Monday, November 19, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Misconceptions About Evolution!
About Me!
Heyheyhey. I’m Melissa, and this is my student nat blog about evolution. I’m a junior this year at Olathe North High school. I really like this student nat class, because I love animals a lot. I want to be a vet. :]. I like to talk really loud and exaggerate stories. Yep, that'd be it!
Misconceptions About Evolution!
Ever since 1859, evolution has been a very controversial subject. Many people have strong views and opinions about how much they believe, or don’t believe in it. There are many common misconceptions about evolution. A few of them are that evolution has never been observed, there are no transitional fossils, that it is only a theory, and that this theory states that everything happens by random chance.
The first misconception that I will talk about is that evolution has never been observed. Evolution is defined as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. An example of this is insects becoming resistant to pesticides. New species developing due to evolution has been observed both in a laboratory, and in the wild. Even without these direct observations, evolution has been observed. Evolution has predicted what people would expect to see in the fossil records, and the predictions have been verified many times. From the people I asked, this was one of the greatest misconceptions.
The second misconception that I will talk about is that there have been no transitional fossils. This is very untrue, because many have. A transitional fossil is defined as a fossil that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, (meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two). These fossils occur between species, orders, ECT. Most people don’t believe that there are transitional fossils because they like to put things into categories, like dogs or cats. What people don’t realize is that most of those animals are mixes of two, like the Archaeopteryx, which is part bird, and part reptile monster!
The third misconception is that everything happens by random chance. While chance does play a large role in evolution when dealing with mutations, it completely ignores the natural selection part, because selection is the opposite of chance. Mutations are what allow organisms to choose the best organism. When an organisms enviornment changes,
The fourth misconception is that evolution is only a theory, that it has never been proven. Calling it a theory, strictly speaking, is true, because the word 'theory' has different meanings. Scientists say that nothing in the real world has ever been proven. We deal with certainty by how much evidence we have, and evolution has a lot of evidence. It is supported through a wide range of observations. Many believe that the only way to prove evolution wrong is to prove that the evidence saying that it is is wrong.
I believe that people will always question evolution, no matter what evidence, or non-evidence comes out. I asked a few people if they believed, or didn’t believe in evolution, and the numbers were about even. I think that this subject will be split down the middle between the people that do, and don’t believe in evolution for a long time. :].
SOME PICHAS!
This is Charles Darwin!
This is where Charles Darwin lived!
This is what 98.2 % of people think of when they think of evolution!
This is a common misconception of the evolution of a fish!
These are some crazy friends arguing about evolution!
LINKS!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/Evolution_misconceptions/misconceptions.htm
Heyheyhey. I’m Melissa, and this is my student nat blog about evolution. I’m a junior this year at Olathe North High school. I really like this student nat class, because I love animals a lot. I want to be a vet. :]. I like to talk really loud and exaggerate stories. Yep, that'd be it!
Misconceptions About Evolution!
Ever since 1859, evolution has been a very controversial subject. Many people have strong views and opinions about how much they believe, or don’t believe in it. There are many common misconceptions about evolution. A few of them are that evolution has never been observed, there are no transitional fossils, that it is only a theory, and that this theory states that everything happens by random chance.
The first misconception that I will talk about is that evolution has never been observed. Evolution is defined as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. An example of this is insects becoming resistant to pesticides. New species developing due to evolution has been observed both in a laboratory, and in the wild. Even without these direct observations, evolution has been observed. Evolution has predicted what people would expect to see in the fossil records, and the predictions have been verified many times. From the people I asked, this was one of the greatest misconceptions.
The second misconception that I will talk about is that there have been no transitional fossils. This is very untrue, because many have. A transitional fossil is defined as a fossil that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, (meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two). These fossils occur between species, orders, ECT. Most people don’t believe that there are transitional fossils because they like to put things into categories, like dogs or cats. What people don’t realize is that most of those animals are mixes of two, like the Archaeopteryx, which is part bird, and part reptile monster!
