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/er1470.html
KNM ER 3733
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.75 million years
Brain Size: 850 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ER3733.html
KNM WT 15000
"The Turkana Boy"
Species: Homo ergaster
Age: 1.6 million years
Brain Size: 880cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
rotatable skull here:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/qt/wt15kmov.html
Peking Man
Species: Homo erectus
Age: 500-230 thousand years
Brain Size: 1043cc (average of 5 skulls)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/weid2.htm
"Rhodesian Man"
Species: Homo heidelbergensis
Age: 300-125 thousand years
Brain Size: 1300 cc
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/brokenhill.htm
Skhul V
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~90,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/skhul.html
Cro-Magnon 1
Species: Homo sapiens
Age: ~30,000 years
Brain Size: modern (~1350cc)
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html
On the age of the earth, it's even simpler. Just consider that
the andromeda galaxy, the closest one to us in 2 million light
years distant. So our universe, and thus the earth cannot be
younger than 2 million years.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Ernest Major
Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes
>So....what are the real evidence for human evolution and the age of
>the earth?
>References to peer-reviewed journal papers will be appreciated.
>
I'm told that a chap by the name of G. Brent Dalrymple wrote a good book
on "The Age of Earth". This is probably of more use that direct
references to the journals, as it presents the evidence in one place
rather than many. If you still want the journal papers I'm sure that
Dalrymple provides a bibliography.
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Earth-G-Brent-Dalrymple/dp/0804723311
The evidence for human evolution is to be found from comparison of the
morphology, behaviour, parasites and genomes of humans and other apes;
from the voluminous evidence for common descent with modification of
life on earth; and from a fossil record running from Ardipithecus and
Orrorin to Homo heidelbergensis and Homo neanderthalensis, not to
mention fossil specimens of Homo sapiens.
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
<1175167846.9...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ian Chua stated..."
>
>So....what are the real evidence for human evolution and the age of
>the earth?
>References to peer-reviewed journal papers will be appreciated.
>
While there are lots of references to the questions that you ask,
to give a long list would probably not be very helpful to you,
without some guidance from you as to precisely what question
you want answered. That would make the list of references much
more manageable.
For example, when you ask about the age of the earth, do you
want an answer to within a billion years, or do you want to get
down to the level of detail of millions of years? When you ask
about human evolution, are you asking about evolution that
is happening today, or are you interested in the divergence
between the modern human line from the ancestry of other
modern primates?
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Sonofagunzel
> On the age of the earth, it's even simpler. Just consider that
> the andromeda galaxy, the closest one to us in 2 million light
> years distant. So our universe, and thus the earth cannot be
> younger than 2 million years.
But that evidence only proves *Andromeda* and the universe is at least
2 million years old. Nothing in the quoted evidence proves that the
Earth isn't only, say, 6000 years old.
See? Evolutionist liars! This proves that radiometric dating is
unreliable and that God exists!
Ahem.
And now we return to our scheduled program.
CreateThis
You're at Purdue University and you have to come on an internet
newsgroup to ask for "the real evidence"? Do you understand what
universities are for?
CT
Mark VandeWettering
There are these places, they are called "libraries". They contain these
things called "books" and "journals". If you read some of them, this
stuff called "knowledge" might actually rub off on you.
No guarantees though.
Mark
Sasha
> There are these places, they are called "libraries". They contain these
> things called "books" and "journals". If you read some of them, this
> stuff called "knowledge" might actually rub off on you.
If *any* of my profs discovered that a student was gaining the bulk of
their knowledge from newsgroups...I don't even want to think about the
deluge of blood and castrations.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Sasha" <sci...@gmail.com>:
True, but you *can* get valid references to the actual
papers and books.
Unless you're Ray, of course, in which case the identity of
the compiler of the references is far more important than
the referenced papers and books.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
wf3h
Ian Chua wrote:
> So....what are the real evidence for human evolution and the age of
> the earth?
you'd think a guy at purdue would be able to pick up a standard
geology textbook instead of panhandling on this newsgroup...
he wants us to argue him out of some religious fantasy he's too lazy
to investigate for himself.
coaster
*bAhashhess heDd sofxtlyy aGsfnst keyObarD*
Bodega
Surely, at some point in your life, you must have read about all the
old bones that have been dug up. And surely, you must have seen
references to modern dating techniques that show, without a doubt,
that many fossils are millions of years old. And that, if you go back
a ways, there are fossils of creatures that somewhat resemble us but
seem more primitive. And that fossil bones of creatures that seem
identical to our species are rather more recent.
