This is my first Wiki post and I thought that the reading was interesting. Just reading these first few pages I have already learned a little bit about what this class is going to be about. For example how forms and development of organisms are interconnected and you can't understand one without the other when dealing with evolution. Like the example of "not a single biologist ever anticipated that the same genes that control the making of an insect's body and organs also control the making of our bodies." That quote made me interested in the reading a lot more, because I am not sure that I understand how all the genes work. I am not sure if I agree with the fact that Evolution is as natural as development, but I feel that development is how a organism develops from an egg to an organism, while evolution happens over time. I just think that evolution isn't as natural even though over time creatures have evolved and developed better ways to survive in certain situations. I do believe in evolution though. I do think that people who don't believe in evolution lack imagination, and can't see the bigger picture of things in the universe but I don't remember what the author thought about it. The Just so stories at the end of the intro was cool to see talked about, because I remember when I was younger I used to read them, so it was kind of funny to me. It is cool how biology can tell us so much about all the creatures with evolution and the development of organisms from a single cell to a more complex creature.
I believe that Carroll's thoughts on how very small genetic differences result in such drastic superficial changes is right on the money for most of America. The fact that we don't NEED to reinvent the wheel every go round results in a lot of carry over, which makes sense. Yet when we stop and look back at the finished product, all we can focus on is the paint color or the brand of new tires. I think we jump to these conclusions only because these conclusions are most noticeable. Most people either can't or wont grasp the fact that repetition is easy, and it really does make the world go round. So you have an eye, but you want it to see in color. Do you reinvent? Of course not, you make small modifications until you get what you want. Reinvent is costly, takes a lot of thought and a lot of experimentation. Tweaking a product is cost effective and not risky. If development is controlled by the same genes, then you have a common starting point. Now that you've started, you can slowly modify these genes until you've come up with a new product. It's not totally new, but its modified… and because its JUST modified, why SHOULDN'T it be controlled by the same genes? Adding more genes to the mix means taking up more space, having a higher chance of error and wasting valuable energy.
I think that while many Americans can accept development as a basic and natural process, their lack of acceptance of evolution is not based on lack of imagination, but as a lack of understanding basic and natural processes. History sees phenotypical changes… its what's on the OUTSIDE that counts. We've always been like that, and I doubt the vast majority changes their mind and starts choosing the ugly sweethearts before the hotties. I believe that because we are soooo attached to this physical phenotypical development, we aren't going to grab onto the evolutionary ride because there is no tangible easily graspable model for the undereducated population to hold onto. You can't visualize the extremely slow evolutionary tree… if you move from generation to generation, the changes are so minute that you wouldn't even notice the differences as you scrolled along. But when you skip around, you make big jumps, big noticeable jumps, and a lot of the time there are gaps that don't make sense, or gaps that seem too big. But development? That's a smooth flowing model… and a short one too. You can monitor that baby for 9 months. You can go in and check on it, take pictures, see how little nubins form arms and legs, see a beating mass of tissue that forms a heart. Its not a lack of imagination that leads to a general bitter resentment towards biological evolution, we just don't have a model that stands up to the amazing model that we've already formed. People have quality standards…
I agree with what you say on the building off of what we already have for genes and our "make up". However I have my own thoughts on why people choose not to accept evolution.
Evolution is a very hard concept to grasp for most Americans and the population as a whole because a majority of people believe in a higher power (God) that created humans and gave us everything we needed, and continues to give us what we need and want…with answering prayers and forgiving sins. Evolution is hard to grasp for believers of Christianity because they have been raised with it implanted in their head that humans are a superior being that were made special to put on this earth and do what we want for it. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all Christians believe this or don't believe in evolution, its just a VAGUE generalization. Faith is easier to believe in because science is constantly proven wrong, its what we do as scientists. We don't try to prove things right, we prove things wrong to minimize the possibilities of what the answer to our question is. So the public sees science being wrong all the time, and maybe doesn't understand that as scientists, we are trying to prove things wrong!!!