The third misconception is that everything happens by random chance. While chance does play a large role in evolution when dealing with mutations, it completely ignores the natural selection part, because selection is the opposite of chance. Mutations are what allow organisms to choose the best organism. When an organisms enviornment changes,
The fourth misconception is that evolution is only a theory, that it has never been proven. Calling it a theory, strictly speaking, is true, because the word 'theory' has different meanings. Scientists say that nothing in the real world has ever been proven. We deal with certainty by how much evidence we have, and evolution has a lot of evidence. It is supported through a wide range of observations. Many believe that the only way to prove evolution wrong is to prove that the evidence saying that it is is wrong.
I believe that people will always question evolution, no matter what evidence, or non-evidence comes out. I asked a few people if they believed, or didn’t believe in evolution, and the numbers were about even. I think that this subject will be split down the middle between the people that do, and don’t believe in evolution for a long time. :].
SOME PICHAS!
This is Charles Darwin!
This is where Charles Darwin lived!
This is what 98.2 % of people think of when they think of evolution!
This is a common misconception of the evolution of a fish!
These are some crazy friends arguing about evolution!
LINKS!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/index.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/Evolution_misconceptions/misconceptions.htm
♥ Camouflage and Mimicry ♥
About... Me!
My name is Stephanie Dawson. I go to Olathe North High School, and I am in both the Student Naturalist program, as well as in AP Environmental Science. I find evolutionary topics very interesting, and important. This year I have learned a lot more about these topics because I am in two classes that have covered the ideas so closely. I am attending the University of Kansas next year and intend to pursue a degree in either animal sciences or cytotechnology.
About the arts of deception: Camouflage and mimicry.
Although commonly confused, camouflage and mimicry are not the same thing. They are both adaptations, which many species use to fool predators so they don't end up as dinner; however they are two different concepts of trickery. Camouflage is the term describing what some animals do when they change or are the colors and shape of a non-moving object in their environment such as a tree, twig, or leaf. Camouflage could be looked at as a way to become invisible; it is not always used to hide from predators, but also sometimes to stalk prey. Mimicry, on the other hand, is the term used to describe animals when they mimic or act like (whether using distinct coloration, or just copying behavior) another living animal which might be more frightening to a predator.
First, I am going to thoroughly explain and give prime examples of camouflage. There are many different types of camouflage. One type of camouflage is natural camouflage. As earlier explained, this is just when a species has overtime adapted to their environment to look like their surroundings. Species never decide one day that they want to be a certain color because they have a better chance of surviving; it's just that natural selection over time has changed coloration of the animal. Animals that have a natural camouflage try to either blend in with their environment, look like something that is uninteresting, or maybe even something that is dangerous. They will do anything they can to make the predators know that eating them would not be a good idea. Another type of camouflage is cryptic coloration. This is when a species may not perfectly blend in, but they certainly don't stand out. An example of this type of camouflage would be the color of squirrels and deer; they are browner shades, which help them not to stand out too much in their woody habitats. Another method of camouflage is called counter-shading; this is used a lot in aquatic biomes by species. It is what it's called when a species is darker dorsally which reduces conspicuous shadowing and fools the predator.
Many species use camouflage to trick predators. Many of the world's insects are best known for this adaptation. Because they are surrounded by trees and plants, many insects have evolved to blend in with non-moving world around them. One insect that uses this technique is the stick insect of the tropical rainforest. This insect is able to effectively blend into its surroundings because its body is a light brown color and has a convincing resemblance of a twig. Another insect that uses camouflage is the Geometrid Moth. It has the color, shape, and texture of dead leaves on the bottom of the rainforest floors. Obviously because these insects are able to use this adaptation to hide from predators and survive, camouflage proves to be an example of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest. However, insects aren't the only species in the world that use camouflage to their advantage.
