Jump to content

Menu

Not to be too controversial, but ...


Recommended Posts

Could someone please clue me in on the Linnean vs. cladistic classification thing? I THINK what I'm seeing is that Linnean was based on observed differences or similarities and creating classification based on that, where cladistic looks back to a theoretical (not necessarily observed) presumed evolutionary ancestor or evolutionary path? And all textbooks in biology are going to this???

 

Screwiest thing I've ever heard of. So if you get a Miller-Levine dragonfly text, it teaches Linnean (observed) classification? And if you get the newer Macaw M/L it teaches cladistic *and* Linnean? Only cladistic??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cladist models are built on genetic similarities instead of observed similarities. The current M/L book teaches both systems. We found it quite interesting. While some of the differences really left us scratching our heads, it was a lot of fun to learn how species are genetically similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cladist models are built on genetic similarities instead of observed similarities. The current M/L book teaches both systems. We found it quite interesting. While some of the differences really left us scratching our heads, it was a lot of fun to learn how species are genetically similar.

 

So in the current M/L text they're looking at *genetic* similarities, not theoretical evolutionary similarities and theoretical ancestors? Genetics, facts, that I'm cool with and find fascinating.

 

And do you view yourself a creationist or other? I haven't even seen the texts in person yet. I'm just trying to pick from the stupid bird or dragonfly to start looking at for 9th, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I found this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/hominid-baraminology on AIG's website, and it's talking about "baraminic difference correlations" (BDC). Is that the type of thing being discussed? So there's a whole FACET of study that wasn't even AROUND when we studied biology way back in an undisclosed decade, hehe...

 

So is a BDC a genetic mapping and statistics thing to look at similarities and differences and they try to use that to establish classification? And the whole system is generally moving that way? Ie. you can *spin* it any way you want, but it's simply the new measuring and comparison tool they're using?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I found this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/hominid-baraminology on AIG's website, and it's talking about "baraminic difference correlations" (BDC). Is that the type of thing being discussed? So there's a whole FACET of study that wasn't even AROUND when we studied biology way back in an undisclosed decade, hehe...

 

So is a BDC a genetic mapping and statistics thing to look at similarities and differences and they try to use that to establish classification? And the whole system is generally moving that way? Ie. you can *spin* it any way you want, but it's simply the new measuring and comparison tool they're using?

 

Most biologists will not be familiar with so-called "baraminic difference correlations" as this is a term that was constructed by the Intelligent Design movement.

 

I fear that the spin is not coming from the biology community but from opponents to the modern paradigm.

Edited by Jane in NC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you get a Miller-Levine dragonfly text, it teaches Linnean (observed) classification? And if you get the newer Macaw M/L it teaches cladistic *and* Linnean? Only cladistic??

 

Actually, the Miller-Levine dragonfly text (at least my 2005 edition of it, older versions may vary) teaches cladistic. It teaches Linnean classification for only two pages, and pretty much just as part of the history of classification. The rest of the chapter on classification is all about cladograms and DNA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Miller-Levine dragonfly text (at least my 2005 edition of it, older versions may vary) teaches cladistic. It teaches Linnean classification for only two pages, and pretty much just as part of the history of classification. The rest of the chapter on classification is all about cladograms and DNA.

 

Ahh, thanks for explaining that! I've never even HEARD of cladograms, mercy. Now another thing to go look up! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most biologists will not be familiar with so-called "baraminic difference correlations" as this is a term that was constructed by the Intelligent Design movement.

 

I fear that the spin is not coming from the biology community but from opponents to the modern paradigm.