As Dan Quayle said, "It's a terrible thing to lose your mind." Or not
have one.
CreateThis
wrote:
>On 29 Mar 2007 07:58:40 -0700, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by "Sasha" <sci...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Mar 29, 10:21 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There are these places, they are called "libraries". They contain these
>>> things called "books" and "journals". If you read some of them, this
>>> stuff called "knowledge" might actually rub off on you.
>>
>>If *any* of my profs discovered that a student was gaining the bulk of
>>their knowledge from newsgroups...I don't even want to think about the
>>deluge of blood and castrations.
>
>True, but you *can* get valid references to the actual
>papers and books.
>
>Unless you're Ray, of course, in which case the identity of
>the compiler of the references is far more important than
>the referenced papers and books.
And the religious beliefs of the compiler are even more important.
CT
Ian Chua
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:20:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 29 Mar 2007 07:58:40 -0700, the following appeared in
>
> >>On Mar 29, 10:21 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >>> There are these places, they are called "libraries". They contain these
> >>> things called "books" and "journals". If you read some of them, this
> >>> stuff called "knowledge" might actually rub off on you.
>
> >>If *any* of my profs discovered that a student was gaining the bulk of
> >>their knowledge from newsgroups...I don't even want to think about the
> >>deluge of blood and castrations.
>
> >True, but you *can* get valid references to the actual
> >papers and books.
>
> >Unless you're Ray, of course, in which case the identity of
> >the compiler of the references is far more important than
> >the referenced papers and books.
>
> And the religious beliefs of the compiler are even more important.
>
> CT
When you're teaching a class of students, they must be able to learn
from
you irregardless of your religion....unless it is a religious class
and
their own personal relgious beliefs are being challenged.
There is nothing to fear unless you feel evolution is a "religion" to
you.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ian Chua" <ic...@purdue.edu>:
>On Mar 30, 3:52 pm, CreateThis <CreateT...@yippee.con> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:20:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>> >On 29 Mar 2007 07:58:40 -0700, the following appeared in
>> >talk.origins, posted by "Sasha" <scir...@gmail.com>:
>> >>On Mar 29, 10:21 am, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> >>> There are these places, they are called "libraries". They contain these
>> >>> things called "books" and "journals". If you read some of them, this
>> >>> stuff called "knowledge" might actually rub off on you.
>> >>If *any* of my profs discovered that a student was gaining the bulk of
>> >>their knowledge from newsgroups...I don't even want to think about the
>> >>deluge of blood and castrations.
>> >True, but you *can* get valid references to the actual
>> >papers and books.
>>
>> >Unless you're Ray, of course, in which case the identity of
>> >the compiler of the references is far more important than
>> >the referenced papers and books.
>> And the religious beliefs of the compiler are even more important.
>When you're teaching a class of students, they must be able to learn
>from
>you irregardless of your religion....unless it is a religious class
>and
>their own personal relgious beliefs are being challenged.
>There is nothing to fear unless you feel evolution is a "religion" to
>you.
We *really*, *really* need a sarcasm emoticon...
Jim Lovejoy
news:1175291442....@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
Even if their personal religious beliefs won't let them learn?
How do you manage that?
Cory Albrecht
> We *really*, *really* need a sarcasm emoticon...
;-J Wink and a half smile?
MSN has, in it's emoticons, ^o) listed as "sarcastic smile"
ABarlow
> the earth?
Well, for starters, have you happened to glance at this? (age of the
Earth)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
References are included at the bottom of the page. Feel free to browse
them on your own.
A.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Cory Albrecht
<coryalbr...@hotmail.com>:
That's a bit weird. I'd think we'd want *anything* but a
smile for true sarcasm. But I can't seem to find anything on
my keyboard that accurately conveys disgusted disbelief.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:8eut03lcvq1m617e1...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:43:06 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Cory Albrecht
> <coryalbr...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >Bob Casanova wrote, On 2007/03/30 21:41:
> >> We *really*, *really* need a sarcasm emoticon...