Some amphibians also serve as prime examples of masters of disguise. The Grey Tree Frog possesses the same coloration as the trees they hang out on, they also have the same texture. If you were a predator looking for dinner, if you see a Grey Tree Frog hanging out on a tree with a brightly colored frog or animal, the likelyhood of you seeing the well-camouflaged frog is very slim, they will go straight for the bright colored object. This is yet another example of camouflage working as a protector.
Humans, believe it or not, also use a form of camouflage. Military clothing that soldiers wear for war is often made to blend in with the environment around them so that enemies have a hard time pinpointing them in battle. This is a successful way of sneaking around in war and "hiding" from the enemy, in order to save your own life. Camouflage doesn't always have to be an adaptation, because as seen in the human race, we didn't adapt and form a camouflage, we had to use our brains and figure out that blending in is a good idea, in order to keep safe and alive.
Another method also used to keep alive in animal kingdom is mimicry. Mimicry is where one organism evolves to share common characteristics with organism that may be considered more of a threat in the animal world. In other words, if you are a snake, you would want to mimic a venomous snake instead of a measly little 6 in. snake. Or as a coyote, you want to mimic a wolf, instead of the inferior animal the dog.
One outstanding example of mimicry is the Western Hognose Snake. This snake has learned to be one of the best thespians on the planet. Any predator that might come upon this snake will think twice as soon as this snake begins its mimicking act. This snake's first defense at the sight of a predator is to puff up and begin hissing. As a predator, that is certainly not an invitation to go ahead and strike, if anything it means one simple action... run! During this act the Hognose is clearly mimicking a rattlesnake. Many other snakes mimic dangerous snakes also. For example, some snakes have rings around their tails that look to predators as rattles; this too is using mimicry to keep predators away. These snakes have possessed the characteristics of a rattle snake in order to scare off prey.
Camouflage and mimicry are two examples of how animals survive in the wilderness. They are two theories that show how evolutionary pressures change organisms so they are able to better adapt to stay alive. Camouflage and mimicry are two different ways of survival, however, both similar in the fact that they are great forms of deception.
Examples of camouflage and mimicry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sites Used
http://library.thinkquest.org/17456/camouflageall.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camouflage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countershading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry
http://www.thewildones.org/Animals/camo.html
Social Darwinism
Biography
My Name is Geoff Levario. I am a student in Student Naturalist at Olathe North Highschool. I'm part of the Geoscience program. My preferred classes are science classes the top two being Physics and College Chemistry. My favorite teacher at Olathe North is Mrs. Reist. Also I'm trying to get into UCLA after my senior year for college.
Social Darwinism coins from Darwin’s phrase “Survival of the Fittest.” Many theories are based off of this phrase and some fall into each other or are similar. Many people morally correct or wrong have used Social Darwinism as an excuse. People such as Anglo-Saxons and Adolph Hitler to August Weismann and Walter Bagehot. Its described that life just isn’t survival of competition in the wild realm but also economically in human society. Social Darwinism was not created by Darwin himself but rather by Herbert Spencer and just shares the name Darwinism. It also does not exclude a reason to life, such as post-modernism which removes any reason to live because there’s no point, rather it just does not have the sufficient information to solve it.
The theories are built on many great thinkers wether they be shameful or appreciated of the 1800s and 1900s. Herbert Spencer being one of the early founders after reading Darwin’s On the Origin of Species applied the idea to human economy. Or used by Hitler to start mass genocides against “lesser races” and the survival of Aryans. People such Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, and Ruth Benedict discredit the idea of Social Darwinism saying a humans culture is different from that of the animal world.
Hereditarianism is one of the first forms of Social Darwinism created by Sir Francis Galton. It argued that in humans the genes inherited by your parents is more important than that of the environment. A persons personality and intelligence is dependent on genes, and was discredited by biologists at the time. It opposed the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, which said the environment can invoke physical changes on a persons body to better adapt to it. Later on August Weismann allowed Hereditarianism to gain more credit when argued that a person’s characteristics are genetics.
