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:   Help with School
ahp12212
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 16 (41065)
05-22-2003 10:27 PM


I am doing a mock trial on evolution. I am on Charles Darwin side and I have Herman Bumpus, Thomas Malthus, Charles Darwin, Kettlewell, and Alfred Wallace as my witnesses.
The other side is Jean Baptiste Lamarck. They have Ian Malcolm (The Lost World), a Paleontologist, A farmer, Erasmus Darwin, and Lamarck as witnesses.
THe case is, we have to defend our theory and prove the others wrong. I already know Darwin is correct but thye have awesome debaters on their side. So if you guys can dgive me advice or any thigns that could hurt me so i can defend against it. ALso i need some things to target Lamarack and his witnesses. and things tod efend mine

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2003 3:03 AM ahp12212 has not replied
 Message 3 by Quetzal, posted 05-23-2003 5:16 AM ahp12212 has not replied
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2003 1:16 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 16 (41072)
05-23-2003 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ahp12212
05-22-2003 10:27 PM


Don't take my word for it but weren't there actual experiments of Lamrackism done at one time. Something about cutting the tails of mice over and over, generation after generation and noting that it made no difference to the subsequent generations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ahp12212, posted 05-22-2003 10:27 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 3 of 16 (41076)
05-23-2003 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ahp12212
05-22-2003 10:27 PM


Hi ahp:
Sounds like you have an interesting class going there.
Just a few thoughts:
Lamarck: Although Nosey brought up August Weismann's late 19th Century rat experiments, the Lamarckians countered by stating the experiments were flawed since they claimed Lamarck’s ideas were that the organism striving in its environment makes the inheritable changes, not external factors like chopping off tails, so it might not be a good idea to use that.
One thing you might be able to do (if you're clever enough), is to actually turn Lamarck into a witness FOR Darwinism (if the others are arguing creationism). Check out SJ Gould’s The Panda’s Thumb, especially pages 76-84. He discusses what Lamarck REALLY said. Basically, Lamarck argued that life is generated, continuously and spontaneously, in very simple form. It then climbs a ladder of complexity, motivated by a "force that tends incessantly to complicate organization." This force operates through the creative response of organisms to "felt needs." But life cannot be organized as a ladder because the upward path is often diverted by requirements of local environments; thus, giraffes acquire long necks and wading birds webbed feet, while moles and cave fishes lose their eyes. Inheritance of acquired characters does play an important part in this scheme, but not the central role. It is the mechanism for assuring that offspring benefit from their parents' efforts, but it does not propel evolution up the ladder.
If it gets that far, you might want to point out that the only real difference between Lamarck and Darwin was the fact that Lamarck proposed a one step process, whereas Darwin had two. In other words, they both agreed that organisms adapt to their changing environment over the generations, (which is anathema to the creationist position), but disagreed over the mechanism. Lamarck thought that organisms perceive the environmental change, responds in the "right" way, and passes its appropriate reaction directly to its offspring. Darwin observed that variation in local populations and then saw selection as the mechanism for how the reaction changes a population by conferring greater reproductive success upon advantageous variants. Lamarck pushed for directed evolution, Darwin for undirected change. You might be able to defuse Lamarck this way.
Witnesses: Are you limited to pre-1900 witnesses? If not, you might want to excuse Kettlewell. A good lawyer would be able to cast aspersions on his credibility by pointing out that the famous photos were faked (i.e., the moths were pinned to the branches — posed). It’s tangential, and irrelevant, but could drag the conversation easily off topic. It doesn’t change the validity of the observation (of the action of natural selection on the moth population), but could cause problems in the cross-examination. If you have a choice, I’d use Peter Grant as a witness — his 30 year study of Gospiza spp in the Galapogos is definitive, real time, natural selection (see the book The Beak of the Finch).
Other: It’s not totally clear what the paleontologist will be arguing on the creationism side. The only two things I can think of would be punk-eq vs gradualism, and transitional fossils. On the former, prepare some rebuttals along the lines of pointing out that punk-eq is simply faster gradualism, the fossil record isn’t fined grained enough to show gradualism but there is no reason to assume that the organisms didn’t exist, etc. Also prepare some good transitional series (whales, horses, fish-amphibian are pretty good). Make sure YOU define what transitional really means to forestall a typical creationist strawman.
I can’t imagine what a farmer would be doing on that side — Darwin used much of the evidence from husbandry and breeding from farmers, pigeon fanciers, etc to show how selection worked. The only real extrapolation from that is based on time and the forces used (i.e., natural vs. artificial selection).
If you can give me more specifics on either your side or your opponent's case, maybe I can help out more. I'd also appreciate it if you'd give us the point by point on the action when your "case" actually goes to "trial".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ahp12212, posted 05-22-2003 10:27 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
Andor
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 16 (41077)
05-23-2003 5:16 AM


Only the information stored in germinal cells is passed to the descendants. Flow of information from somatic to germinal cell has never been proved, though there is transfer of cytoplasmic information as well as transfer of nucleic information.
If there is no flow of information from somatic cells to germinal cells, mutations in somatic cells will never be passed to the progeny, and Lamarkian heredity is not possible.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 16 (41117)
05-23-2003 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ahp12212
05-22-2003 10:27 PM