> >
> >;-J Wink and a half smile?
> >
> >MSN has, in it's emoticons, ^o) listed as "sarcastic smile"
>
> That's a bit weird. I'd think we'd want *anything* but a
> smile for true sarcasm. But I can't seem to find anything on
> my keyboard that accurately conveys disgusted disbelief.
How about %
It can be interpreted as a stylized, run-together contraction of the
initials dp (with a pronounced list to the starboard). Which might
stand for Doug Piranha. Who, we are told, liked sarcasm.
Unfortunately, the emoticon is ambiguous since it also looks a bit like
a pelvis screwed to a cake stand, but we can agree to ignore that reading.
John Vreeland
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net> opined:
Is a sarcasm punctuation even required? It occurs occasionally, but
having written a lot of dialog I do not recall ever having to describe
a statement as having been delivered "sarcastically" except in extreme
cases where I wanted to display the speakers disgust and lack of
finesse. Then you run into the problem of having long ironic
passages: where do you put the mark? Or cases when you WANT the text
to be misunderstood by some readers.
The only place I see a need is in first person writing, as in IRC,
Usenet, etc, where you do not describe how your comments are
delivered, unless you are strange.
--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org)
CreateThis
wrote:
:^L
CT
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimme...@sbcglobal.net>:
Why did the punchline, "I don't know, doc, *you're* the one
with all the dirty pictures!" instantly leap to mind when I
read this?
"...a pelvis screwed to a cake stand..."; ay caramba...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Vreeland
<vree...@snotmail.com>:
Well, I *was* thinking specifically of Usenet, not general
writing.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by CreateThis
<Creat...@yippee.con>:
That works, too, although the extended tongue may a bit too
much...
Perplexed in Peoria
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:tdl013tf8vqqvhdq7...@4ax.com...
http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/piranha.htm
Warning: Reading Monty Python scripts after reaching a certain age does
weird things to your mind.
Ian Chua
> On Mar 29, 4:30 am, "Ian Chua" <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> > So....what are the real evidence for human evolution and the age of
> > the earth?
>
> Well, for starters, have you happened to glance at this? (age of the
>
> References are included at the bottom of the page. Feel free to browse
> them on your own.
>
> A.
>
> > References to peer-reviewed journal papers will be appreciated.
Thanks - I know the website, but will need to look at the references
as well.
Ian Chua
It depends on your presentation.
In Singapore, Biology textbooks used present Evolution in such a way
that it sounds like a fairy tale.
When you say "Billions of years ago..." kids know that it is time for
a story.
Most kids spend their time their time on things they know are not
real, eg. Harry Potter, so they wouldn't mind studying evolution with
a pinch of salt.
In the exams, the questions generally tests their concept of
mechanisms for evolution - which most Christians have no problems with
tbecause they say that is just micro-evolution.
In any case, students can avoid studying evolution altogether and get
a good grade.
The parents who really care about this would put their children in
christian schools.
If evolution science is indeed a rigorous science, perhaps it will be
mis-represented when taught to kids in school.
Wait till they are more mature, then present the information in a
rigorous manner so that they don't have as many doubts as me.
But right now, there're lots of gaps to need to fill.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> But right now, there're lots of gaps to need to fill.
Would you please name a few of them? Most of the "gaps" that people
report are simply misconceptions on the part of the person making the
claim, not legitimate deficiencies.
KWW
John Wilkins
> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote...
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:29:16 -0500, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by "Perplexed in Peoria"
> > <jimme...@sbcglobal.net>:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote...
> > >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:43:06 -0400, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by Cory Albrecht
> > >> <coryalbr...@hotmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >> >Bob Casanova wrote, On 2007/03/30 21:41:
> > >> >> We *really*, *really* need a sarcasm emoticon...
> > >> >
> > >> >;-J Wink and a half smile?
> > >> >
> > >> >MSN has, in it's emoticons, ^o) listed as "sarcastic smile"
> > >>
> > >> That's a bit weird. I'd think we'd want *anything* but a
> > >> smile for true sarcasm. But I can't seem to find anything on
> > >> my keyboard that accurately conveys disgusted disbelief.
