Evidence of evolution: Giraffe’s laryngeal nerve

One of my favorite examples of evolution and how we can see it in living things today:  The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, linking larynx to brain, a few inches away — but because of evolutionary developments, instead dropping from the brain all the way down the neck to the heart, and then back up to the larynx.  In giraffe’s the nerve can be as much as 15 feet long, to make a connection a few inches away.  Richard Dawkins explains:

All mammals have the nerve, and as a result of our fishy ancestry, in all mammals, the nerve goes down the neck, through a heart blood vessel, and back up.  In fish, of course, the distance is shorter — fish have no necks.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Pharyngula’s Sciblogs site.

“Smart” can be learned, and practiced — but probably not born

“I just can’t learn — my memory just doesn’t work.”  Third time today I heard that excuse.

It’s not true.  A lot of what we do in education is based more on tradition than any kind of research — school in the winter, start in the morning, quit in the afternoon, 30 kids sitting at desks in rows, testing for mastery, bells to change shifts classes — but here’s something we do know:  Practice brings mastery; practice makes perfect, more than talent does.

This is an encore post from 2007:

Every teacher needs to get familiar with the work of Carol Dweck. She’s a Stanford psychologist who is advising the Blackburn Rovers from England’s Premier League, on how to win, and how to develop winning ways.

Your students need you to have this stuff.

A 60-year-old academic psychologist might seem an unlikely sports motivation guru. But Dweck’s expertise—and her recent book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success—bear directly on the sort of problem facing the Rovers. Through more than three decades of systematic research, she has been figuring out answers to why some people achieve their potential while equally talented others don’t—why some become Muhammad Ali and others Mike Tyson. The key, she found, isn’t ability; it’s whether you look at ability as something inherent that needs to be demonstrated or as something that can be developed.

What’s more, Dweck has shown that people can learn to adopt the latter belief and make dramatic strides in performance. These days, she’s sought out wherever motivation and achievement matter, from education and parenting to business management and personal development. [emphasis added]

I can’t do justice to Dweck’s work. See this story in Stanford Magazine.

Still true. In short, kids, you can learn the material, and you can learn to learn better — with practice.

Are you practicing?

More, and fun resources: 

• Dweck’s website on how to improve learning, Brainology — software you can buy to improve your student’s abilities to perform
• Dweck’s site on her book, Mindset, with a lot more about her research
• Malcolm Gladwell’s article in The New Yorker, “The Talent Myth”

Should the U.S. spend money in basic science research?

Nearly foolish question, but The Economist blogs ask it.

Go give them a piece of your mind.  Of course we should — tell ‘em. Boost that “yes” total much more — Fillmorize the entire poll.

The Economist Asks

Should the United States be financing expensive projects in fundamental science?

On September 30th America’s biggest particle accelerator, the Tevatron at Fermilab near Chicago, will be switched off for good. Until the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) started smashing protons in earnest, the Tevatron was the fanciest bit of kit at physicists’ disposal. When it shuts down, America will have conceded the high-energy-physics game to Europe, whose CERN laboratory on the outskirts of Geneva is home to the LHC. Some American (and foreign) scientists are dismayed. Others hope that planned new experiments at Fermilab, which will be probing the strange behaviour of particles called neutrinos, will make up for the loss of the Tevatron. But the cost of these new projects, though less than the LHC’s, will still be counted in the billions of dollars. Is fundamental science worth that much money, especially in the current unfavourable economic climate? Should the United States be funding expensive projects with no obvious practical applications? Cast your vote and join the discussion.

You voted: Yes  Current total votes: 2238

Voting opened on Sep 29th 2011

Prohibition — in 6 hours, by Ken Burns

Starts tonight on KERA, our local PBS affiliate.  A key part of history, especially for the political winds of 2011.

Should I require classes to watch it?

Part 1 runs tonight at 7:00 p.m. and the repeats at about 8:30 p.m. (if I’m reading this schedule correctly, and KERA has done this before with programs they expect to be very popular).

Part 2 is scheduled for Monday at 7:00, and Part 3 for Tuesday at 7:00 — with repeats to follow both nights.

Crazy ants? Hey, I warned you . . .

Just over two years ago I noted the pending, rolling disaster of the introduction of Caribbean Crazy Ants, or Rasberry Crazy Ants, to the American South.

Associated Press is catching up.

Now, will you listen to me when I tell you not to vote for Rick Perry?   Will you listen when I tell you we need to control CO² emissions?

Lightning? Don’t stand under a tree . . .

Talk in class turned to Ben Franklin’s kite experiment.  “Don’t try this at home,” I said.

Do students ever listen?

Here’s an amateur video showing why standing under a tree in a lightning storm could be a bad idea.  Can students extrapolate this to flying a kite in a storm?

Surely there is better video of such events somewhere . . . can you tell us where?

Found it at Wimp.com, with a tip of the old scrub brush to Thom Holland, Scouter with the 626 units at Penasquitos Lutheran Church, San Diego, California.