Fighting Racism in Biology Class

Nona Willis Aronowitz, of GOOD, relates a new study which suggests quality genetics education could help fight racism in the biology classroom.  Unfortunately, Aronowitz is less convinced.  Here are some basics.  We humans comprise the same species because of our similar genetics.  When asked, most people assume that two humans share only about 56%.  In reality, two humans share about 99.9% of the same DNA.  Needless to say, the 0.1% leads to a great amount of diversity but we are all essentially the same.  Many geneticists and social scientists have concluded that humans lack the genetic diversity to describe distinct races.

As a biology teacher, I spend a lot of time discussing the genetics of race.  I am fascinated by the evolution of human skin color and how race plays a role in our society.  I have used the PBS special, Race: The Power of an Illusion, to help make the point that we are one species and that race doesn't exist.  But, race still has a dramatic impact on how we perceive others.

I am hopeful that education and information can substantially disarm the ignorance of racism and bigotry.  If no single gene separates any two "races" of humans, then we can get past these misconceptions.  The traits that we characterize certain "races" can be found in many other populations.  Unfortunately, we maximize our minimal differences and confuse cultural with genetic difference.  Place a Palestinian and an Israeli in the same room and you could not tell the difference until we came to the topic of politics and religion.

Racism is based on an ignorance that can be erased through information and immersion.  Biology teachers don't need to be afraid of these topics and take a lead in fighting the biases in the classroom.

Counters to Conservapedia (Part 10): Observing Speciation

Now for our next installment of correcting Conservapedia's misconceptions of Evolution.  Here is an interesting one:

There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.

This misunderstanding shows up quite often and is, as you can guess, wrong.  It presents a fundamental error in how science works.  The writers of Conservapedia seem to suggest that we can only truly know that some has happened if it is directly observed.  While science does use observation as an important tool, much of science is determined through another powerful tool, inference.  By looking at empirical evidence obtained in the field or the laboratory, scientists can make inferences about what happened.  Without inference, no criminals could be convicted without an eyewitness.  Yet, most Creationists willingly accept the results of forensic science to convict a murder on nothing more than a DNA sample.

DNA provides strong evidence because of our unique patterns of nucleotides.  Well, each species also has a unique pattern which provides ample evidence for the inference of common descent.  The use of DNA in evolutionary biology has revolutionized our understanding of the science.  DNA studies confirm evolutionary predictions and produces new species histories.  As most people know, humans and chimpanzees share roughly 98% the same DNA, gorillas share slightly less, orangutans less and so on.  This DNA evidence allows us to infer our species place within the animal kingdom among the Great Apes.

Like DNA, we have numerous lines of fossils showing the evolution of whales, horses, camels, reptiles, birds, primates and, even, humans.  But also like DNA, these fossils help us to infer what happened in the distant past.  These do not represent direct observation, which Creationists seem to require.  Species are changing from generation to generation all around us.  We can see quickly changing in the fur color of the desert pocket mouse or the peppered moth.  Scientists went to the Galapagos Islands every year to measure the beak sizes of the population.  When a drought hit the island, they measured changes in the average beak size as the available food changed.  An important principle of evolution describes the big changes that occur to species through incremental changes from generation to generation.

But my favorite examples of evolution in action are ring species.  In Northern California, you can find a population of very diverse salamanders.  The species has spread out down both sides of the Central Valley.  While separated by a large valley and unable to reproduce with each other, the species develops two different adaptations to survive.  On one side, the population acquired camouflage to blend into the environment, on the other the population became bright colored to mimic a poisonous newt.  When the two different populations meet at the southern end of the valley, they do not recognize each other as viable mates.  As David Wake says in the following video, these populations are well on their way to become two species right before our eyes.  Please, watch the clip for a better understanding of how these cute little salamanders destroy the Conservapedia argument.

Biological GPS

Biology is an amazing subject, particulary zoology.  Animals have a wide variety of methods of surviving.  Perhaps one of the most interesting things animals can do is navigate the world. 

When Loggerhead Turtles are hatched they race to the ocean first by heading towards the brightest lights on the horizon (thing about the moon glistening on the waters).  Then they head out to see by swimming perpendicular to the waves.  Once in open waters, they swim all the way around the Atlantic Ocean following the Gulf Stream and then back towards the US.  They actually come back to the exact beach where they were born.  They accomplish this with an ability to sense the magnetic field of the Earth.