 

Yup, I pretty much figured out that was controversial after I googled it a bit more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone *happen* to know what the newest versions of say the BJU biology do with cladograms? Are they still teaching Linnean and just kind of ignoring it? Seems like a pain to put a lot of energy into one system and then have it go out the window. The wikipedia article on cladograms was very vague. It doesn't seem very tidy or specific, more of a mathematical computation thing that they could do because of computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OhElizabeth, this might help - http://www.fossilnews.com/1996/cladistics.html I found that article at the Miller-Levine website for the dragonfly book, which is here - http://www.millerandlevine.com/intro.html The classification chapter is Chapter 18, if you want to look up their other resources, just that article did the best job *FOR ME* of explaining what the heck cladistics was :)

 

I'm still trying to decide whether to use this book or not for next year myself. We HAD a local chemist who taught middle school physics at our homeschool co-op this year, and she was going to use the Miller-Levine book to teach biology for next year, but unfortunately she's not going to be available after all :-( I'm probably going to stick with the middle-school HST Life Science book, just because it's easier for me to implement, and I can read it to my very interested 6YO and he'll still understand it, but my 12YO will probably not be as challenged by it as I'd like. But we are still going to use the Miller-Levine book for a few chapters, including the classification one, which is all a very roundabout way to explain why the heck I'm such an expert on Ch 18 of the dragonfly book, 'cuz I just read it and wrote the lesson plan for it a couple weeks ago :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a lot to contribute to the conversation, but a couple things.

 

1. The Miller/Levine pair have taken up as a mission in life not just teaching evolution, but the replacing of creationism with evolution-ism. I summarized some of that here: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3543572&postcount=8

 

They did invite an evolutionary Christian for one of the round-table sessions on that HHMI video, but really after listening to the priest, I think he's more of a "you can believe in whatever" kind of guy, which has nothing to do with my understanding of Christianity, so I think it was a poor choice. (The whole concept of the video bothered me, but that's another story. It was free :) )

 

2. The new classification system is still being developed. I think this website is kind of like the "second genome project" in that everyone is trying to get together to figure out a different classification system that relates to evolution: http://tolweb.org/tree/

 

However, I do think the first change is already in most textbooks (and on Wikipedia), and that is the change from 2 domains with 5 kingdoms (1 prokaryotes and 4 eukaryotes), to 3 domains (2 prokaryotes and 4 eukaryotes). I think that step has some issues but yah, not to be controversial...

 

Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the Miller-Levine dragonfly text (at least my 2005 edition of it, older versions may vary) teaches cladistic. It teaches Linnean classification for only two pages, and pretty much just as part of the history of classification. The rest of the chapter on classification is all about cladograms and DNA.

 

It is true that Cladograms get most of the focus, but I didn't feel like Linnean classification was taught as historical, but as one of two current options. To answer your question on perspective Elizabeth, I am an old earth creationist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OhElizabeth, this might help - http://www.fossilnews.com/1996/cladistics.html I found that article at the Miller-Levine website for the dragonfly book, which is here - http://www.millerandlevine.com/intro.html The classification chapter is Chapter 18, if you want to look up their other resources, just that article did the best job *FOR ME* of explaining what the heck cladistics was :)

 

Thanks, that pretty much cleared it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a lot to contribute to the conversation, but a couple things.

 

1. The Miller/Levine pair have taken up as a mission in life not just teaching evolution, but the replacing of creationism with evolution-ism. I summarized some of that here: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3543572&postcount=8

 

They did invite an evolutionary Christian for one of the round-table sessions on that HHMI video, but really after listening to the priest, I think he's more of a "you can believe in whatever" kind of guy, which has nothing to do with my understanding of Christianity, so I think it was a poor choice. (The whole concept of the video bothered me, but that's another story. It was free :) )

 

2. The new classification system is still being developed. I think this website is kind of like the "second genome project" in that everyone is trying to get together to figure out a different classification system that relates to evolution: http://tolweb.org/tree/

 

However, I do think the first change is already in most textbooks (and on Wikipedia), and that is the change from 2 domains with 5 kingdoms (1 prokaryotes and 4 eukaryotes), to 3 domains (2 prokaryotes and 4 eukaryotes). I think that step has some issues but yah, not to be controversial...