I think a germaine question is: do you have access to contemporary evidence? Or are you limited to what was known at the time? If you can introduce modern evidence, you might point out that no new evidence for the Lamarkian view has been introduced in the last hundred years or so, if not longer.
Also take the time to review the basic fallacies of informal logic. (Search google.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ahp12212, posted 05-22-2003 10:27 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
ahp12212
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 16 (41132)
05-23-2003 4:04 PM


thats the thing, we can use reference of today but for example if i am questioning lamarck i can't bring up george mendel later on cuz he existed after lamarck did.
Thanks for the help guys. If you guys have some more information on attacking the farmers and paleontologists and erasmus darwin that would be good.
One problem that might hurt me is the fact they might say :
If charles darwin theory is right, then how come humans and other species don't look alike. I don't know how to dfend that. I can't say anything cuz it is true that we all descend from one organism.
The case is going to be Next Thursday the 29th so i need to do a lot of preparing.
If people also help me on ian malcolm, that would be great also. I got out witnesses all set but im not sure if they can be attacked at all. The kettlewell thing might hurt us but it didn't really matter cuz its logic that birds will probably eat the butterfly they see first and kettlewell proved camoulflage and stuff like that

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John, posted 05-23-2003 4:32 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 16 (41135)
05-23-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ahp12212
05-23-2003 4:04 PM


quote:
If charles darwin theory is right, then how come humans and other species don't look alike. I don't know how to dfend that. I can't say anything cuz it is true that we all descend from one organism.
We do look alike, mostly. You can take any mammal and match up its bits one for one with any other mammal, for the most part. There are exceptions, of course. Some mammals, like horses, have lost toes, but for the most part muscles, tendons, joints, organs line up one for one. This is not to say that these various parts are identical, but they are close enough to be identifiable. Take hair for example. We look different from chimpanzees largely because of body hair. We have less hair. Right? Actually no. We have about the same number of hairs on our body as chimps, but our hairs are very short and very fine, while chimp hair is long and coarse. The closer the relationships the closer the matches-- just like familial resemblance. You look much more like your mom and dad, than you do to distant relatives.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ahp12212, posted 05-23-2003 4:04 PM ahp12212 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2003 5:33 PM John has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 16 (41144)
05-23-2003 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John
05-23-2003 4:32 PM


That's a good one, John. One can pretty much compare any mammal's skeleton with any other and find all the same bones. Even the whales and other sea mammals.
Here's another - cellular chemistry. Many simply one-celled organisms (yeast, for example) use a basic anaerobic (non-oxygen) process to metabolize and use energy from food. More complex organisms use an aerobic process (oxygen-using), which is much more efficient - it produces about 15 times as much energy, if I remember my basic biochemistry.
The thing is, those complex cells, with their aerobic metabolic pathways, still have and use the simpler anaerobic pathways, too. They have the cellular mechanisms for the simpler cells rolled in as well. There's not much of an advantage to this - the anaerobic process could never produce enough energy for a complex organism by itself, and the energy it does add is nearly unnoticable when combined with the aerobic process.
So, why would it be there unless those complex cells were the decendants of the simpler anaerobic cells?
When you look at it, animals only differ from each other in superficial forms. At the cellular level, we're very, very much alike.
But like John said, even though you're related to both your parents and your great, great-uncle you look much more like your parents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John, posted 05-23-2003 4:32 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ahp12212, posted 05-23-2003 7:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ahp12212
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 16 (41161)
05-23-2003 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
05-23-2003 5:33 PM


Thanks so much for that example. I can defend against that with Recrossing now. Wooooo... Still Ian malcolm. Stupid jurassic park guy on evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2003 5:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2003 7:53 PM ahp12212 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 16 (41165)
05-23-2003 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ahp12212
05-23-2003 7:35 PM


Wait... so, they have a fictional character as one of their key witnesses?
Here's an obvious question on cross-examination: "Dr. Malcom, do you exist? Are you or are you not a fictional character?"
Now, whether or not the thoughts of Michael Crichton are germaine is another question. By training I think he's a doctor, not a biologist, albiet a subtle distinction. As a writer I think he's a hack.
Given that everything Ian Malcom has to say is written in two books, you have the advantage - you know what he's going to say. Perhaps you could summarize his points here - it's been ages since I read those books and I can't remember. I do remember he was kind of an ass, and honestly I don't find the thoughts of mathematicians relevant to many issues - they live in their own world of perfect predictability and geometric precision, not the very fuzzy world we inhabit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ahp12212, posted 05-23-2003 7:35 PM ahp12212 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ahp12212, posted 05-23-2003 8:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ahp12212
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 16 (41168)
05-23-2003 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by crashfrog
05-23-2003 7:53 PM


lol my god, i have to read his evolutions methods arghhhhh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 05-23-2003 7:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ahp12212, posted 05-24-2003 7:10 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
ahp12212
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 16 (41240)
05-24-2003 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ahp12212
05-23-2003 8:45 PM


has anyone got anything on what role the farmers and paleontologist have. im having difficulty getting cross examination questions for them

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ahp12212, posted 05-23-2003 8:45 PM ahp12212 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2003 8:41 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 16 (41243)
05-24-2003 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ahp12212
05-24-2003 7:10 PM


has anyone got anything on what role the farmers and paleontologist have. im having difficulty getting cross examination questions for them
Likely the paleontologist is going to bring up the lack of transitional fossils. He/she's wrong, of course - there are transitional fossils. But fossilization itself is a relatively rare event. That might be an angle to take.
I don't know what the farmer is going to say. Why would a farmer be qualified to address biological data beyond what's required for animal husbandry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ahp12212, posted 05-24-2003 7:10 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
ahp12212
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 16 (41247)
05-24-2003 9:36 PM


whats animal husbandry?

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 9:41 PM ahp12212 has not replied
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 05-24-2003 9:42 PM ahp12212 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 15 of 16 (41248)
05-24-2003 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ahp12212
05-24-2003 9:36 PM


I'm not an expert. It's the care and raising and breeding of animals. A farmer would have to be knowledgable in that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ahp12212, posted 05-24-2003 9:36 PM ahp12212 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