Re: Insights I've gained from my Bio class so far

Daniel Harper wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:10:02 -0800, Stanley Friesen wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel Harper <daniel_harper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Firstly, I was going over some of my notes today from the first week of
>>>class. (Got a test in a couple of weeks and I was taking some time to go
>>>back over the material.) Obviously, it was some very basic stuff, but I
>>>ran across the little pie chart the professor drew that indicated the
>>>relative percentages of organisms in the diversity of life -- i.e. how
>>>many species of chordates, insects, mammals, primates, et cetera. A number
>>>that jumped out at me was that there are approximately 4200 species of
>>>mammals in the animal kingdom, of which approximately 1000 are bats, and
>>>that approximately 1.8 million species are known.
>>
>>Add to that, there are many *unknown* species.
>
>
> You mean there are things _science doesn't know_? Psst, don't tell McCoy.


Don't worry. He is too busy ignoring the things that science has all
ready discovered.




>
>
>>>Whenever we see anti-evolutionists (especially YECers) around here talking
>>>about problems with evolution, the examples they give of problem organisms
>>>always seem to revolve around large, macro-scale organisms that all of us
>>>are generally familiar with. (I.E. dogs turning into cats, cattle giving
>>>birth to ducks, et cetera.) I have no doubt that if you asked most
>>>creationists about the relative diversity of species, they would likely
>>>believe that large-scale organisms like these represented a fair
>>>percentage of the life on earth. (To be fair, the same is also true of
>>>many of those who support evolution as the primary means of describing the
>>>history of life on Earth; ignorance cuts both ways.)
>>
>>Indeed the tinyness of our branch gets even more profound when you add
>>in the fact that microscopic (unicellular) life forms are under-sampled
>>relative to macroscopic one (due to difficulty in collecting). There
>>are gene assays that suggest a vast diversity of prokaryotes in the soil
>>and elsewhere that have never shown up in any lab culture or otherwise
>>been seen by humans. The proportion of prokaryotes that are actually
>>known is likely to be well under half.
>
>
> Is there a source where I can get some more information on this?
>
> <snip a bit>
>
>>>Furthermore, much of the awareness-changing "heavy lifting" of the class
>>>has happened not so much in the class environment itself, but in the lab.
>>>Sure, these have been very simple labs intended only to show some of the
>>>tools and methods of science, but I suspect that the vast majority of
>>>anti-evolutionists have never spent any amount of time in a serious
>>>biology lab (except perhaps to dissect a frog or two) and have never
>>>examined life through a scientific-quality microscope.
>>
>>I am not sure I would call dissecting a frog a real lab experiment - it
>>is more of an interactive visual aid :-)
>
>
> And, ironically, it was that sort of thing that had made me decide years
> ago that I "didn't like" Biology -- because instead of dealing with hard
> science like physics or chemistry did, all biologists were up to was
> dissecting things and generally making a mess. (I was young, and I
> apologize.) In 10th grade we dissected frogs, and I _hated_ it, largely
> due to the awful smells and sensations of dealing with preserved flesh,
> and also because memorizing all that anatomy (largely learned off of
> bad-quality Xeroxes of book originals) seemed rather pointless.
>
> I wonder how many other potential scientists are turned off by such
> things. If my high school biology class had emphasized evolutionary
> processes, survival strategies, et cetera in a more rigorous way, I might
> have found myself much more interested ten years ago.
>
>
>>>The first lab that we did was quite simple, involving simply measurement
>>>and the use of various scientific measuring tools. I found it to be a
>>>reasonably fascinating way of examining the inherent difficulties in
>>>obtaining good data from very simple things, even given reasonably
>>>scientifically-accurate equipment.
>>
>>Ah yes, the measuring lessons. I remember those. Quite enlightening,
>>as you say.
>
>
> Funnily enough, several of the groups in the lab section quickly sussed me
> out as a science major, since I seemed to already know what to expect in
> that lab. Little did they know that I just worked at a copy shop... :->
>
>>>To be fair, I have had personal experience with this concept in a much
>>>more mundane setting at work. I have spent some time working at a small
>>>copy shop where one of our regular tasks is to do various paper-cutting
>>>jobs like business cards or postcards. Even with a large ream-cutter with
>>>a stop and a sharpened blade, doing what seem to be very simple tasks like
>>>cutting a sheet of paper into thirds is nearly impossible to do
>>>accurately. Very tiny human errors on the macro-scale can cause large
>>>disruptions in the finished product, when trying to get cut sizes that are
>>>identical to the naked eye and that leave a smooth finish when running
>>>one's finger along the entire stack. I leave work almost every day wishing
>>>I had a $3000 digital paper cutter like the local Kinko's has.
>>
>>Gee, sounds like a good investment.
>>
>
>
> Well, as I said, the store is closing, so maybe the company made some
> other bad decisions. A digital cutter is not the only piece of equipment
> that we asked for, but it was the one that would have been first on our
> list to receive if we'd had any say in the matter.
>
>
>>[Seriously, I would find your job totally frustrating].
>
>
