The Ancestor's Tale

                In this novel the main point that is being expressed is that humankind did not evolve through biological means. Instead we came to our current destination through cultural evolution. The two major advances that were referred to were the agricultural revolution and the time in which culture itself was created via ornaments, paintings, storytelling and crafting.

                   The agricultural revolution was interesting because it represented the start of mankind starting to actually think of the future. To grow crops and settle down, straying from the mindset of simple hunters and gatherers. The idea of community became the basis for the evolution of many traits and skills. The ability to trade and to communicate became much more important than athleticism, though the latter was still crucial. Traits that allowed humans to participate in society, such as crafting and the arts were being introduced instead of traits common to the hunters and gatherers.

                  This is important because it shows why humans are the top organisms on the Earth currently. We were not evolutionarily selected because we were the strongest nor the fastest but because we were the smartest. Mankind talked about things that were imaginary, and flirted with ideas of what ifs and maybes. Instead of hard truths that were presented to every organism, we learned to THINK of situations that could happen and prepare for it. The fact that we had options created the gap between humans and the rest of the world.

Make your Selection!

Hello Everyone,

The 2013 AP Biology Exam is behind us, and by next Monday, May 20th, you should have made your selection and obtained your book. Below is a list of books that I have recently read and I feel are a good read:

The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins 
Unscientific America - Chris Mooney
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks - Rebecca Skloot
What Evolution Is - Ernst Mayr
The Ominvore's Dilemma - Michael Pollan

The World Without Us - Alan Weisman

The Journey of Man or Deep Ancestry - Spencer Wells
The Ancestor's Tale - Richard Dawkins

The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin
The Hot Zone or The Demon in the Freezer - Richard Preston
Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin
Genome - Matt Ridley
The Coming Plague - Laurie Garrett
Why Darwin Matters - Michael Shermer
Collapse - Jared Diamond

The New Killer Diseases - Elinor Levy and Mark Fischetti

Why Darwin Matters - Michael Shermer

The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins

Feel free to choose any other new titles on biology you like as well - just run it by me first. Also, if you and a few of your classmates want to read as a group (that is, all read the same book), go right ahead...  I have read all of the above and will be active in responding to your posts. Please ask me if you have any questions regarding the topic or difficulty of the book.  I have also invited past AP Bio students to enter the fray.

Once again, the goal is for you to think while you read. I do not want a book report or a summary of a chapter. But every once and a while, when you read something that makes you stop and have an original thought or idea, put the book down, reference (or quote) the passage that made you stop, and write your thoughts about it here. Your classmates and I will then (hopefully) continue the discussion with comments and other posts.  Take a look at some past posts (shown below) to get an idea on what we're looking for.

We will be reading in class and also posting every other day in the computer lab. To first be able to make your posts (and not just a comment--which anyone can do), you need to sign up (use your real name as your handle--no "Fireball", "S.O.T.C." or other nicknames). I will then add you as a 'Contributor'. You can then blog away! For more info, just ask!

Enjoy using your mind!

Rules of the Blog...

Okay Everyone,

Here are a few rules to follow as we carry out this project...

1. Bring your books to class everyday. You will be reading and thinking and writing up in the computer lab/library - or on your phones/tablets.  Of course, you should also be posting and responding outside of class too!
2. For your posts, title each new thread with the subject/topic you are talking about. 
3. When you make an original post, explain where you are coming from. Reference the passage (by stating which book it is and the page number of what made you stop and think) and then make your point.
4. For commenting, simply click on the "Comment" link on the bottom of the respective post. When commenting, do not just be in agreement or disagreement. Make a point or two and describe your thoughts. Both AP Biology teachers (and hopefully other faculty and former AP Biology students of ours) will be actively participating as well.
5. Each student is required to have at least one substantial post per week as well as at least three significant comments per week. The instructors will let you know if you are lacking in this department.
6. When posting or commenting, feel free to add images, videoclips, or other information you find on-line to support your thoughts. Using humor (appropriately used in context - Ben, you do not have carte blanche!) is encouraged. Random comments such as "Joe is dumb..." will be deleted at once and frankly is a waste of time...

Below are a few examples of posts and comments from past years...  Take a look, it is not as bad as you might think.  Besides, it is pretty interesting to see how everyone thinks about some cool biology topics.


