The Science Museum of Minnesota has a regular feature where they pick some local scientist and put them on the spot to answer questions — it’s like the dunk tank at the carnival, I think, where someone becomes the target and everyone else gets the fun of flinging things at him. This time, it’s my turn. Serious and sincere questions about biology only, please. Kids especially welcome. Trolls will meet an ignominious fate.
My colleague, Van Gooch, preceded me in this exercise. You can read his section to get an idea about what kinds of questions are appropriate…and you can also learn something about circadian rhythms!
PZ,
This is more a request for advice than a question, and I’m passing it along for someone else, but: can you recommend helpful materials for teaching kids about evolution? My personal intro was dinosaurs, of course, and not the Ken Ham version….
Thanks!
What’s up with male genitals on the outside of the body? How did that happen? Seriously.
Regards,
Every guy who’s ever taken a baseball, football or other moving object to the groin.
No, people, I’m not answering these questions here — you’re supposed to ask them on the SMM site!
Can you point me too a good resource that explains how advancements in DNA research point us to evolutionary explanations for things as they are. Something that kind of brings it all together rather than a specific discovery. Lists are fine.
It’s one area (of many) I am still fuzzy beyond a glancing understanding.
Surely questions could go beyond science? What’s a museum for, if not to deal with a range of issues which arise where science meets society?
That said, I can see why more scientific questions would be especially appropriate for a biologist.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
#1
Ack…reading too quickly, comprehension fail, sorry.
I assume the reason for the penis to be outside (or at least outsidable) is obvious; you’re talking about testes in a scrotum. Good question! It is a very odd and suboptimal arrangement, as many of us have learned the hard way (e.g., on dodgeball day in gym class). THe answer seems to be that the process of sperm produciton has an optimal temperature several degrees lower than core body temperature, so the male gonads have to be hung out there to cool. Now, why mammalian sperm produciton has never coadapted to body temperature is a mystery. At this point, I must link to the traditional ground-squirrel photo.
from the article “He’s exploring evolution”:
Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that he noticed the small differences between different species? or the huge similarities? Wasn’t it the small differences that really go him thinking about common origins?
what do dolphins and the other cataceans do about this? Are they under the skin but outside of the blubber?
Question posted. Here’s hoping its a doozie!
;-)
I understand that they pump cooler blood (presumably from just under the skin) into the testes, though I don’t recall the exact mechanics of the situation.
The same was thought regarding bird testes, but apparently birds actually have adapted to produce sperm at higher temperatures.
Another absurdity for “design,” especially since humans are presumed to be the apex of creation or “directed evolution,” yet the “designer” can’t think to use better existing parts for designing humans–nor to resist producing malaria.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
What a concept…
Questions about science asked and answered by a qualified scientist!
Do you hear that, you creationist cretins? It is called factual competence, not like your superstitious, supernatural fantasied stories and outright lies.
I can see it now:
Little Jimmy writes: “Dear P.Z. Myers, how did guitars evolve into, y’know, double guitars. And if there are double guitars, why are there still regular guitars?”
Amy from Cleveland writes: “Dear P.Z. Myers. If Chewbacca is a Wookie from Kasshykk, how come he lived on Endor with the Ewoks. This does not make sense, and if it doesn’t make sense, doesn’t that mean that evolution = false?”
Bob from NJ writes: “When you were in school, did your friends call you Easy PZ?” (with the Z pronounced incorrectly as “zee”, silly non-Canadians)
i keed, i keed. but man, imagine if they were actual questions.
I posted a question about non-DNA or pre-DNA evolution.
Probly too involved for the target audience but I’d love your comments anyway :-
Hi PZed,
Your work on evo+devo show that it’s not just about DNA but about how it is used or unused.
I am interested about other non-DNA evolution like how organelles developed and got together.
What can you tell us about mitochondria, centrosomes and such?
“Another absurdity for “design,” especially since humans are presumed to be the apex of creation or “directed evolution,” yet the “designer” can’t think to use better existing parts for designing humans”
Maybe god likes slapstick comedy.
question from my 3yr. old:
“Why?”
answer, then repeat.
It gives you something to do with your other hand.