Evolution is also a hard concept for people to grasp because many people are not educated in the sciences. There are many people that are….however most of American didn't choose to major in science if they went to school at all. Our world is filled with economy, business, politics, technology, media, etc….science is generally not one of the things that pops into mind when one thinks of an American. It is ignorance that puts oil on the pig of evolution that the general population is trying to grasp….and failing wonderously at. With more discoveries, time, facts, EDUCATION, and research, evolution will be more accepted as time goes on…unless we prove it wrong and develop another theory…..because this is what scientists do!!!
However Chad, I kind of disagree with you in a way about the "homo sapians" choosing the better looking, better odds kind of people. That is how people are and always have been, that I agree on….However I'm sure as you know, other animals are the same way. Many creatures use physical tools to attract mates, such as the feathers on a peacock, markings on a reptile, size of antlers, etc….it is the way animals are….in general, not just humans. However we do have methods of magnifying these traits with our ability of the media. However I just wanted to note that it is not just humans that are shallow. All animals choose a mate on physical appearance, likeliness of survival, intelligence and "inner beauty", note that inner beauty is the last on my list.
I'm not saying that its right to by choosy and shallow, its just the way that we are made….survival of the fittest, natural selection, or whatever you want to call it.
All animals have quality standards…..
While I see your point that outside appearances are typically those first noticed and are what draw our attention, I feel that you are not giving enough credit to those that dare to dig a little deeper. Do you honestly think that everyone in this world is so superficial that they can't get beyond this? IF that were the case I'm not sure we would be where we are today in the world of science. What would the point of looking at things, like genetic makeup, be? I mean why fix what isn't broke? Classifying systems based solely on phenotype aren't exactly a new concept and is generally the way classification is introduced to students. But let's be honest here, are we really going to categorize humans with birds just because we both have eyes….NO. There are obvious differences that separate us from birds. And how do we figure those differences out? By going below the skin…metaphorically speaking. And yes I realize that birds are probably not the best example I could give here, but for dramatic effect you get the idea.
On a completely different note…I think this is going to be an interesting read. It's a new concept to have a book in a biology course that is not so fact oriented. I'm intrigued whether I will be able to make any correlations to my Science and Religion class and Philosophy of Science class with this book.
I don't think it is counter intuitive that certain genes are similar in species that are visibly different because evolution is adaptation of different things. It doesn't make sense to start from scratch when only a small modification is needed. I don't agree that people who don't believe in evolution lack imagination. I just think, like Chad said, that they don't know how genes work or how they can be modified, so evolution seems like a mystery. Everyone can see what happens on the outside with evolution but its more difficult to understand what is actually happening and without an explanation I believe most people wouldn't give much thought to the changes being a part of evolution.
I agree with jean perrin's statement, however there is great science that is not counterintuitive and to an extent does not explain the complex visible with the simple invisible. On the one hand, genetics and evolution are great examples of perrin's statement. Additionally, most of the phenomena involved with the atom, subatomic forces, and quantum mechanics are great examples of perrin's statement. On the other hand, one may argue that classical physics (Newtonian physics) describe the discrete aspects of nature without much counterintuition.
Also, the fact the same genes control many of the same features and functions of many different organisms may seem counterintuitive, however it makes logical sense. Chadwick clancy is right on when he talks about how creating new genes for differences in the same feature is just a waste of space and energy. Modifying the same genes only makes sense.
I dont quite agree with Carroll's statement here. I think that its not a lack of mere imagination as it is a lack of knowledge and/or stubborness. If half of those americans who do not believe in evolution had knowledge and insight on what evolution involves than I could accept their beliefs. However, many just disregard evolution because either their churces tell them to or the bible conflicts with evolution. I personally think in a way evolution supports God and his creations. In addition, like chad said, just because evolution does not occur in nine months like development does not mean its not natural. It seems plausible that there is no difference between the development of a single egg to a complex organism and the evolution of many complex species from simple common ancestors, and therefore evolution is natural.
Just So stories are just fairy tales made for little kids with wild imaginations and are not justified by logical evidence while scientific explanation bases its theories etc off of physical and/or what may seem to be invisible evidence.
Oh by the way Chad, Blake Anderson chooses the ugly sweethearts over the hotties.