Monarch Butterflies make mesmerizing migrations each year.  They also use magnetism to find their ways.

The SEED Magazine has an article on the topic here.

Human Speciation

Species refers to a group of individuals that can reproduce and produce fertile offspring.  As populations of the same species become isolated from each other, their gene pools become different enough that their offspring would no longer be fertile.  I usually teach this by talking about several common examples:

Horse + Donkey = Mule

Lion + Tiger = Liger

Horse + Zebra = Zorse

We know that the organisms on the left are distinct species because the animals on the right are infertile.  Mules cannot make more mules.

Calamities of Nature have given me a new example of speciation in human populations:

Newton's Second Law Demo

Yesterday, I finished my last day at the school where I began my teaching career.  I am very thankful for the time spent and the friendships made.  Before I leaving for the day, another teacher wanted to know how I demonstrated Newton's Second Law.  So we made a video to show how I did it.

Basically, you have to remember that the acceleration due to gravity only affects the vertical component.  Gravity has no effect on the horizontal motion.  So if you drop a bullet and fire a bullet from the same height, they should hit the ground at the same time.  Since you can't bring a gun into the classroom, I decided to show this principle with a Nerf Dart Gun.

***Quick Note before the video: We shot this on an iPhone and I can't figure out how to get the dimensions.  Because of that, I look nothing like myself in the video.  Otherwise, I am pretty proud to get the results that we did with cheap kids' toys and a cell phone camera.

Enjoy!

The Constitution and Creationism

Lauri Lebo lets us know that David Barton has said something silly again.  Barton makes a name for himself by knowing the exact thoughts of each Founding Father and their intentions for the radical experiment in democracy known as The United States.  Conveniently, the Founding Fathers unanimously agreed with everything he believes ideologically and even theologically.  It seems strange considering that the drafting of the Declaration and the framing of Constitution took place under serious debate and compromise including men of various religions and political identities.  But then again, Barton has said "that Jesus opposed the minimum wage or that the bible takes a stand against net neutrality."


Now Barton has discovered that the Founding Fathers had discovered, decided and dismissed evolution and preferred that creationism be taught in our schools.  Check out the video:

So according to David Barton, the Founding Fathers discussed evolution about 70 years before Charles Darwin introduced the idea and described the mechanism of natural selection in his book, On the Origin of Species.  And they decided that creationism should be taught in our public schools which that predicted Horace Mann would begin in the 1830's.  

This would just be funny if so many people didn't listen to and agree with such babble.  Any person who gives this a quick thought would understand how ridiculous it is.  Barton shows us he does not understand history, religion, law or science.  Each of which he claims to be an expert for.  I wish that I could knowingly lie to people just to take their money.  History and science are so much easier when you can just make stuff up.

Night Blindness

Check out this cool picture!

As you leave the city, the beauty of the universe opens up to you.  More stars and more galaxies dot the black sky.  Here is one problem with all the city lights. We can't see the billions of stars up there. Nightblindness affects the curiosity and wonder children could have with astronomy. As more people move into cities, it may explain our growing disinterest in NASA and space exploration. 

I spent two weeks teaching about the universe this year and they were all fascinated. Maybe there is hope for the wonder and awe of the universe after all!

***BTW, the other problem with city lights has to do with sleep cycles.  The constant light doesn't let your brain rest the way it should.***

HS Students Show Up Congresswoman

Minnesota's Republican Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, hopes to become the next President of the United States.  While she has said some fairly ridiculous things, at least two people have decided to stand up to her and they are both high school students!  That's right!  High school students have taken it upon themselves to challenge the presidential hopeful and congresswoman.


A high school student from New Jersey, Amy Myers, has challenged Michelle Bachmann to a debate about the US Constitution and American History.  In a letter to the Congresswoman, Amy wrote, 

As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding the Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted.

Burn! We all know that the Congresswoman would not participate in the debate, because she could not possibly win. The image of her debating a 16-year-old would ruin her career. I think the awesome thing is that this student has decided to take a stand. The sad news is that Bachmann supporters have started attacking Amy Myers throughout the internet. You know, keeping it classy.