We are excited to feature PZ this month, over on Science Buzz. Since it isn’t always clear to everyone, I thought I would explain that this feature is visible at the physical museum as well. Scientist on the Spot is an exhibit component located in the Mississippi River Gallery on the first floor as you enter and also on the bottom floor of exhibits just outside the Paleo Hall.
The questions and features on our website will come from the visitors to the museum’s website as well as people who happen upon the physical exhibit at the museum. Both groups always see the same information, if in a slightly different fashion. We think this leads to an interesting mix of questions and gives visitors at the museum a chance to see the human face of research.
PZ! Youtube has sent me!
Coming up with my best list of stupid (and commonly debunked) creationist questions:
1. If evolution is true, why are there no crociducks? (combine any 2 species, repeat).
2. What about the banana, the atheist’s nightmare?
3. You want me to believe my great grandpa was an ape? (or some variation)
4. What about the Second Law of Thermodynamics which disproves evolution?
5. How come a tornado never makes a 747 if evolution is true?
…and I’ve barely scratched the surface.
James, PZ mentions some in this old pharyngula post, and links to a list in this recent post
I’m a moderator for Science Buzz, and I’d like to encourage folks to leave questions for Van Gooch as well, as he is still one of our two active Scientists on the Spot for the next week or so, and we’d welcome your questions for him as well!
Joe: As you are a moderator, perhaps you could tell me why my question is not to be found? Did I make a mistake by asking about human evolution? Is that off-limits due to a fear of offending religious cretins?
Wanted to share a link to my latest blog entry:
http://carlsafina.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/somebody-say-amen/
you asked, regarding isolated species, variations; ie; s Galapagos and some other islands of the Pacific.
where, we find birds of similar species with different beak size and function, do we see corresponding color changes and other variances that can be linked to the isolated environment? Is this demonstrable with animals living in the oceans, though to some means isolated? I am not referring to normal chameleonic activity for protection against predation or if it can be separated, for sexual attractiveness, but more on terms with how the isolation has affected more than just the basics of survival. The fine points perhaps?
xebecs: Hey, another museum person here. Don’t worry if your questions don’t show up for a while—they all go to a moderation queue automatically and wait there until someone has time to sort through them. And—thanks to Pharyngula’s readers—it looks like there’s already a good stack of questions in that queue. (But keep them coming!)
Asking about evolution is the whole point of this Scientist on the Spot feature! It’s not meant to be a forum for creation/evolution debate, just a place for people to learn about evolution—you know, science. So unless your question really overlaps with something that has already been asked, it’s probably just that it hasn’t been seen yet by the moderator.
Ron @ #16:
Are you sure you didn’t replace your child with a child simulator?
Cheers to PZ for his willingness to answer questions on evolution. Also, cheers to the science museum for weeding out the non-scientific questions.
James F @1
Suggestion
Title Charles Darwin
Author Alan Gibbons
Published:October 14, 2008
Publisher:Kingfisher
ISBN – 10:0753462516
ISBN – 13:9780753462515
Well, Ill ask a question here thats been bugging me. I don’t think it belongs over on the other site.
I recently had a christian argument that stumped me. Eugenics is awful. Its a mis-understanding of evolution, and was a stupid idea. I, and the christian I was talking with agreed on this point.
Then he starts talking about abortion. Is it morally ok to abort a fetus that has downs syndrome, or other serious birth defect? I’m firmly in the ‘Yes’ camp. If someone wants to skip out on a lifetime of caring for offspring that cannot take care of itself, then I’m behind ya.
He asked me what the moral difference between sterilizing adults with serious birth defects, and aborting those defects before they are born. I said the answer is the same for unwanted children. Personhood isn’t assigned to the unborn. Commence the ‘when life begins’ argument et al, ad nausem.
The question I couldn’t answer was, If everyone selectively removed all fetus’ with a certain genetic disease, will that disease decline in occurrences? Over time, would that change the direction of human evolution? Would that be considered artificial selection?
I couldn’t answer those questions, but he next was easy. He asked IF that did prove to change the course of human evolution, would that be considered eugenics. To me thats a definite no. Eugenics, by definition, needs to be a top down decision process where certain traits are determined to be unworthy of passing on. People choosing to not raise children with birth defects is an individual choice, therefore bottom up decision making.
