Why is this so important?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

'....Why is this so important? Our earlier work, based on a survey of over 900 high school biology teachers, showed that content knowledge is critically important. Compared to teachers who taught evolution in a straightforward, unapologetic and scientific manner, the teachers that hedged or otherwise legitimated non-scientific alternatives had fewer science credits overall, were less likely to have completed a course focusing on evolution, and rated their own knowledge of evolution lower. ....*

~~~
* Why science teachers sow doubt about evolution (even when they don’t mean to) - The Washington Post

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Bump

 

[whois]

i believe the following 2 papers give an excellent reason why teachers are having such a problem with "evolution"

The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis

it should be clear that science itself is unsure about what "evolution" is.
science does, however, make some valiant attempts at trying to explain it though.
it's no mystery to me why teachers have a hard time at teaching evolution, and it has nothing to do with "religious" motivations.

recent genetic experiments yielded the following:

After ∼644 generations of mutation accumulation, MA lines had accumulated an average of 118 mutations, and we found that average fitness across all lines decayed linearly over time. Detailed analyses of the dynamics of fitness change in individual lines revealed that a large fraction of the total decay in fitness (42.3%) was attributable to the fixation of rare, highly deleterious mutations (comprising only 0.5% of fixed mutations).

Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

i believe the following 2 papers give an excellent reason why teachers are having such a problem with "evolution"

The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis

it should be clear that science itself is unsure about what "evolution" is.
science does, however, make some valiant attempts at trying to explain it though.
it's no mystery to me why teachers have a hard time at teaching evolution, and it has nothing to do with "religious" motivations.

recent genetic experiments yielded the following:
Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment

What a surprise!
I didn't think anyone would bother to read this post, or the linked article -- let alone give me something to think about.

Thanks, I'll give it a good read and think and hopefully get back before one of the brain-boxes of this forum give it a go.

Lewis.

 

[Loudmouth]

i believe the following 2 papers give an excellent reason why teachers are having such a problem with "evolution"

The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis
Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis

it should be clear that science itself is unsure about what "evolution" is.

It is clear that you don't understand what you are reading. Perhaps you should fix your own understanding of what evolution is before criticizing scientists who actually know their stuff.

it's no mystery to me why teachers have a hard time at teaching evolution, and it has nothing to do with "religious" motivations.

recent genetic experiments yielded the following:
Fitness Is Strongly Influenced by Rare Mutations of Large Effect in a Microbial Mutation Accumulation Experiment

So why haven't bacteria vanished in a matter of decades from the accumulation of deleterious mutations?

 

[whois]

It is clear that you don't understand what you are reading. Perhaps you should fix your own understanding of what evolution is before criticizing scientists who actually know their stuff.

reported.

So why haven't bacteria vanished in a matter of decades from the accumulation of deleterious mutations?

good question.
maybe science doesn't know evolution as good as it think it does.
i have no reason to mistrust the experiment.

 

[Loudmouth]

reported.

good question.
maybe science doesn't know evolution as good as it think it does.
i have no reason to mistrust the experiment.

Then show that they don't understand it instead of making baseless accusations.

 

[whois]

Then show that they don't understand it instead of making baseless accusations.

my post 3 was in response to the OP.
if you can't see the connection, then i don't know what to say to you.

 

[Davian]

'....Why is this so important? Our earlier work, based on a survey of over 900 high school biology teachers, showed that content knowledge is critically important. Compared to teachers who taught evolution in a straightforward, unapologetic and scientific manner, the teachers that hedged or otherwise legitimated non-scientific alternatives had fewer science credits overall, were less likely to have completed a course focusing on evolution, and rated their own knowledge of evolution lower. ....*

~~~
* Why science teachers sow doubt about evolution (even when they don’t mean to) - The Washington Post

What is your question. Teachers that know the subject matter teach it better. In this part of the world, biology is not a sensitive subject. However, with physics, chemistry, and pre-calc we have noted that the teacher's performance has affected our child's.

 

[Loudmouth]

my post 3 was in response to the OP.
if you can't see the connection, then i don't know what to say to you.

Show us the connection.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It seems to me that the more science 'knows' about evolution (read it becomes even more complex) the less teachers are able to explain it to their students (there's only so many hours in a school day).

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems to me that the more science 'knows' about evolution (read it becomes even more complex) the less teachers are able to explain it to their students (there's only so many hours in a school day).

What do you base this on?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What do you base this on?

A lot on some evidence you and others present on these forums.

 

[Loudmouth]

A lot on some evidence you and others present on these forums.

Such as?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Such as?

Go back to any posts that present technical information about evolution and ask yourself honestly, who understands this stuff?

 

[jacknife]

Go back to any posts that present technical information about evolution and ask yourself honestly, who understands this stuff?

Is your argument seriously that since YOU can't understand it others can't?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

'....Why is this so important? Our earlier work, based on a survey of over 900 high school biology teachers, showed that content knowledge is critically important. Compared to teachers who taught evolution in a straightforward, unapologetic and scientific manner, the teachers that hedged or otherwise legitimated non-scientific alternatives had fewer science credits overall, were less likely to have completed a course focusing on evolution, and rated their own knowledge of evolution lower. ....*

This seems to reflect the population here at CF.

I noticed you included that picture,so I assume you liked it. You might enjoy watching this:

NOTE: by National Film Board of Canada, won 2005 Oscar. Some foul language (Is it OK to link to this because it's definitely art?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkBjZKBLHQ

 

[SteveB28]

It seems to me that the more science 'knows' about evolution (read it becomes even more complex) the less teachers are able to explain it to their students (there's only so many hours in a school day).

The two concepts you present aren't necessarily related.

Yes, as with any progress in scientific research, the further that a theory is developed, the more the research will be dealing with the highly complex minutiae of that theory. The basics have already been well developed, so it is 'on the margins' that most future work occurs.

However, this does not mean that teachers in biology classes need to immerse their students in these highly technical 'margins'. Surely their role is to explain the fundamentals of the theories and to permit those students who display sufficient interest and skill to progress further if they wish?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is your argument seriously that since YOU can't understand it others can't?

Those who believe in creation are united in their belief (we don't claim to understand it). From what I understand science is divided on the evolutionary process. Whyzat?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, as with any progress in scientific research, the further that a theory is developed, the more the research will be dealing with the highly complex minutiae of that theory. The basics have already been well developed, so it is 'on the margins' that most future work occurs.

You've chosen your words carefully. I appreciate that.

By deal with the (newly discovered?) highly complex minutiae you mean fix the theory, don't you?