Another theory created by Walter Bagehot was The Struggle School. Which described that nations were the evolution of social groups. Stating that a nation could be created by winning wars with other groups and growing larger from succeeding. Many people believed that it justified imperialism. Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist, believed that it was a means to create a stronger military forces to have a larger expansion into foreign lands. This idea seemingly similar to Manifest Destiny, showing how the U.S.A. took over the Western half the North America because it was there right too. But in a way it’s similar because it’s a growing military force that’s expanding into foreign territory.
Eugenics, or superiority of a race or group, is the theory of Reform Darwinism. It also stepped in the light of a political change. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a Supreme Court Justice, stated that the Constitution should be changed while the United States and it’s circumstances changes with it. National Socialism and Anglo-Saxons are two major groups who fell under Eugenics. National Socialism started by Adolph Hitler believed that Aryans were the supreme and superior race over all races. The same thought process of Anglo-Saxons believing their tribes were the top tribes.
Even in the 20th Century Social Darwinism still existed. From around the 1910's to the 1940's it widely lost support. Anthropology was making major advances that discredited the idea. Also because of Hitler and his radical National Socialists, the theories were being blamed for his scarring of the world. Anthropologists were discrediting it by stating that humans culture was different from the animals. Recent breakthroughs in genetics discredited the idea of eugenics. After 1953 Francis Crick and James Watson, both biologists, renewed the idea of Social Darwinism. By describing the structure of the DNA system and how it sets up humans, and there aggression, mating selections, and other characteristics. An American Psychologist, Richard J. Herrnstein, also revived the theory by arguing human intelligence is affected by there biological history rather than that of there environment.
Plenty of groups or singular people disagree with Social Darwinism. Some being that they disagree with there idea wholly or they disagree because some of their beliefs. Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin, a prince and anarchist, believed that people didn’t have to fight for survival but instead work together as one. Many of his views were anarchist in the belief that society should be communist with no controlling power but unity. Post-modernism also disagreed with Social Darwinism, notably because the idea of post modernism is that there is no greater meaning to life for all. Anthropology has made many attempts at discrediting Social Darwinism ever since its creation and succeeded for a little bit. Anthropology attempts to disprove by stating that human culture is different from that of animals. Even though genetics and DNA proves that humans are affected by it more than the environment.
In the end, Social Darwinism doesn’t really disprove religion nor evolution. Instead using Darwin’s own though of survival of the fittest, it proves that people survive on there own terms and rules compared to that of animals. Not just do we fight for mating rights with the opposite sex or to live. We also go deeper on who is better by flaunting muscles, personality, or money. We dive deeper into what can prove is strength. Economically one is superior to another and some people believe the poor and homeless are unnecessary because of that ideal. In a way Social Darwinism is just an outlook on life and how humans live it.
This is Sir Francis Galton who came up with the theory Hereditarianism.
This is Charles Darwin, the guy who came up with the term that Social Darwinism is based off of.
This is Prince Kropotkin the anarchist.
This is Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. the Supreme Court Justice.
This is Herbert Spencer one of the first theorists of Social Darwinism.
Sites Used.
Social Darwinism Page
Post Modernism
Encarta Social Darwinism
Evolution and Philosophy
Herbert Spencer
My Name is Geoff Levario. I am a student in Student Naturalist at Olathe North Highschool. I'm part of the Geoscience program. My preferred classes are science classes the top two being Physics and College Chemistry. My favorite teacher at Olathe North is Mrs. Reist. Also I'm trying to get into UCLA after my senior year for college.
Social Darwinism coins from Darwin’s phrase “Survival of the Fittest.” Many theories are based off of this phrase and some fall into each other or are similar. Many people morally correct or wrong have used Social Darwinism as an excuse. People such as Anglo-Saxons and Adolph Hitler to August Weismann and Walter Bagehot. Its described that life just isn’t survival of competition in the wild realm but also economically in human society. Social Darwinism was not created by Darwin himself but rather by Herbert Spencer and just shares the name Darwinism. It also does not exclude a reason to life, such as post-modernism which removes any reason to live because there’s no point, rather it just does not have the sufficient information to solve it.