In a more recent story, Zack Kopplin has also challenged the congresswoman on her understanding of evolution.  Zack is the high school lstudent from Louisianna leading a campaign to repeal their Intelligent Design education law.  He showed up on Hard Ball to discuss his efforts.  Bachmann became involved because of this statement:  "There is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact ... hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel prizes, believe in intelligent design."  Among others, Kopplin has called Bachmann on this falsehood and asked for her to present a list of Nobel Lauretes that support creationism.  Kopplin actually got 43 to sign a petition with him, still no word from Bachmann.  To top off the the challenge, Kopplin makes the best statement that presidential candidates don't get to just make stuff up.  


These students keep me hopeful for the future and I say Bravo!  Check out the video!  Enjoy!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Counters to Conservapedia (Part 9): HIV Immunity

I have strayed from one of my favorite topics: proving the writers of Conservapedia know nothing about evolution or science.  So I am bringing back the Counters to Conservapedia theme and will continue to debunk their misconceptions.  As the conservative answer to the liberal bias inherent in reality Wikipedia, Conservapedia created a list of Counters to Evolution.  As I have already refuted their statements about extinctions, genetic diversity, eyes, males and females, wisdom teeth, beauty, mutations, and feathers.  And now Conservapedia brings this interesting counter to evolution:

Evolution should have removed HIV from the human race as we would have built an immunity to it, much like bacteria do to anti-biotics, yet we have not. In fact the continued existence of disease is proof against evolution as natural selection would have left only humans who were immune to them.

This example misconstrues the rates at which evolution occurs.  Because HIV causes such a horrible disease, then humans should evolve immunity in a short period much like bacteria and antibiotics.  Bacteria develop their resistance through a basic example of natural selection.  Our antibiotics kill 99.9% of all the bacteria within the patient.  The 0.1% that survive already possess a random mutation which makes them immune to the medicine.  Those that survive reproduce through asexually reproduction by basically cloning themselves as quickly as every twenty minutes.  This process has occurred with several different bacterial strains, insects with pesticides, and in many natural cases involving venoms and toxins.

Interestingly, the writers of Conservapedia chose to attack evolution by confirming that evolution.  They complain that it doesn't happen in humans.  As you can guess, they will be wrong.

So why haven't humans evolved resistance to HIV?  The simple answer is that we are not bacteria.  Bacteria are single-celled organisms while we have 50-100 trillion cells in our body.  Some strains of bacteria can reproduce every 20 minutes, which would produce roughly over 1000000000000000000000 identical bacteria in 24 hours.  Humans average a new generation every 25 years.  Since HIV has only affected humans since the 1950's, only 2 or 3 generations have been impacted by the disease.  Basically we reproduce much slower that bacteria and genetically respond to environmental changes over longer periods of time.  Thankfully, medical advancements replace our slower genome and can help protect us from HIV exposure and affects.  So IF the genetic resistance to HIV existed it would take a long to pass through the population effectively eradicating HIV from affecting our gene pool.

Interestingly, there are some people who are immune to HIV.  That's right.  Some sex workers in Africa carry a gene that makes them resistant to being infected by the virus.  Even with repeated exposure to the pathogen, they did not contract it.  Viruses enter a host cell by mimicing a receptor on the cell surface.  Those people immune to HIV simply lack the particular receptor which HIV uses to get into the cell.  But even then, that would not guarantee the end of HIV as viruses also evolve reproducing at a faster rate than we do.  Viral evolution explains why you need a new flu short every year and why we now have multiple strains of HIV.

So to review: Conservapedia complains about evolution because we don't evolve as fast as bacteria do.  But we are far larger, more complex and reproduce much slower than bacteria.  Even with these disadvantages, some of us are already immune to HIV which could potential spread throughout the species.  HIV immunity causes no problems for the theory of evolution and actually makes a great example of evolution at work.

Rewriting the Textbooks

Cseeman / Flickr

Science changes constantly.  Everyday new discoveries overturn pet theories and hopeful hypotheses.  Thousands of journals catalogue ever-evolving life of scientific knowledge.  Unfortunately, textbooks fail to keep up with these fast paced developments sometimes lagging behind by decades.  The process of writing and approving classroom texts prevent our students from learning about cutting edge developments until they leave high school.  We make complex topics overly simple by omitting key details and overlooking the exceptions to our rules.