#30
Reminds of a post I read from the Talk Origin archive partially talking about what all could be considered eugenics.
Here’s a link: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov00.html
Bart, its eugenics whether it is top-down or bottom-up. The response I would give is that not all eugenices is necessarily morally problematic. Eugenices is mainly seen as bad because of a) it was often racist and b) often involved involuntary sterilization. However, it doesn’t need to have either element. One could easily for example a program of voluntary screening and selective in vitro vertilization to help eliminate Huntington’s disease. That would be eugenics and it could even be funded and run in a top-down manner. That’s not morally problematic per se.
when my kids went into this, the answers were (depending on the question):
a) physics
or
b) economics
Now, neither kid shows an interest in economics, but both are really into science – still trying to find out “why” I guess.
Glenn D, I’ve often wondered the same thing about any “Intelligence” involved the the “Design” of the scrotum arrangement. I’ve also wondered why a “Designer” would choose a similar tracing paper thin piece of skin to cover the eye. Or a rib cage full of gaps to protect the vital organs. What about the shin bone. Why design nerves into the skin over the shin. God must not have any coffee tables to ram a tibia into, nor a darkened living room in which to keep a coffee table, nor a shin-bone. Ahhhhg! Some sort of un-finite regress.
PARKER! Tim Minchin roolz! I had heard of him before, but that was brilliant. Made my day.
That needs to be a PZ Post for everyone to enjoy.
Storm indeed.
Kristjan Wager #21 and Vronvron #29,
Many thanks!
Joshua Zelinsky, I don’t think it can be considered eugenics if its not an intentional social policy intended to direct human evolution.
I still don’t think that either example is a form of Eugenics. In both examples the mating pair still gets to generate offspring. If they, as a couple, have a heritable gene for a specific disease, then won’t all of their children have the same gene? Eugenics is the forced sterilization or execution of members that are considered unfit for reproduction.
If a couple decide to abort a fetus because of a birth defect, then proceed to generate other healthy offspring, then their genetic lineage continues.
Ok, I’ll ask the question that everyone else here is wondering about.
How is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS?!?
Van Gooch can feel free to answer as well.
Bart, in that case you are using a deliberately narrow definition of eugenics. Moreover, in my case it is intentional social policy to direct evolution in this case.
Also, the reason I used Huntington’s disease was because the Huntington’s alleles are dominant but homozygous lethal. That means that anyone with the disease has only one copy of the allele so half their sperm/eggs will be free. So people can help remove the gene from the gene pool while still having children.
I don’t think any sane individual thinks that forced sterilization or execution of people we don’t want reproducing is a good thing. (I’d be inclined to try to make the argument that forced sterilization might make sense if one is strongly pro-life but that’s more about being obnoxious than anything else).
In any event, the question as originally phrased referred to the removal of fetuses which is not either a) forced sterilization or b) execution. So under your definition the original question was not eugenics.
James @1 – also check out the UCal Berkeley’s Museum of Paleontology. They have a huge “teaching evolution” section with lesson plans for various grades.
here
I posted a question hours ago asking why sex would be favored by natural selection and it hasn’t been posted. The hell?
Andrew clarify your question. Why are there sexes? why is there sexual reproduction? What’s the point of the question?
abby is a spambot.
xebecs
You asked, “As you are a moderator, perhaps you could tell me why my question is not to be found? Did I make a mistake by asking about human evolution? Is that off-limits due to a fear of offending religious cretins?”
The answer is that our agreement with all of our Scientists on the Spot is that we only post a limited selection of questions every week so that the favor they are doing us does not overwhelm their lives.
Another answer is that some of the questions posted require me to do some research so I can understand the basis of the question, which is super awesome, but takes me time.
And, to make sure you understand the Science Museum’s position on evolution, please see the Science Museum of Minnesota’s statement on evolution.
Andrew #41 please see my reply to xebecs. And please keep the questions coming! We’ll post more next week – the questions are awesome! (Well, most questions are awesome. Some folks are rather cross about this whole evolution thing…as perhaps folks here might have experienced.)