 

Julie

 

Julie, you're reading my mind here. Ordinarily it would be my strong preference to do distinctly christian (BJU, etc.) for anything and everything. I totally agree that, with what I've read about Miller and their worldview, it's not a scenario I'd like to patronize. However the samples I've seen online seem engagingly written. I guess that's how it always is. ;) Did you find a good alternative? My *theory* is that we'd use the Illustrated Home Guide to Biology Experiments and use a text as a reference. You know the old, old BJU Biology text I have on the shelf might be adequate for that. Hadn't thought about it till just now, but it might be adequate, no clue.

 

This is all for a year from now anyway, no terrible rush. I just try to read ahead and have a sense of where we're going so I can watch feedback, etc. I'm trying the labs-driven approach this fall for physical science, so if that works for dd, that's what I want to keep doing right on through high school. So in this case I'm intentionally de-emphasizing or trimming time on one aspect to put it in other aspects. That's my theory at least.

 

I have M/L and Evolution Exposed coming from the library, so I'll be able to see them for myself. If you have other suggestions, I'm all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a pain to put a lot of energy into one system and then have it go out the window.

 

The Linnaean classification system has not been thrown out of the window, but rather has been modified to reflect new knowledge about genetic and molecular similarities - things which Linnaeus himself could not observe. Similarly Linnaeus had originally classified all living forms into only two Kingdoms: Plants and Animals. We now have 6 Kingdoms based on new knowledge, and I suppose that as we learn more about our world, this will further change (as it should).

 

Classification is still done on observed similarities (morphological, anatomical, molecular and genetic). In case of extinct species, this would have to be done solely based on morphological similarities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julie, you're reading my mind here. Ordinarily it would be my strong preference to do distinctly christian (BJU, etc.) for anything and everything. I totally agree that, with what I've read about Miller and their worldview, it's not a scenario I'd like to patronize. However the samples I've seen online seem engagingly written. I guess that's how it always is. ;) Did you find a good alternative? My *theory* is that we'd use the Illustrated Home Guide to Biology Experiments and use a text as a reference. You know the old, old BJU Biology text I have on the shelf might be adequate for that. Hadn't thought about it till just now, but it might be adequate, no clue.

 

This is all for a year from now anyway, no terrible rush. I just try to read ahead and have a sense of where we're going so I can watch feedback, etc. I'm trying the labs-driven approach this fall for physical science, so if that works for dd, that's what I want to keep doing right on through high school. So in this case I'm intentionally de-emphasizing or trimming time on one aspect to put it in other aspects. That's my theory at least.

 

I have M/L and Evolution Exposed coming from the library, so I'll be able to see them for myself. If you have other suggestions, I'm all ears.

 

I wouldn't find M-L impossible to use. Well, maybe impossible to just hand to my child, but not to use in our homeschool with discussion. However, after watching that HHMI set, I had a bit of an attitude about Mr. Miller, so I didn't look too far into it. Your library idea sounds good. My son just wasn't a fan of science textbooks in general, anyways.

 

In the end, we did our own thing the first part of this year and then my son decided he just wanted to do some Apologia chapters for a while, which went a lot better when he joined the Virtual Homeschool Group and got some interaction. It is probably a bit easier to do Apologia online with multiple choice. However, it worked out okay for our needs by filling in with labs and the things we did on our own. I don't like everything about Apologia, either, but there are some things I do really like about it. We're probably too picky :)

 

Julie

P.S. I didn't write the domain thing above correctly (should say 3 domains with 6 kingdoms). Gotta love my math there :)

Edited by Julie in MN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a pain to put a lot of energy into one system and then have it go out the window.
The Linnaean classification system has not been thrown out of the window, but rather has been modified

 

You know, that's why I don't like science, myself. Seems like you *always* have to memorize something as fact, only to find it changes later on. What do we do with all those mnemonics that include Pluto? How about whether butter is good for you LOL? Several of the HHMI lecturers I've watched have said, "I used to teach my students X, and now we know that is wrong." Then they proceed to tell what new "fact" they "know."