To honor the uncertainty in frontier science, New Scientist has published a series of articles about rewriting our textbooks.  The articles attack some fundamental truths in the K-12 classroom.  For instance, atomic weights are less predictable than the periodic table implies.  Reptiles don't really exist as an isolated group (the birds get mixed within them).  We don't really understand nuclear fission or hydrogen bonding.  And genes aren't always genes.

I always struggle figuring out how far I can take my students to the edge of known science.  Science exists because of what we don't know not what we have already figured out.  I enjoy introducing these type of ideas through various sources.  I have printed off articles from these science news sites, created a class blog, reprinted chapters from popular science books, showed TED talks, podcasts and science programs.  It is important to bring in new science into the classroom and let them see what we still have to learn.

Dawkins on the Beauty of Life

The Ancestor's Tale may be one of my favorite popular science books ever, except for maybe The Greatest Show on Earth.  Both books were written by the most prominent evolutionary biologist in the world, Richard Dawkins.  If anyone wants to understand evolution and our place within life, I suggest you read these two books.  We may disagree on matters of Religion and God, but his clarity and knowledge of science overwhelms me.

In The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins lays out a history of the human body by taking us on a pilgrimage.  During our trek backwards through time, we meet up with all the other species making the path.  Our closer cousins join us sooner than our more distant relatives, but all the species on Earth eventually converge to the same point the last universal common ancestor (LUCA).  As groups join us, they bring their stories that tell us something more about evolution.  It is a long, long book, but good science and good information.  I recommend it strongly.

In this video, Dawkins makes the closing statement from the book about the beauty of life.  It is good.  I promise.

Enjoy!

South Park on Evolution

Always out to mock anyone and anything, South Park took on The Theory of Evolution.  In this case, they show a teacher who really doesn't accept evolution presenting the topic to the class.  As you can expect, his explanation leaves a lot of stuff out and would create more misconceptions among the students. Sadly, this kind of thing happens throughout the country. Though, I doubt that even the worst high school teachers would not use this kind of language.

Enjoy! (Warning: Language- it is South Park!)

We need our science teachers better prepared to present SCIENCE to our students.  As our country falls behind in science and math, we only need to look to the above example to figure out why.  Too many science teachers either outright reject modern science or feel uncomfortable teaching it because of ignorance or intimidation.  Until we can get past this problem, our children and future will continue to suffer through horrible explanations of science like the kids from South Park.

Creationist Parenting

I don't know what you think, but I think this is pretty accurate.  I once had a student who was convinced that men had one less rib and women.  And that that was evidence for the Adam and Eve story.  When I said we have the same number ribs, she would not believe me.  After reminding her of my biological and anatomical credentials, she relented.  So yes, I think this comic is a close approximation of what is happening.

JK

A Note of Critical Thinking

Supporters of Academic Freedom bills use the educational buzz words, "Critical Thinking".  They do this to present themselves as neutral participants, looking out for the best interests of the students.  However, critical thinking is one of the last things the neo-creationists want.

Educators love for kids to learn critical thinking skills.  We design lessons, activities and projects hoping to promote these skills in our students.  Students who can think critically will become well-rounded, independent citizens.  Specifically as science teachers, we foster critical thinking through problem-based learning activities and open-ended laboratory assignments.  We bring in the data from famous, historical discoveries or from student-completed experiments.  From there, we lead our students through scientific thinking teach them how to reach logical conclusions.  This is modern science teaching.

After losing every major legal battle, creationists have hit on a new strategy with critical thinking as a disguise.  Their new Academic Freedom bills advise teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of "controversial" scientific theories.  The 2008 Louisiana Law specifically mentions evolution, abiogenesis, global warming and human cloning.  Interestingly, these proposals never specify the weaknesses that teachers should actually address.  These bills simply provide cover for bringing creationism or creationist materials into the classroom.

One clue to their dishonesty comes from the implications of their bills.  By specifying evolution, abiogenesis, and global warming, advocates imply that these are the only areas of science that require critical thinking skills.  Last time I check, every scientific discipline (and really every subject in school) provide opportunities for critical thinking, including but not limited to: the nature of science, ecology, cell biology, genetics, and classification.  Science itself requires the development of these skills, not just evolution.

Another clue comes from their focus.  By saying that teachers should teach the weaknesses of evolution they open the door to creationism and intelligent design.  But if they are intellectually honest, then they would want us to also teach the weaknesses of creationism.  They would want us to explain why Intelligent Design fails as a scientific theory.

