Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 9 of 306 (40311)
05-15-2003 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Mister Pamboli
05-15-2003 6:07 PM


I was taught this decade ago
That is an interesting question but I found that if E. Mayr thought he could grow"" biological thought (think "teach") then in his learning which is pretty much top line as far as biology goes...if you read him closely you will find that he was never able to abandon Haeckel altogether. The word "ecology" pretty much indicates inaddition much the same about the slow pace of the change in thought in biological thinking.
My grandfather often TOLD me "o recapitulates p" but being uncertain but of my own "growth" (not being big enough to be a football player) I merely turned this around and USED it in a Lenten Service I gave as Elder. I then resolved this "teaching" (to which I indicate that by Mayr's standard and not mine could not have developed out of taught teaching of biology) into the sentence with the Hacekelian imprimatur"" that o re's p BECAUSE Brownian motion IS NOT mutually (reciprocally) independent of gravity fall" and I can go beyond this to use Galelio in any evrions of ecology as to the developmental and evolutionary question posed by topobiology as to the SIMILARITY to which Figenbaum number could (possibly) account for the constantcy of dissimilarity. I do not think that Mayr would have had a use for the difference IN ANY PHYSICAL SENSE.
I now have not problem, no problem with "o" and "p" words but as to recapitulation"" that is another word altogether different than "ontogeny" or "phylogeny" which ever way you may have them in vocabulary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 6:07 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 9:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 306 (40312)
05-15-2003 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by 7
05-15-2003 7:16 PM


teaching a visual is not only an art
It is possible to "teach" illustrations as I have just recently learned from Boscovich in this THEORY OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY I only wish that the same style of writing carried over into anatomy, embryology, and taxonomy books NO MATTER THE DIAGRAM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by 7, posted 05-15-2003 7:16 PM 7 has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 306 (40318)
05-15-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
05-15-2003 8:32 PM


Of course they could but the point is about "similarity" NOT dissimilarity.
"For example, textbooks present students with drawings of similarities between fish and human embryos, and claim that these similarities are evidence that fish and humans share a common ancestor."
The problem is that what looks like a meristic character to an icythologist may not look in the geography the same cline to an ornithologist as a herpetologist.
If one is only teaching "descent" to POINT then placing the fotos side beside CAN be CONFUSING from the SUBJECTIVE POINT of view of the student which needs to be cultivated as well as any significant objective level of confidence perspective no matter who does the teaching. Adaptation is simply too broad a basis to justify the pedagogy from while it may be sufficient for any individual instructor.
There IS A LOGICAL point with "common descent" that A PICTURE does not address and this has to do with succesion that descent to a point is not but the common morphometrics of the tangent-reference form (a techincal notion) does so that when the student wants to refine what had been learn a stumbling block may have been placed by the teacher unawares. This is my position of Mayr.
If a curve of force DOES APPLY directly to LIFE then it is not something to say that an illustration and the event it represents can be categoricaly dissocatiated. They CAN for the pedagogic EVENT but must students know that learning and understanding are two differnt things. Best. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 05-15-2003 8:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by johnnyfunkwagon, posted 01-30-2004 5:57 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 306 (40424)
05-16-2003 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mister Pamboli
05-15-2003 9:07 PM


Re: I was taught this decade ago
What I was not saying was what Ernt Mayr admitted as to the "stomach" or gut in relation to the "tree" of Haeckel which on a view of embryology Mayr was not able to disuade himself of even AFTER trying. I have not picked apart the meat in Gould's book but he may have avoided this problem that is really about the continutiy of genetic connection despite that a "revoltion" of the perspective from the genes is going on. I do not understand Paulk on what is more serious than this as this was first (aside from a protocol of topobiology for instance to which another Harvard guy Lewontin begged off on etc)made in materiality by a Cornell scientist on leave to Europe to try to CATEGORICALLY stop creationism by basis of drawable phylogenies onto molecular evidence to which Gould not so smartly seperated phsyscial and mathematical effects by postulating a token time tremeor of discontinuity in all probalisms.
When I was reading my Grandfather's note books from his (graduate?) Zoology class at Urbana I got the impression that the "soft" parts COULD NOT be distiguished from Hackel's notion of the this part of anatomy but that the work on homeobox and molecular embryology to which Gould also removes himself textually from may have gain said this earlier education of biologists. For a time I had thought that I would have to stick with the fluke of my grandfater's own hand drawings of dissections when it came to the real biological difference I have with discussing what I have seen in the difference of heads of herps and fish (not what I have seen as the same)which would have relied on Haeckel to an extent maybe only ecological it is hard to say.
The web had chaged this. The discussion on ICR forum established in my mind a way to avoid Haeckel electronically but I was not sure how to until quite a few posts down the c/e rabbit trails etc etc.
The amazement however needs to extend to a discussion of lower vertebrate relations of upper and lower jaws, ears etc. I do think that maybe horned toads spikes and toad warts are used by the lower verts to transition longitudianl waves into transverse to the typanmum but then one would have to really/actually look at snakes and salamanders IN THE SAME COMAPARATIVE way to be rigorus which I do not. The closeness of anatomical proximit and different taxa creates the problem but this IS THE JOB of the systematists to which I thought I had a job in. I am not longer amazed but I need to use TWO arguments and not one in order to be conviceing but I have NEVER even got one to work on the web so it is still not possible for me to reveal everythin I know I have read.
You need for instance to be very concerned about for instance why salamders have only ONE and frogs have TWO nerves into the ear. And I have not touched the issue of the claimed change which is seen in human youngs. I also have not thought about this for about two months so I do not have the whole gory details on my toungue tip. You need to interpret homones witout only saying "instinct". THIS IS BIOLOGY and I am glad your son was impressed for that is what starts one's interest in a given taxonomic group.
So I agree to the similiarity but the PROBLEM part comes in when you try to do more sicence agreeing with what your eyes APPEAR to indicate, and now there is a standard evolutionary apprecation which is no different than notions such as "genes for horns" to explian tiatotheres across geo-horizons or one could remand a better statistical significance before concluding in that standard evo-devo way by attempting to consturct with a morphometrics some acutally no visual continuity. We need this higher mathematical continutiy if we are ever going to link up the form with the geographic distributions of the various forms. I know Croizat had done a better job than me looking at point distributions but instead we get some functional paleoecology which is really as specious and on the same degree of confidence as the visual impression. This is the same degree of ability as to read a letter such as double U. We need better as biologists if we are going to impress our physicist friends and we dont get it precisely as evolutionists BLAME creationists but it was the evolutionists who FIRST attempted to discount the cretaionists on this point of non-mental voluntary continutation (without any spirit).
I spent all the time in the herpetology club trying to draw out the similiarites. that IS a good thing but an IMMEDIATE PREDECESSOR is not a successor and need not be a common descendant. Just by looking will not enable one to sort this out, some kind of interpreation or higher cognitive ability is involved. Best.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-15-2003 9:07 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 306 (40914)
05-21-2003 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
05-18-2003 4:16 PM


It is if one is involutarity commited byit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2003 4:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024