> > >
> > >How about %
> > >
> > >It can be interpreted as a stylized, run-together contraction of the
> > >initials dp (with a pronounced list to the starboard). Which might
> > >stand for Doug Piranha. Who, we are told, liked sarcasm.
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, the emoticon is ambiguous since it also looks a bit like
> > >a pelvis screwed to a cake stand, but we can agree to ignore that reading.
> >
> > Why did the punchline, "I don't know, doc, *you're* the one
> > with all the dirty pictures!" instantly leap to mind when I
> > read this?
> >
> > "...a pelvis screwed to a cake stand..."; ay caramba...
>
> http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/piranha.htm
>
> Warning: Reading Monty Python scripts after reaching a certain age does
> weird things to your mind.
That certain age being 8?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Ian Chua
wrote:
Again, it depends which age group you are targetting.
For young kids in school, when the textbook starts a chapter with,
"Billions of years ago....", they already lose lthe connection wth
science.
Kids in school are not interested in making claims...they just want to
play....and when science textbooks are not properly written, they lose
their interest.
Ilas
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
That's nice. Now, how about you tell us about those gaps you mentioned that
need filling?
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Apr 1, 11:50 pm, Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.niho...@verizon.nut>
> wrote:
>> Ian Chua wrote:
>>> But right now, there're lots of gaps to need to fill.
>> Would you please name a few of them? Most of the "gaps" that people
>> report are simply misconceptions on the part of the person making the
>> claim, not legitimate deficiencies.
>> KWW
>
> Again, it depends which age group you are targetting.
> For young kids in school, when the textbook starts a chapter with,
> "Billions of years ago....", they already lose lthe connection wth
> science.
entirety, and insist that the earth is only a few thousand years old. No
educational system can pander to such people. If their parents believe
such nonsense, it shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of their
child's education.
I notice that you didn't provide me with any examples of "gaps".
KWW
Ian Chua
The example cited is the big gap between the child's zero knowldege of
evolution
and the textbook phrase, "Billions of years ago....". The problem is
like
Algebra introduced Secondary 1 (Grade 7). As students moved onto
Secondary 2,
many of them still can't solve algebraic problems. Our online math
program
now has lessons to bridge primary school math from "models" to
"algebra" not
found at all in textbooks, which teachers like. Learning gaps are not
unqiue to
teaching of evolution but occurs in every subject.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> The example cited is the big gap between the child's zero knowldege
> of evolution and the textbook phrase, "Billions of years ago....".
> The problem is like Algebra introduced Secondary 1 (Grade 7). As
> students moved onto Secondary 2, many of them still can't solve
> algebraic problems. Our online math program now has lessons to
> bridge primary school math from "models" to "algebra" not found at
> all in textbooks, which teachers like. Learning gaps are not unqiue
> to teaching of evolution but occurs in every subject.
But that isn't a learning gap at all. I remember being surprised the day
it dawned on me that there were people that thought the universe had
ever not existed. The consensus that the universe is only 14.7 billion
years old only makes me uncomfortable because my brain has a hard time
understanding why the concept of 20 billion years ago is undefined.
Few people, if any, really comprehend "billions" of anything, but it
isn't a learning gap ... it's just a limit on the way our brains work.
Evolution isn't something you can postpone or avoid and still teach
biology. If you follow my suggestion from earlier posts, and introduce
major clades as they arose in chronological order, the diversification
of life over time will be easy for them to understand and there won't be
a problem. If you delay or postpone it, it simply provides more
opportunities for creationists to prey on their ignorance and deceive
them into believing that the earth is young. Once someone has tricked a
small child into believing that life is a created or designed thing, it
is very difficult for them to grasp the truth. That is why creationism
is still rampant in the US.
KWW
Ian Chua
wrote:
Both creationsim and evolution is rampant in US because US citizens
are conscientious about their children's education. Most other
countries
are still struggling with their economy. The debate about what to
teach
and how to teach evolution is not as strong as in math. Parents in
some
some states like Califiornia have a strong voice that the California
Math
Standards was drafted and implemented in opposition to the NSTM
Standards. But I think overall it is a healthy debate because it
raises
the standard and quality of teaching.