Maybe I am wrong about their intentions (probably not).  If their bills actually promote critical thinking, then they should be aware that the skill will also be applied to Creationism/Intelligent Design.  If so, then maybe students would gain a deeper understanding of why evolution is the unifying theory of biology.  MAybe its not such a bad idea after all.

Born to Dance

New research explores the connection between babies and dance.  Babies love to dance.  It makes them happy, literally.  The findings show that babies that can match the rhythm of the music are happier.

Music pervades almost every culture of humanity.  Rightfully so, we can consider it a human universal.  Most animals can't dance to music, but we can.  Try getting your dog to dance.  Won't happen.  There is something very human about dancing and music which apparently starts very early in our lives and very early in our species.  Some have even suggested that language developed out of singing.

And after all of that, here is a video of a baby dancing to Beyonce.

The Evolution of Creationism

In humor you will find truth.  This comic strip from Calamities of Nature speaks volumes about the evolution of creationism.  Cultural evolution works in similar ways to biological evolution, except bad ideas will stick around much longer than bad genes.  

Calamities of Nature

Fact-Checking the Hockey-Stick Graph

Two years ago, Climategate exploded onto the front pages of papers everywhere.  Deniers claimed a victory after someone hacked into the email accounts of several scientists and showed the men behind the screen.  Shockingly, they were men who voiced frustration with deniers and said somethings in private that they probably wouldn't have in public.  Whoa!  Stop the Presses!

Deniers also latched onto to one phrase about playing tricks with the data to hide a finding that they did not like.  The scientists who have presumably been studying climate science and statistics for a very long time, talked about ignoring tree ring data after 1960 as those data were inconsistent with measured temperatures.  Deniers claimed that this was evidence of a massive conspiracy in the global warming community.

Seven independent groups went over their emails and data and all reached the same conclusion: the science was still strong.  The scientists may have acted unprofessionally in their private communications, but they did solid work.  While the Climategate scandal made every front page, the exoneration of the scientists were relegated to the science sections, if the paper had one.
One idea under scrutiny was the "hockey-stick" graph showing a rapid increase in CO2 after the 1950s with a corresponding increase in global temperature averages.  Actually, every index that affects our climate shows the exact same uptick after World War II.  Mother Jones did a piece on Climategate that is worth reading.  One of their fact-checkers made this video.  Hopefully, some information from this video can arm you against the ignorance of the climate change deniers.

Sad Video

This video pops up on the internets every once and a while.  It is either very scary or very sad.  These high school students have received a very poor education from their "science" teacher who doesn't seem to know very much about the topic he was hired to teach.  It is appalling that this could happen, be video taped, and the guy would still keep his job.

I vote that this is a sad video.  Enjoy?

Newton's Advice for Helping Teachers on Evolution

At Science and Religion Today, Steve Newton wrote an article about getting teachers to be more confident in teaching evolution in our schools.  His article comes in response to poll finding that 60% of teachers are "cautious" about teaching evolution.  Basically, they barely address the topic to avoid the hassles that come from students and parents.  As the programs and policy director of the Nation Center for Science Education, Newton has several suggestions for all of us who seek a more pro-science society.

1. Write letters to the editor in favor of evolution and science education to counter the advertisements and letters from the anti-science crowd.  Like this one that I wrote a few years ago.
2. Parents should let the teachers know that they prefer science to be taught in the science classroom.  The only parents we usually here from are the ones who complain.
3. Donate pro-science books, movies and other materials to schools.  Like any job, teaching requires specific tools to help your kids grow up in a scientifically literate society.
4. Future teachers need better evolution education to feel more confident in front of the class.  This begins the cycle.  A better educated, pro-science society promotes better students and better teachers.

Newton's list provides several great ideas.  I would also add better, more specific professional development seminars.  Let the 20% of teachers who are confident about evolution teach the other 80%. We could also hold community seminars to help educate the parents that either want to learn more about science and even those who are worried about their child's education (almost all of us).

A pro-science community needs communicators of science who are not afraid to talk about the important topics of modern science.  

Creationist Science Test

Not to alarm anyone, but if Creationists actually succeeded in taking over science education, this could be a class test.  Just kidding, but I do think this is funny.