 

At least with the social sciences, one tends to calls a theory a theory. And that's what I do like about Apologia. I remember in Physical Science, Wile was explaining all the plate tectonics and such, and he stopped in the text to say, you know, no one has ever, ever, not with the very longest drill in the world, every seen below the crust of the earth. Wow, I don't remember any other science textbook author stopping to say "this is total theory." Now that's good science, in my book :)

 

Julie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, that's why I don't like science, myself. Seems like you *always* have to memorize something as fact, only to find it changes later on. What do we do with all those mnemonics that include Pluto? How about whether butter is good for you LOL? Several of the HHMI lecturers I've watched have said, "I used to teach my students X, and now we know that is wrong." Then they proceed to tell what new "fact" they "know."

 

At least with the social sciences, one tends to calls a theory a theory. And that's what I do like about Apologia. I remember in Physical Science, Wile was explaining all the plate tectonics and such, and he stopped in the text to say, you know, no one has ever, ever, not with the very longest drill in the world, every seen below the crust of the earth. Wow, I don't remember any other science textbook author stopping to say "this is total theory." Now that's good science, in my book :)

 

Julie

 

I think, though that this may be mixing up theory with hypothesis. Yes, theories can be overturned, but it happens pretty darn rarely (once a century at most -- and maybe a lot less). Hypotheses, on the other hand, are thrown out all the time. But because, in general conversation, people throw around the two words as if they are exactly the same thing, it becomes very easy for someone to make the logical (but very wrong) leap to saying that all scientific theories are unsupported.

 

Here's an article explaining the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

http://culturalcommentary.blogspot.com/2006/02/theory-vs-hypothesis-whats-difference.html

 

Perhaps the very first step in understanding science is understanding this difference. If people really understood this, they'd understand exactly why biologists scoff at creationism and ID. It's not that they're hidebound traditionalists who just don't happen to like Christians. They just understand that creationism and ID don't have *nearly* the evidential support that the theory of evolution does. That evidence, in fact, is why it's called a theory, and not a hypothesis. A theory has to have a huge mass of evidence supporting it or it's got no business being called a theory.

 

And hypotheses and theories get thrown out at about the same rate in the social sciences. Even a field like history (which most wouldn't think to call a "real" science) has hypotheses that get disproved at a very high rate, as well as theories that have a huge body of evidence supporting them that *don't* get thrown out all that often.

 

It takes a very, very long time for enough evidence to show up for a hypothesis to turn into a theory. That's why it takes so long for a theory to be toppled by another theory. Another huge mass of evidence has to be discovered to make that switch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, though that this may be mixing up theory with hypothesis. Yes, theories can be overturned, but it happens pretty darn rarely (once a century at most -- and maybe a lot less). Hypotheses, on the other hand, are thrown out all the time. But because, in general conversation, people throw around the two words as if they are exactly the same thing, it becomes very easy for someone to make the logical (but very wrong) leap to saying that all scientific theories are unsupported.

 

Here's an article explaining the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

http://culturalcommentary.blogspot.com/2006/02/theory-vs-hypothesis-whats-difference.html

 

Perhaps the very first step in understanding science is understanding this difference. If people really understood this, they'd understand exactly why biologists scoff at creationism and ID. It's not that they're hidebound traditionalists who just don't happen to like Christians. They just understand that creationism and ID don't have *nearly* the evidential support that the theory of evolution does. That evidence, in fact, is why it's called a theory, and not a hypothesis. A theory has to have a huge mass of evidence supporting it or it's got no business being called a theory.

 

And hypotheses and theories get thrown out at about the same rate in the social sciences. Even a field like history (which most wouldn't think to call a "real" science) has hypotheses that get disproved at a very high rate, as well as theories that have a huge body of evidence supporting them that *don't* get thrown out all that often.

