Biology courses and paleobiology

[Mokele]

I just thought I'd throw this out there: how many people agree with my proposition that a sufficiently grounded education in biology *requires* a knowledge of paleontology, at least to the level of what evolved from what?

 

To me, it simply seems obvious; teaching biology without paleontology is like teaching politics without any mention of events that happened before 1998. Like high-level evolution courses, it should be *required* for all biology students.

 

Mokele

[insane_alien]

well, a section about evolutionary trees would probably be a good thing for biology courses. but i don't think it would have to be particularly indepth to be effective.

[Ophiolite]

I am biased. I learnt my biology through palaeontology (and chemistry). I can't imagine how one could learn it properly in the vacuum that exists if palaeontology is ignored, or treated superficially.

 

Given the mounting resistance to evolution by fundamentalists and its central role in biology, there is even greater need today to make palaeontology a central plank of any proper biology education.

[AzurePhoenix]

I just thought I'd throw this out there: how many people agree with my proposition that a sufficiently grounded education in biology *requires* a knowledge of paleontology, at least to the level of what evolved from what?

 

To me, it simply seems obvious; teaching biology without paleontology is like teaching politics without any mention of events that happened before 1998. Like high-level evolution courses, it should be *required* for all biology students.

I agree entirely. I'd say it's essential for learning not only the relationships between species, but why a particular one is the way it is, or at least part of how it got there. Otherwise it's like trying to fully understand and know global geography and culture without the background history.

 

But of course, I've got the bias that I'm as deeply interested in paleontology as I am zoology.

[Genecks]

I like genetic evidence to link evolutionary claims. Otherwise, I don't care to learn certain things in paleontology. I rarely buy into the bone-comparison ideology, and I think those without genetic evidence are speculating. Although that seems fun, I don't think it would get me anywhere far. However, I do understand the importance of it.

 

I would say it is similar to a medical professional taking a course on ethics and religion: You don't need it, but you ought to take it; you can understand people around you and how to respond to their needs. I don't mind tracing things, but if there isn't enough evidence, then I really don't care to study the topic.

 

I suppose a person could respond to a finding, adjust to it, and understand it along with further evolutions of it. Perhaps it offers critical thinking in cause-effect relationships, thus allowing a person to make deductions about findings; but I don't see much beyond that. I'm guessing it offers speculation and deduction, which are hard things to come by because a person must constantly find new things in science to speculate and deduce.

 

Given the mounting resistance to evolution by fundamentalists and its central role in biology, there is even greater need today to make palaeontology a central plank of any proper biology education.

 

Are you saying people should learn palaeontology to fend off the creationists? I don't see that as justification if that's what you're saying. I don't like wasting my time when studying science. The religious zealots can believe whatever they want to believe. I'm not going to bicker with them. Plus, I always have this feeling that if they stick to their religion, they will not allow themselves to be persuaded by you: It's against their beliefs to accept certain things from science.

[AzurePhoenix]

I like genetic evidence to link evolutionary claims. Otherwise, I don't care to learn certain things in paleontology. I rarely buy into the bone-comparison ideology, and I think those without genetic evidence are speculating. Although that seems fun, I don't think it would get me anywhere far. However, I do understand the importance of it.

Don't you consider every facet of knowledge we could possibly glean an integral part of reaching the most well-rounded understanding we could possibly attain based on the available data? Genes can tell you some things, bones others, neither all.

 

I don't mind tracing things, but if there isn't enough evidence, then I really don't care to study the topic.

well you're supposed to go out and get the evidence yourself, or if that fails, find the evidence to denounce it and hope to come across new evidence for alternatives. Otherwise this whole science dealio wouldn't get very far at all. And say we have a rock-solid 100% proven unquestionable understanding; what's left to question adn study in the first place? Anyway, when you say "enough" evidence, enough evidence for what exactly?

 

I'm guessing it offers speculation and deduction, which are hard things to come by because a person must constantly find new things in science to speculate and deduce.

where's the fun and excitement and discovery without that? seems to be the entire point of the whole idea to me.

 

Are you saying people should learn palaeontology to fend off the creationists? I don't see that as justification if that's what you're saying. I don't like wasting my time when studying science. The religious zealots can believe whatever they want to believe. I'm not going to bicker with them. Plus, I always have this feeling that if they stick to their religion, they will not allow themselves to be persuaded by you: It's against their beliefs to accept certain things from science.

If it were as simple as "let them believe what they want if they so wish" I'm sure few would disagree. But the big picture rests in pressures of creationist propaganda that actively perpetuate myth to new generations and get in the way of educating the general public about the simple facts, allowing the delusion to thrive and spread infectiously. In America at least. You yourself said "fend off," as in to defend against, not "hunt down" or "exterminate" or "opress." Hell, even the head of a nation that supposedly ensures the separation of church and state voiced his support for the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom, basically pressing and pushing the myth onto others. And accepting science is not "against their beliefs," they actively choose to SELECTIVELY whittle out and loudly denounce the bits of science here and there that might counter a few particular beliefs.

[Mokele]

I like genetic evidence to link evolutionary claims. Otherwise, I don't care to learn certain things in paleontology. I rarely buy into the bone-comparison ideology, and I think those without genetic evidence are speculating. Although that seems fun, I don't think it would get me anywhere far. However, I do understand the importance of it.

 

So, how do you even what species to look at when comparing genomes for changed genes?

 

How can you understand anatomy, or behavior, without understanding the past?

 

Genes are nice, but we can only study the genes of extant animals, which gives us a very poor picture of evolution as a whole. This was vividly illustrated when we tried to create a gene-based phylogeny for mammals. The results were totally different from all morphology-based phylogenies, and for a long time, nobody knew why. Then some very smart person realized that genes only come from extant species, and re-ran the phylogeny program using morphology from living species only. The results were the same. This means the gene-based phylogeny was *wrong*, because it lacked vital data only availible from paleontology.

 

Genes can't answer why you have a hyoid bone, only explain how it forms. Only with paleontological data does it become obvious it's the relic of your gill arches. Ditto from your inner ear bones: no extant species has intermediate morphology. The only clue comes from fossils. Same thing for whales: genetic texts can never sort out which group they're closest too, and fossils show the reason, namely that they arose from a very basal group that's now totally extinct.

 

History has a powerful grip. Often the ability of a species to adapt in particular ways is limited by anatomical or developmental factors that evolved hundreds of millions of years ago in totally different circumstances.

 

IMHO, any biology student who doesn't have a basic grasp of the fossil record is half-educated.

 

Mokele