I distinctly recall seeing a film in grade school with the Pilgrims and Indians sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner together, and the Indians introducing popcorn to the Pilgrims.
I remember thinking it was shenanigans while watching it.
That sounds familiar. I think I may have seen the same film.
The real truth is, the primary reason Galileo got persecuted is that he was one of the biggest assholes in history. Don’t get me wrong, he was a great scientist and this doesn’t diminish that, but he seemed to take a positive delight in pissing folks off. Especially folks with a lot of power.
A lot of folks lately have been trying to push the idea that it was about states’ rights, but in actual fact, the only specific states’ right that was relevant was the right to slavery. So, that one wasn’t flawed.
My favorite example: Every single elementary school science book will talk about the “Six Simple Machines”. Except of the six they list, only three are really distinct, and I could come up with about a dozen other distinct simple machines that they don’t list. The wheel is just a special case of a level, and the wedge and the screw are just special cases of the inclined plane, but the hydraulic ram, for instance, can be constructed without use of any of the other simple machines.
I started learning in the '50s, and nearly everything i’ve learned has had to be scrapped and replaced, or at least revised. It’s no wonder old folks get confused.
I think that was more of an urban legend than anything taught in schools. And I’m pretty sure it was that we use only 10% of our brainpower (whatever “brainpower” is).
Or pool noodles.
i sometimes say that evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools because its invariably taught wrong (i’m talking about pre-college institutions). giraffes have long necks because of a long series of accidents which allowed pre-modern-giraffes (pmg) with genetic mutations (or possibly variations) that produce long necks to mate with each other and survive through generations. that’s pretty much how all evolution works (based on the known evidence).
the article you cite is kind of pointless because sexual selection is a primary driving force in evolution (where sex is involved). it doesn’t reinforce the treetop feeding concept, but does continue to imply that darwin supported that concept.
here is another good reference:
the stephen jay gould piece it cites is quite good as well.
things i’ve noted over time:
-
not much evidence to support the idea that there is more available food in the treetops. i’ve seen studies that refuted the claim, though i can’t confirm or deny the conclusions.
-
how did the pmg’s know how to mate with taller pmgs so that their offspring would have longer necks and more available food? if they are so precognizant maybe they just wanted to be displayed in zoos one day.
-
pmg’s necks did not just ‘get longer’. there were numerous adaptations necessary for modern giraffe physiology.
-
everybody seems to attribute this to darwin, but he didn’t make that claim. find the gould piece, or darwin;s works for a discussion of giraffe tails.
-
not much time is spent on the ‘survival of the fittest’ argument. giraffes can see predators from a long way off.
When I was a kid, we were taught that sauropods were too heavy to walk on land and must have lived submerged in water. Turns out that their legs were adapted to walking on dry land after all, and in fact the water pressure at the depth required to support their weight would’ve made breathing impossible.
item 4) above:
after posting, i realized i hadn’t looked into this since the pre-internet days. the quotations from darwin i’ve found don’t have full context, but maybe darwin did make this claim after all.
The things mentioned fall into different categories:
(1) simplifications - stuff they taught you because you didn’t know enough to learn the truth and it would take too long to teach you (Bohr atom, Newtonian mechanics),
(2) legends - stuff your teachers thought was true but any good scientist or historian would have known was false (Columbus discovered America),
(3) politically correct stuff,
(4) old news that hadn’t made it into the text books,
(5) theories that were dogma at the time but later fell into minority status,
(6) discoveries - stuff that no one at all knew about.
I think the OP wants (4), (5), and (6).
I was a 70’s kid so I don’t know if these all applied in the '80s/'90s:
The moon formed near or was captured by the earth.
Megafauna died from the ice age (or its ending).
Memory is stored in RNA.
90% (or whatever) of DNA is junk.
The five kingdoms of life.
Mayan script is unreadable.
Jupiter has 12 moons, only Saturn has rings, etc.
Four-color theorem, Fermat’s last theorem unproved.
This one has always bugged me, too. The “simple machines” concept is not used anywhere in mechanical engineering. It’s not as if you sit down to design a robotic manipulator and say OK, let me arrange these simple machines so as to result in a manipulator.
I am not sure I would go as far as that (Galileo was arrogant, but he did have a lot to be arrogant about), and pope Urban seems to me to have behaved a good deal worse than Galileo did, effectively prosecuting Galileo for publishing a book that he (Urban) had already given personal permission to be published.
I strongly suspect (but can’t prove) that the reason Galileo wanted to publish the Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems (the book for which he was prosecuted) when he did was to try and impress the pope, a personal friend with a reputation was as a great progressive and modernizer, and who had supported Galileo in other disputes with the Aristotelian establishment. It might have worked if it had not turned out to be a politically very inopportune moment at which the pope needed to appease his more conservative enemies in the Curia.
While I was TA-ing a freshman physics-for-non-majors course, I remember thinking that almost everything we were teaching was either simplified or “old” (classical) physics. One exception was, as learned in elementary school, that heat transfer is by conduction, convection, or radiation. Knowing quantum mechanics gives you insight into the details but doesn’t show it to be untrue.
What is your point? Both the “food in the treetops” theory and the sexual selection theory (or both) are consistent with that.
I think it is pretty obvious that there is going to be food available to giraffes in the treetops, because they will not be competing with other, shorter necked animals for it.
Hmm, I think maybe it is you who doesn’t understand how evolution works, mate. :rolleyes:
So?
That may actually be a good point.
We were taught in elementary school that the Panama canal had locks to prevent the Atlantic and Pacific oceans from flooding each other somehow, creating mayhem and chaos. In reality, the canal connects the Carribean to the Gulf of Panama, and the locks allowed for much less digging. IIRC, the French gave up on a sea-level canal there some years earlier.
the key word in may original statement is ‘so’. evolution doesn’t happen to achieve some goal.
there are many other animals that can climb and fly to the treetops, and there is less food available further away from the ground.
see my initial response. evolutionary adaptations don’t occur to serve some future need.
actually that point is kind of a catch-all, so i take your point. i guess i’m looking at the complexity of evolution and the difficulty in attributing the numerous changes that brought the giraffe to its current form to any particular reason.
thank you. it goes back to the difficulty in attributing any evolutionary change to a simple benefit.
Except that the book that Galileo did publish wasn’t really the book that Urban had given him permission to publish. Galileo asked for and got permission to publish a book describing the strengths and weaknesses of the two systems, but he only presented the strengths of the Copernican system and the weaknesses of the Ptolemaic system. Plus, the defender of the Ptolemaic system in the book is a thinly-disguised caricature of Urban himself, and is named “Simplicio”.
i suppose its a matter of definition, but many people consider the carribean to be part of the atlantic, and the gulf of panama to be part of the pacific.
if you enter the canal from it’s western side, and exit on it’s eastern side, what body of water are you in?
the panama canal is actually a system of canals, locks, and a man made lake. its hard to imagine how the french planned to dig a sea-level canal through a mountain range.
The Pacific
Overall, the Panama canal runs southeast, going from the Carribean. I guess the French’s imaginations were bigger than their ability.