Regarding the timing of teaching evolution in schools, it will always
be
too late because christian families usually teach their children about
God and creation at very young age. Hence, the curriculum planners
must take this into account. However, I think if the lessons are
designed properly, it will fit anybody irregardless of their religious
background. Those who think they already know enough about the
subject should have the flexibility to move at an accelerated pace at
their own time. (That's why online learning becomes a critical
component of school curriculum design).
Your suggestion is refreshing and useful, though it would be helpful
to explore several more approaches. Learning technologies such
as hypermedia and interactive videos can facilitate.
About learning gaps and the way our brains work - the brains work
more effectively when the knowledge gained is experiential
knowledge. For example, I could never image people could
walk along the streets at temperatures of negative 20 deg. Celsius,
but my family and I have experienced this in West Lafayette, IN.
Prior to this we thought things should get frozen at 0 deg Celsius!!
And I learnt that people living in Siberia are experiencing
temperatures
down to negative 50 deg Celsius!! It has not dawn too much on
students
that 0 deg Celsius is just a reference temperature.
But other than the age of the earth or the universe, we need to make
sure there is a proper treatment especially on radiometric dating.
The existing model (equation) used in high school AP Physics is
grossly
inadequate and subject to misinterpretations and both sides.
Ian Chua
Correction to last paragraph:
The existing model (equation) used in high school AP Physics is
grossly inadequate and subject to misinterpretations on both sides.
SeppoP
<snip>
>
>
> Both creationsim and evolution is rampant in US because US citizens
> are conscientious about their children's education. Most other
> countries
> are still struggling with their economy.
Oh, really? You think that the EU, Japan, Australia, S-Korea are struggling with their economy?
I'd say the problem has more to do with the abysmal level of elementary and middle level education in the U.S.
You seem to be a prime example.
Of course, contrary evidence would be more than welcome...
> The debate about what to
> teach
> and how to teach evolution is not as strong as in math. Parents in
> some
> some states like Califiornia have a strong voice that the California
> Math
> Standards was drafted and implemented in opposition to the NSTM
> Standards. But I think overall it is a healthy debate because it
> raises
> the standard and quality of teaching.
>
> Regarding the timing of teaching evolution in schools, it will always
> be
> too late because christian families usually teach their children about
> God and creation at very young age. Hence, the curriculum planners
> must take this into account. However, I think if the lessons are
> designed properly, it will fit anybody irregardless of their religious
> background. Those who think they already know enough about the
> subject should have the flexibility to move at an accelerated pace at
> their own time. (That's why online learning becomes a critical
> component of school curriculum design).
So, could you describe in a few sentences how science (*regardless* of faith) should be taught
to children from different religious background, or should they be inculcated to *your* specific beliefs?
>
> Your suggestion is refreshing and useful, though it would be helpful
> to explore several more approaches. Learning technologies such
> as hypermedia and interactive videos can facilitate.
>
> About learning gaps and the way our brains work - the brains work
> more effectively when the knowledge gained is experiential
> knowledge. For example, I could never image people could
> walk along the streets at temperatures of negative 20 deg. Celsius,
> but my family and I have experienced this in West Lafayette, IN.
> Prior to this we thought things should get frozen at 0 deg Celsius!!
Wow...
As a resident of Finland I find this somewhat less than underwhelming...
Thanks for indication of your level of education.
> And I learnt that people living in Siberia are experiencing
> temperatures
> down to negative 50 deg Celsius!! It has not dawn too much on
> students
> that 0 deg Celsius is just a reference temperature.
Ditto.
>
> But other than the age of the earth or the universe, we need to make
> sure there is a proper treatment especially on radiometric dating.
> The existing model (equation) used in high school AP Physics is
> grossly
> inadequate and subject to misinterpretations and both sides.
>
You claim to be a teacher? I think I'm going to contact the good people at Purdue...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Ian Chua
> Ian Chua wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Both creationsim and evolution is rampant in US because US citizens
> > are conscientious about their children's education. Most other
> > countries
> > are still struggling with their economy.