The theories are built on many great thinkers wether they be shameful or appreciated of the 1800s and 1900s. Herbert Spencer being one of the early founders after reading Darwin’s On the Origin of Species applied the idea to human economy. Or used by Hitler to start mass genocides against “lesser races” and the survival of Aryans. People such Franz Boas, Margaret Mead, and Ruth Benedict discredit the idea of Social Darwinism saying a humans culture is different from that of the animal world.
Hereditarianism is one of the first forms of Social Darwinism created by Sir Francis Galton. It argued that in humans the genes inherited by your parents is more important than that of the environment. A persons personality and intelligence is dependent on genes, and was discredited by biologists at the time. It opposed the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, which said the environment can invoke physical changes on a persons body to better adapt to it. Later on August Weismann allowed Hereditarianism to gain more credit when argued that a person’s characteristics are genetics.
Another theory created by Walter Bagehot was The Struggle School. Which described that nations were the evolution of social groups. Stating that a nation could be created by winning wars with other groups and growing larger from succeeding. Many people believed that it justified imperialism. Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist, believed that it was a means to create a stronger military forces to have a larger expansion into foreign lands. This idea seemingly similar to Manifest Destiny, showing how the U.S.A. took over the Western half the North America because it was there right too. But in a way it’s similar because it’s a growing military force that’s expanding into foreign territory.
Eugenics, or superiority of a race or group, is the theory of Reform Darwinism. It also stepped in the light of a political change. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a Supreme Court Justice, stated that the Constitution should be changed while the United States and it’s circumstances changes with it. National Socialism and Anglo-Saxons are two major groups who fell under Eugenics. National Socialism started by Adolph Hitler believed that Aryans were the supreme and superior race over all races. The same thought process of Anglo-Saxons believing their tribes were the top tribes.
Even in the 20th Century Social Darwinism still existed. From around the 1910's to the 1940's it widely lost support. Anthropology was making major advances that discredited the idea. Also because of Hitler and his radical National Socialists, the theories were being blamed for his scarring of the world. Anthropologists were discrediting it by stating that humans culture was different from the animals. Recent breakthroughs in genetics discredited the idea of eugenics. After 1953 Francis Crick and James Watson, both biologists, renewed the idea of Social Darwinism. By describing the structure of the DNA system and how it sets up humans, and there aggression, mating selections, and other characteristics. An American Psychologist, Richard J. Herrnstein, also revived the theory by arguing human intelligence is affected by there biological history rather than that of there environment.
Plenty of groups or singular people disagree with Social Darwinism. Some being that they disagree with there idea wholly or they disagree because some of their beliefs. Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin, a prince and anarchist, believed that people didn’t have to fight for survival but instead work together as one. Many of his views were anarchist in the belief that society should be communist with no controlling power but unity. Post-modernism also disagreed with Social Darwinism, notably because the idea of post modernism is that there is no greater meaning to life for all. Anthropology has made many attempts at discrediting Social Darwinism ever since its creation and succeeded for a little bit. Anthropology attempts to disprove by stating that human culture is different from that of animals. Even though genetics and DNA proves that humans are affected by it more than the environment.
In the end, Social Darwinism doesn’t really disprove religion nor evolution. Instead using Darwin’s own though of survival of the fittest, it proves that people survive on there own terms and rules compared to that of animals. Not just do we fight for mating rights with the opposite sex or to live. We also go deeper on who is better by flaunting muscles, personality, or money. We dive deeper into what can prove is strength. Economically one is superior to another and some people believe the poor and homeless are unnecessary because of that ideal. In a way Social Darwinism is just an outlook on life and how humans live it.
This is Sir Francis Galton who came up with the theory Hereditarianism.
This is Charles Darwin, the guy who came up with the term that Social Darwinism is based off of.
This is Prince Kropotkin the anarchist.
This is Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. the Supreme Court Justice.
This is Herbert Spencer one of the first theorists of Social Darwinism.
Sites Used.