 

It takes a very, very long time for enough evidence to show up for a hypothesis to turn into a theory. That's why it takes so long for a theory to be toppled by another theory. Another huge mass of evidence has to be discovered to make that switch.

 

Well said. Good science will also always involve prediction which is then supported/ proven by experiment/ observation (such as Einstein's prediction about the bending of light by gravitational lensing). That's an area where YE creationist views tend to fall far short.

 

Robin (an OE believer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the opinions. My question was merely about what cladistic is and how it is discussed in M/L. If y'all decide to launch into controversies or decide to attack YE (which actually happens to be my own view), it wasn't really what I was needing. Thanks. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, though that this may be mixing up theory with hypothesis. Yes, theories can be overturned, but it happens pretty darn rarely (once a century at most -- and maybe a lot less). Hypotheses, on the other hand, are thrown out all the time. But because, in general conversation, people throw around the two words as if they are exactly the same thing, it becomes very easy for someone to make the logical (but very wrong) leap to saying that all scientific theories are unsupported.

 

Here's an article explaining the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

http://culturalcommentary.blogspot.com/2006/02/theory-vs-hypothesis-whats-difference.html

 

Perhaps the very first step in understanding science is understanding this difference. If people really understood this, they'd understand exactly why biologists scoff at creationism and ID. It's not that they're hidebound traditionalists who just don't happen to like Christians. They just understand that creationism and ID don't have *nearly* the evidential support that the theory of evolution does. That evidence, in fact, is why it's called a theory, and not a hypothesis. A theory has to have a huge mass of evidence supporting it or it's got no business being called a theory.

 

And hypotheses and theories get thrown out at about the same rate in the social sciences. Even a field like history (which most wouldn't think to call a "real" science) has hypotheses that get disproved at a very high rate, as well as theories that have a huge body of evidence supporting them that *don't* get thrown out all that often.

 

It takes a very, very long time for enough evidence to show up for a hypothesis to turn into a theory. That's why it takes so long for a theory to be toppled by another theory. Another huge mass of evidence has to be discovered to make that switch.

 

Excellent post, Emubird! One thing that I would like to add is that scientific theories are often large frameworks. The details can be disputed. Certainly technology has allowed us to see what the eye had not formerly seen!

 

Newton's "Law" of gravity is now considered an approximation for how gravity behaves. Newton's theory of gravity has been replaced by Einstein's. Will quantum mechanics replace today's theories with new ideas? You got me since I really don't understand quantum mechanics. But I still stand in awe of Newton and will not vilify him because he got a few things wrong. (Remember that Einstein needed the mathematical tools developed by Riemann in the 19th century in order to make his leaps. There are mathematical structures that have yet to find their way into the applied world. Who knows where they will lead!)

Edited by Jane in NC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the opinions. My question was merely about what cladistic is and how it is discussed in M/L. If y'all decide to launch into controversies or decide to attack YE (which actually happens to be my own view), it wasn't really what I was needing. Thanks. ;)

 

Side issues came up concerning what is a scientific "theory" which accounts for the more recent posts. That may not have been your intention, but you know how spin offs go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will quantum mechanics replace today's theories with new ideas? You got me since I really don't understand quantum mechanics.

 

Fact of the matter is, no one really understands quantum mechanics. They know how to work the math to get the results, but understand it? Not so much.

 

And it seems to already have moved up into the theory category, as it explains certain phenomena that aren't well explained otherwise. (At least, that seems to be where wikipedia places it. And how it's talked about in quantum mech classes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Lori. I was the one who was gabbing about not liking science. Funny, but I was basically talking about why I didn't like science in college, and I was not YE at the time, that wasn't even on my radar at the time. But somehow it's being assumed that not liking something about science is due to being YE, and that YE means you dont understand scientific terminology. Scratching my head, and to think I graduated Summa cum laude, Phi beta kappa, the whole bit.

 

I'll stop riling things up by being too chatty :)

 

Julie

Edited by Julie in MN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...