>
> Oh, really? You think that the EU, Japan, Australia, S-Korea are struggling with their economy?
>
thing.
> I'd say the problem has more to do with the abysmal level of elementary and middle level education in the U.S.
Do not under-estimate the quality of education in the US.
I have studied mostly in Singapore, but also in the UK and the US.
The quality of teaching has always been high in all these countries.,
But if we're interested in the future evolution of man, we need to do
more.
Kevin Wayne Williams
The problem is that you don't seem to grasp that so far as a science
class is concerned, there are not two sides. There is the scientific
consensus on a topic. Period. Nothing else. There are very few things
taught at all in an elementary or secondary school setting where
scientific consensus has not been reached.
If you have a personal doubt about the truth of the scientific
consensus, you are entitled to research that area. If you find evidence
in support of it, you can bring that evidence to the attention of the
scientific community. If you are right, the scientific consensus will
eventually change. All of this is completely irrelevant to what is
taught in science class and how it is taught. In science class, the
scientific consensus, and only the scientific consensus, is taught.
KWW
Ian Chua
wrote:
The community for "scientific consensus" for textbooks is not that
big.
Sometimes, the textbooks are reviewed by some teachers and
occassionally
by some university professors. In other cases, only the one or two
authors
are solely responsible. Typically, the country's Ministry of
Education will
eventually have to vet it and approve the textbook if found suitable.
If the
textbook follows mostly the way previous textbooks have been written,
the
material will not require much scrutiny. Naturally, if there is a
significant difference
in content (flow, sequencing, depth, etc.), then a higher standard of
review would be required.
In our case for math, and I would anticipate the same for the other
science subjects we'll be developing, the standard of review will be
not only very high, but improvements are implemented within the
week (we often do it within 24 hours!) rather than waiting 2-3 years,
as in the case of a textbook. This is because ALL teachers rather
than a few teachers participate actively to contribute to the various
aspects of each lesson. This was partly because the lessons was
presented in a more refreshing and creative manner and it opens up
opportunities for more lateral thinking. Most of the contributions
from the teachers are suggestions to "close" or eliminate the
gaps in the lessons - they can't do this with textbooks.
Martin Hutton
What's the problem? Children brought up in the Hindu
tradition have no problem with "billions of years", so
the fault lies not with the children but with their
parents and educators.
> As students moved onto
> Secondary 2,
> many of them still can't solve algebraic problems. Our online math
> program
> now has lessons to bridge primary school math from "models" to
> "algebra" not
> found at all in textbooks, which teachers like. Learning gaps are not
> unqiue to
> teaching of evolution but occurs in every subject.
There are a number of teaching methods available that
give the young 'uns a way to wrap their minds around
the very small and the very large - both in size and
in duration.
The first episode of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" did a very good
presentation of the 15 billion year age of the universe by
mapping it to 1yr.
Use one episode of "Cosmos" per week to your students
(using the rest of the week to discuss and elucidate the
points raised) and they'll have a better set of concepts
of where and when they live, what they are and what their
immediate and distant environment is like.
For a quicky demonstration of a distance scale, check out
the 197? video by Charles and Ray Eames of IBM called
"Powers of Ten". This should be suitable for kids down
to 7yrs old (I showed it to my daughter when she was 5
and she got it):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6945724039283018435
--
Martin Hutton
Ian Chua
<mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
Thanks for your contributions.
PBS also has some great videos - this is available free online for
now.
J. Bronowvski's "The Ascent of Man" produced by BBC is one of my
favourites - but no one replied my email regarding licensing for use
in our system.
But the concern of teachers is that the lessons must first meet the
requirements of the specified curriculum to that students can get high
marks in the exams.
Hence, for math alone, we have developed over 1,000 online interactive
videos.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> occassionally by some university professors. In other cases, only the one or two
> authors are solely responsible. Typically, the country's Ministry of
> Education will eventually have to vet it and approve the textbook if found suitable.
> If the textbook follows mostly the way previous textbooks have been written,
> the material will not require much scrutiny. Naturally, if there is a
> significant difference in content (flow, sequencing, depth, etc.), then a higher
> standard of review would be required.