> Retail in general requires a certain type of personality. Namely, one that
> is willing to put up with extreme amounts of stress due to upper
> management and angry customers for little pay. (No, I'm not bitter at all.)
>
>
>>>The second and third labs both involved microscopy...
>>>
>>>(An aside. I've read accounts that Babe Ruth gave when he first stepped up
>>>onto the pitcher's mound for the first time and felt this unbearable sense
>>>of "rightness" to the sensation, that on some level, he felt that pitching
>>>was what he was _born_ to do. When I first started playing with the
>>>microscope in that lab, I felt many of the same sensations, that the
>>>mechanism seemed natural and obvious to me, and that the power and
>>>capability of the device simply "felt right" under my admittedly
>>>completely unschooled guidance. It was one of the most amazing feelings in
>>>my still-young life to realize how much I simply enjoyed operating that
>>>mechanism and viewing things at high-powered resolution.)
>>
>>You can see some amazing things under a microscope - especially if you
>>have one of the ones with advanced optics, such as I got to use when I
>>worked for Dr. Bovee years ago. Somewhere I believe I still have the
>>drawings I made of an undescribed species of amoeba I found *once* (and
>>never again, despite several attempts).
>
>
> Amoeba frieseni? I can buy it.
>
> Seriously, that sounds very cool.
>
>
>>>Intellectual assent to the similarity of all life takes on new meaning
>>>when you've looked at various microbes under high magnification, as we did
>>>in the second lab. While getting a sample of amoebae for examination, one
>>>of my lab partners must have accidentally let loose a skin cell or two,
>>>because I happened to get a glance at something that is undeniably not an
>>>amoeba right alongside that one-celled organism, and simply seeing them
>>>next to each other really helped to drive home the point that _we are all
>>>essentially the same thing_. We are all made of the same materials, all a
>>>product of evolutionary processes that act on all of nature, and all
>>>subject to the same physical laws.
>>>
>>>Besides, watching a paramecium use its cilia to swim around on the slide
>>>was just freakin' cool.
>>
>>Yep. I have even seen wild paramecia, that is ones I found in random
>>water samples from campus rather than a prepared culture. Some of the
>>other ciliates are quite amazing - like the one with the long "neck"
>>(really just a long, motile cellular extension).
>
>
> We did spend a few minutes examining random "pond water", but I'm afraid I
> didn't have enough time to really get into anything interesting. For some
> reason, my fellow lab mates were more interested in finishing the lab and
> getting the grade than in letting me play with my expensive new toy for a
> few hours. (I'm sure the lab instructor would have been displeased with
> that as well.)
>
>
>>>And I actually got to see a Euglena's flagellum in
>>>motion, although they were a bit too faint to see clearly.
>>
>>That is largely due to the motion, which is rather rapid.
>>
>
>
> We used a bit of methyl cellulose to slow the organisms down, which seemed
> to freeze many in their tracks, and even the Euglena didn't move around a
> whole lot, if at all. We had a prepared slide that we viewed (I used a
> slightly darker setting on the light source) and I got a better view of
> the flagellum. Guess that's why it's a prepared slide.
>
> (BTW, does methyl cellulose slow down these organisms by chemical or
> physical means? Is it a poison? I asked the lab instructor, but she seemed
> unsure.)
>
>
>>If you like microscopy, it is worth pulling water samples out of any
>>pond or puddle you see and letting "ferment".
>
>
> If I continue in this vein, I may consider buying a 'scope for myself,
> although prices seem to be way higher than I'm in the market to spend for
> the foreseeable future. Any tips for getting the university to let me
> spend some free time (oh, such copious free time) seeing what I can find
> for myself? Or is that just a pipe dream until I get to graduate work?
>
>
>> Just among the
>>unicellular eukaryotes there is an amazing variety to be seen. Ciliates
>>with little rigid bodies shaped like a barrel. Cryptomonds. Amoebas of
>>all shapes and sized (I suspect the ones you used in lab were the common
>>giant amoeba, _Amoeba proteus_ - most species are much smaller).
>>
>
>
> Yeah, _proteus_ was the one we were examining. I even thought I saw one or
> two with the naked eye at one point, although I could have just been
> seeing air bubbles.
>
>
>>Seeing wild amoebas can be a touch tricky - you have to pull up some
>>substrate into your pipette, and then wait a few minutes for the amoebae
>>to crawl off of it onto the slide (all without letting the microscope
>>light overheat the sample and kill them). Also, amoebae are often
>>rather transparent, and thus easy to overlook.
>>
>
>
> We had to try two or three times to get the little buggers even with the
> prepared sample.
>
>
>>[I got rather a lot of experience on this, as Dr. Bovee was, in his day,
>>one of the top amoeba experts in the world].
>
>
> Sounds fascinating. I feel like such a dork for saying this, as I am not
> the sort to express excitement or happiness readily, but I am excited to
> be in every single lesson I'm taking, even though I know this stuff is the
> brain-dead material they feed even to <gasp> philosophy majors. <ducks>
> I'm feeling really good about this, and I'm hoping to stick to an academic
> environment, teaching and doing research, once I complete all my
> undergraduate and graduate work.
>
> What is it about learning science that just makes you feel _good_? Must be
> all that ignorance leaving your body. :->
>

.

Relevant Pages