I hope all enjoy this endeavor as I use this forum for discussion...
Mr. Goldberg

The World Without Us

Alan Weisman's theory of the city without us is interesting. He stated that after only 36 hours without constant maintenance a subway system would fill with water. Eventually concrete would crack and rivers would form through the streets. As humans our everyday tasks keep nature from taking over our homes and cities. We do these things without even realizing. For instance if mildew grows in our bathtubs we have various sprays and chemicals to remove it. Without us here these molds would continue to grow. Alan Weisman states that nature would break down our skyscrapers and bridges within a few centuries. If we seized to exist, modern day Manhattan would eventually resemble the island as it was when Hudson saw it in the 1600’s. Personally I hope this is the case. If Human’s weren’t here I would hate for our cities to take up space that could benefit other organisms. However, he also stated that organisms that have adapted to our way of life, such as rats, would starve without our garbage as a source of food. This goes to show that humans do have an effect on the world surrounding us. Some species would fail without our existence. However, a great number of species would thrive. Many of us go about our day without realizing how our actions affect the world around us. Without us the world would not end….
Coming soon to a computer near you: the effect of human activity on the CO2 levels (and my opinion of course) STAY TUNED…especially if your name is Manders because I’m sure you’ll have some type of rebuttal

The Blind Watchmaker: Little Differences and Big Differences

"All of the DNA in each of our cells is addressed in the same sense as computer ROM.. is addressed. The exact numbers or names we use to label a given address are arbitrary, just as they are for computer memory. What matters is that a particular location in my DNA corresponds precisely to one particular location in your DNA: they have the same address. The contents of my DNA location 321762 may or may not be the exact same location as your locations 321762 . But my location 321762 is precisely in the same position in my cells as your location 321762 is in your cells... All of us, all human beings, have the same set of DNA addresses, but not necessarily the same contents of those addresses."

Sometimes I wish that all politicians would first understand science before philosophy. It is amazing that 6,706,993,152 people (world's population according to the CIA on June 1, 6:30 pm) share so much. Our outside appearances, our thoughts, our opinions, our so-called 'ideals', mistakes, achievements, failures; everything we're proud of about ourselves are all based on the minority. The major factors are the same. Each cell in our bodies contains the same set of instructions yet they act differently, different parts of the DNA are 'read' and 'processed'. Regardless, they all work together in harmony to keep the body running(most of the time). And here we are, as a species, with the same buildings and factories within us yet with an inability to see through the minor differences in paint color and lighting, and work together to keep this world running. I think that if a person ever wants to see the big picture in any aspect of human society, be it history, politics, law or teaching, he must first look at science. Because science has the power to topple nations and conquer more sans bloody wars and weapons.

Dawkins had made me think for the past week or so that I've been reading his work and question my beliefs and traditions. I've been reading works outside of his book to find arguments against them. I mean, not against evolution but against the idea of a nonexistent God. Yet, all the doors seem to be silent right about now. One argument that I've heard is that it's improbable that complex beings came about from random natural selection. But Dawkins points out that natural selection isn't random but rather it is quite planned (a whole Weasel program concept he has that explains it really well but will totally take me about 30 pages to write out. It pretty much illustrates how randomness can be coupled with cumulative selection for complex beings to arise.) Then, there's the argument that I always hear about complexity itself and how it is improbable that such complex creations can just be created without a guided hand. To that, here's his central argument:
Premises:
1. Humans are complex creatures.
2. For a creature to deliberately design another creature, it must have a greater or equal intelligence level as it.
3. Thus, each created being must have either been created or it must have originated from evolutionary processes.
Premises 1, 2 and 3 infer that:
1. God must be greater or equal in complexity to humans
2. God must have a creator or have originated from evolutionary sources.
Conclusion: The postulation of a creator god is pointless, as it either creates an infinite regress of creators, or requires an evolutionary origin somewhere along the chain.

I'm neither a good enough mathematician to counter the logic above nor a good enough religious philosopher. So, I guess at this point, I'm a little confused. I find everything else mentioned in this book amazing. How small changes over a course of time can lead to so many other changes in the grand scheme of things. How DNA copying and error rates can never be matched by human typists. How 6000 atoms (more than 2000 kinds) make up a "protein machine" that interact and choose the individual characteristics of this chemistry factory- the cell. But every time I read something else, I can't help think about this again. This topic of creationism/deism vs. evolution, a nonexistent but somehow relevant war.