You haven't looked at the Acknowledgements section of any biology
textbooks- that much is obvious:
Audesirk, Audesirk, Byers. Life on Earth. 3rd ed. About 200 editors
listed for this and previous editions.
Purves, Sadava, Orians, Heller. Life: The Science of Biology. 6th
ed. 89 reviewers (this edition only).
Solomon, Berg, Martin. Biology. 7th ed. In the course of this text's
lifetime, there have been over 300 faculty reviewers, and at least 100
student reviewers.
Now, I don't have my latest edition of Campbell here, but I know for a
fact that it has at least as many reviewers listed as the Solomon et
al. book.
These are the _scientific_ editors, mind you. The media and other
editors are all listed separately.
So, what exactly do you mean, the community for consensus is small? Do
you think it would be easy to find 300 working biologists to sign off
on any sort of crackpot idea in a textbook? Quit making stuff up.
Chris
Ian Chua
Singapore.
It will definitely help to improve the content.
Besides teachers, we do have reviewers who are professors from
universities for math and physics.
The point is, it is up to the publisher to decide who he wants to be
on his
textbook review committee. If he has more funds, he would want to get
famous people on board.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> big. Sometimes, the textbooks are reviewed by some teachers and
> occassionally by some university professors. In other cases, only
> the one or two authors are solely responsible.
If you are saying that it is possible for really bad science to enter a
textbook because they are not properly reviewed for scientific content,
you may be right. The community for scientific consensus in biology
itself is enormous. I hope that if an educator asks you to insert a
statement which is contradicted by the majority of peer-reviewed
literature, you have a mechanism in place to reject the change. Teacher
review is appropriate for presentation issues, but not for the
underlying facts.
KWW
Ian Chua
Ultimately, it is up to individual teachers to decide which textbook
or program
they want to use. It will have to be a fit with their teaching
style. And if the
content can be adapted to suit their needs, it would be a plus. Also,
the
teachers are the ones who know the difficulties their students are
experiencing,
and new lessons need to be created to cater to the needs of their
students.
Ian Chua
This discussion brings up another very interesting point.
Should the review of textbooks be open up for public review by a wider
scientific community as well as parents and students?
Awesome contributions, guys.
Kevin Wayne Williams
>
> This discussion brings up another very interesting point. Should the
> review of textbooks be open up for public review by a wider
> scientific community as well as parents and students?
There is no reason to permit students to review a textbook at all, and
parental review is of essentially no value. The only reason to do it is
to be polite. Only educational and scientific review of a textbook is
meaningful. A biology textbook that has not been reviewed by biologists
is useless.
KWW
chris.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
It depends on what level you are talking about, but I think that
starting with high school, students can provide meaningful commentary
on textbooks. It would be highly unusual for them to comment on
content, but their feedback would obviously be useful as far as
readability, clarity, and message. One of the texts I listed above (a
college text) actually acknowledges the student reviewers.
Chris
Martin Hutton
On 2-Apr-2007, "Ian Chua" <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
I'm rewatching that from a very noisy recording.
> but no one replied my email regarding licensing for use
> in our system.
Try writing a hard copy on letterhead to the BBC in London.
> But the concern of teachers is that the lessons must first meet the
> requirements of the specified curriculum to that students can get high
> marks in the exams.
> Hence, for math alone, we have developed over 1,000 online interactive
> videos.
Ah, the idiocy of test based education.
--
Martin Hutton
Ian Chua
I can see their comments in different blogs and chatrooms. It would be
nice to have a place for them to feedback.
Well.... I certainly would acknowledge the contributions of people
participating in talk.origins.
Bob Casanova
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:tdl013tf8vqqvhdq7...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:29:16 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "Perplexed in Peoria"
>> <jimme...@sbcglobal.net>:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:8eut03lcvq1m617e1...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:43:06 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Cory Albrecht
>> >> <coryalbr...@hotmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> >Bob Casanova wrote, On 2007/03/30 21:41:
>> >> >> We *really*, *really* need a sarcasm emoticon...
>> >> >
>> >> >;-J Wink and a half smile?
>> >> >
>> >> >MSN has, in it's emoticons, ^o) listed as "sarcastic smile"
>> >>
>> >> That's a bit weird. I'd think we'd want *anything* but a
>> >> smile for true sarcasm. But I can't seem to find anything on
>> >> my keyboard that accurately conveys disgusted disbelief.