I really like the author's choice to use song lyrics and a wide variety of sources early on, it made for a great attention getter. Had the author not done so, I think I may have been less interested from the start, as this topic is sort of like beating a dead horse to me. As I progressed in this weeks reading, Carroll reiterated parts of genes which I had not put into consideration. A couple of people have touched on it earlier in the thread, the twists Carroll puts on the heated subject are those of which many outside of the scientific realm don't usually tie together. I appreciate the author's writing style as it tends to create visual images and provides information rather than imposing scientific biases.
I think that it absolutely makes sense that animals have similar genes when you consider how evolution and mutations occur. Random mutations that function and can be passed on just don't seem likely to result in completely different mechanisms, such as for the development of eyes. I liked Chad's tire analogy, little tweaks here and there are really all that seems necessary in my mind.
In agreement with pretty much everyone else who posted before me, I don't think that it is lack of imagination, so much as lack of full understanding, that is responsible for most Americans not accepting evolution.
I do have to admit though, I feel a little out of the loop with the Just-So stories. I'm not sure that I've heard them, I'll have to look them up now.
-Jamie
I found the way she introduced the book was very intriguing. It was definitely NOT dry scientific reading. I actually enjoyed her style of writing and was compelled to read more. I think it will be a very interesting and helpful book. I also like how she brings up the topic of evolution in the beginning of the book. It is a very important topic in genetics and "the purpose of life".
On that note, I would like to say that I do believe in evolution. I am a strong believer in science and agree that we as human beings, and animals, are the advanced and more updated form of what life used to be billions of years ago. It is easily believable that fruit fly eyes can be turned on by the same gene as human eyes. Since it is believed we all evolved from one ancient being, it is probable to believe that we will all have similar genes; its just a matter of whether or not those genes are turned on and how they function.
Evolution and genetics have a very strong bond and I am very excited to see what I can learn and explore about how we are put together!!
-Eva
Im not sure that i like the way Carroll introduces the book. its seems to just go on and on with this dragged out metaphor about elementary school kids and looses the focus of the main argument..which is evolution. over all for the intro carroll style of writing just made me want to skip ahead to see if I could find the point in the next paragraph.
But on the upside at the end of the intro Carroll does create a good outline of the books focus and the concepts the reader should be learning or at least questioning.
First of all, I would like to comment that the book makes excellent use of illustrations, right from the beginning. The preface and introduction lay out the overview of the book in clear language. I like how she used the student’s drawing in her book. I also agree with most of the class members that the poem did add the beautiful touch to each reading section.
There is a part in the introduction, Carroll brought up an interesting idea that “… art reflect the children’s deep connection to animal forms- their shapes, patterns, and colors.” I just wonder where did the connection come from? It is because we had been exposed to them and the destine features had just jammed in our brain or because of evolution? We used to be one of those animal million or billion years ago? Interesting huh?
-Hoa Le
I thought that the introduction to this book was really good and easy to read. It was not like most textbooks that I have to read for other courses. The author just laid everything out there in plain English, therefore it was very easy and enjoyable to read.
In the Evo Devo Revolution section of the introduction she talked about how we are very closely related many other animals such as mice, and flies. Even though we do not look alike we still have some of the same genes for our different body parts. I think this is so amazing that even though our genes can be so close to one another and among many different animals and yet we still look nothing like each other. I'm excited to see how this works exactly when I read further in this book, it just seems really interesting to me.
Evolution is a difficult subject and very hard to understand, so it not surprise why many people doesn’t believe in it, especially talking about tiny organisms that can’t be seen with the human’s naked eyes. I’m not sure if I do believe in evolution. However, I do think that genes that are passed down from one generation to the next will result in a new trait. I also agree those human genes are no different from other creatures’ genes. So far, I the introduction seem kind of interesting, and unlike other science readings, this one sound more exciting.
I really enjoyed reading this book. It kept my attention and I did not find my mind wandering as it so often does when I read other text books. I really like at the end of the preface how the author gives a brief description of how different people and not just biologists can get something out of this book.
I also found it interesting how we have similar genes that make up our bodies that fruit flies have. I would have to agree with Beau on people not believing in evolution because of stubbornness. It won't matter how many times certain people see the evidence that supports evolution they just won't bend in their set ways.
I am excited to keep reading this book it already has my interest perked