Social Darwinism Page
Post Modernism
Encarta Social Darwinism
Evolution and Philosophy
Herbert Spencer
Genetic Drift
My name is David Merschbrock. I am really into drama and I love to sing and act. I love to make people happy and make people laugh. As i grow up I hope to go into an actual job in acting or singing proffesionally. It has always been a dream of mine.
I would like to grow up and become the best singer, acter, and father that i can possibly be.
Genetic Drift is when an animal changes appearance in order to lice without being harmed. For example if there are three green bugs and three brown bugs, the human is going to smash the brown ones because they are a lot more noticeable in the grassy areas. If the brown bugs are the only ones that die then the green bugs would be able to keep multiplying without getting killed. Because of this the animals are able to have the best jeans possible because all of the bad ones are destroyed. This gives the best advantage to the prey because they are now able to hide without being harmed. This is one of the three main ways that evolution takes place. The only bad thing about the genealogy of this process is that the animals just like any other animals have a way to put jeans from years and years back into their offspring. This is natural in every animal. It is even the same with humans. If you ever wonder how two parents with black hair can have offspring with blonde hair it is because of this process. Genetics are always random and are never able to perfectly track and change. It is impossible for anyone to guess the jeans of another without making any mistakes. After every generation of change it gets more and more likely that the jeans will stay the same as parents but it is never one-hundred percent sure.
Some animals are not even given the right jeans to be able to live. At birth if the jeans of the animal are not correct it will simply never hatch or it will hatch but will not live more then an hour. Take a chicken for instance, if a chicken does not have the right jeans needed at birth it will not have the strength to crack the egg shell open. This fact helps keep the jeans that are not meant to stay from spreading to even more animals. If an animal has a jean that is not good to have and manages to live the animal is able to pass that jean on and therefore creating even more offspring that have the wrong jeans needed to live a full life.
In some cases the animals will notice the changes taking place in the jean pool and will take a little group of their species and will leave the rest and go to a place were there are no more of that particular species. Do to this group leaving they are not able to take in the jeans that are bad. They will only be able to take the jeans from each other that they see as good. When the group of that species has grown too big for the group of land that they settled in they will spread back out in an attempt to spread out the good jeans again. If the group manages to spread out the good jeans again then the process will start over, but if they fail then when enough have died off the species will once again leave the main population and will take a small group and do the same thing.
This kind of evolution is in a lot of ways just like natural selection. They both do not come naturally to isolated groups of animals. They both have a major effect when it comes to control over the population of animal. It is very uncommon for this technique to not control the population of an animal in a certain place. For this process to work the prey and the predator both have to have this going on at around the same time. If they both do not have this going at the same time it can risk over having an over population and that would not be a very good thing if it stays over populated for to long.
Sometimes due to this happening the jeans of a not so healthy or strong animal end up getting spread to offspring and the good jeans end up getting taken away for good. This is not a very good thing when it comes to the survival of a species. When this happens in order to get the original jeans needed back most of the animals that have the bad jeans have to die off and the couple left with the good jeans have the breed faster then ever before. If most of the animals of that species die off, it would be pretty easy to see that it would of course take longer to recreate the original species then it did to get it were it was one-hundred years before. This process can be simulated with a simple process that you might already know. This process is known as the heads and tails process. It is as simple as flipping a coin and counting the amount of times it lands on heads or tails. This is a very good way to simulate this process because it is just like it in many ways, such as: the coin is different in two different ways, the outcome is anonymous, and it can be seen what the outcome is. If you have ever done this project you should know that the outcome is never the same. It is always different no matter how many times you do it. This is the same in every day life. The outcome is always different. This explains how hard it really is to get rid of and recreate an entire species from scratch.
As told before by many scientists and zoologist this process happens in every day life no matter what we do to prevent it. This happens to every species every day. This is happening somewhere right now as you read about it. Somewhere in this world right now something is changing with a species, whether it is changing its jeans or just changing its hair color, it is happening every minute of every day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)