>> >
>> >How about %
>> >
>> >It can be interpreted as a stylized, run-together contraction of the
>> >initials dp (with a pronounced list to the starboard). Which might
>> >stand for Doug Piranha. Who, we are told, liked sarcasm.
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, the emoticon is ambiguous since it also looks a bit like
>> >a pelvis screwed to a cake stand, but we can agree to ignore that reading.
>>
>> Why did the punchline, "I don't know, doc, *you're* the one
>> with all the dirty pictures!" instantly leap to mind when I
>> read this?
>>
>> "...a pelvis screwed to a cake stand..."; ay caramba...
>
>http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/piranha.htm
I should have known... It's been a *long* time since I
watched any of these. Maybe I should drag out the DVDs and
watch them; I watched all the episodes of "The Prisoner" and
the first season of "UFO" and survived, and it could be
considered a worthwhile immunization for Usenet...
>Warning: Reading Monty Python scripts after reaching a certain age does
>weird things to your mind.
The age qualifier is a false restriction. ;-)
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins):
>Perplexed in Peoria <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Warning: Reading Monty Python scripts after reaching a certain age does
>> weird things to your mind.
>That certain age being 8?
More like 2; that's when language skills begin to ramp up.
Ian Chua
decisions.
> > But the concern of teachers is that the lessons must first meet the
> > requirements of the specified curriculum to that students can get high
> > marks in the exams.
> > Hence, for math alone, we have developed over 1,000 online interactive
> > videos.
>
> Ah, the idiocy of test based education.
>
Tests?? We have more than 20,000 questions for math alone and it's
till not enough!!
> --
> Martin Hutton
Ian Chua
But we have a system which enables students to see their ranking and
performance compared to other students
and this seems to become an attractive feature for them. They're now
competing with hundreds of other students
(currently only amongst students within the same school) in a somewhat
multi-player game environment but
minus the games and strictly math. They're now doing hundreds of
questions a week each. It was not too difficult
setting math questions. But Biology will be a challenge.
> > --
> > Martin Hutton
Mark VandeWettering
A couple of points:
1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. You didn't give an example of a gap in the theory of evolution.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
The community of individual who are knowledgeable about a topic is
always small compared to the community of people who are essentially
ignorant. This does not and should not imply that society is better
served by pandering to the ignorant masses. When I'm trying to
earthquake proof my house, I seek out a structural engineer: I don't
just take the advise of some yutz at the bus stop.
> Sometimes, the textbooks are reviewed by some teachers and
> occassionally by some university professors. In other cases, only the
> one or two authors are solely responsible. Typically, the country's
> Ministry of Education will eventually have to vet it and approve the
> textbook if found suitable.
In the U.S., the federal government generally steps back from specific
recommendations regarding curriculum and choice of textbooks.
> If the textbook follows mostly the way previous textbooks have been
> written, the material will not require much scrutiny. Naturally, if
> there is a significant difference in content (flow, sequencing, depth,
> etc.), then a higher standard of review would be required.
>
> In our case for math, and I would anticipate the same for the other
> science subjects we'll be developing, the standard of review will be
> not only very high, but improvements are implemented within the week
> (we often do it within 24 hours!) rather than waiting 2-3 years, as in
> the case of a textbook. This is because ALL teachers rather than a few
> teachers participate actively to contribute to the various aspects of
> each lesson. This was partly because the lessons was presented in a
> more refreshing and creative manner and it opens up opportunities for
> more lateral thinking. Most of the contributions from the teachers
> are suggestions to "close" or eliminate the gaps in the lessons - they
> can't do this with textbooks.
Why just limit your input to teachers? I'm sure that lots of other
people would like to have their own views reflected in your lesson plans.
When I was in graduate school, there was a gentlemen who used to hang
around the computer science building and hand out flyers about the
evils of floating point arithmetic. He obviously felt very strongly
about the subject, why should his view not be integrated into your
lesson plan?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
Uh, it is up for review, to anyone.
Nothing compels the selection of any particular text book.
Mark
> Awesome contributions, guys.