Post-Nova thoughts, and some podcast ponderings

I think the previous two entries sufficiently cover my reaction to the documentary. It was well done, with lovely visuals (even though the darkness and the Law-and-Orderesque trial bumps were a bit theatrical). It was nice to see how the Rehms, Buckingham, Bert and others actually looked and sounded like after reading their words elsewhere.

Last Friday, I tagged along with a friend to an impromptu discussion on the evolution/creationism issue in the Jordan Room. This discussion spawned out of a Biol 103 class, apparently, and went from about 12-1:30 PM. The mix of people was evenly mixed perspectivewise, and I really wish I had my EvoCrea text with me (I may bring it tomorrow, if they do it again). What interested me was the perspective of the professor leading the discussion, who talked about believing in evolution (GAH semantics) as a missionary would to a would-be convert. Or at least, it seemed that way to me- I could be totally wrong on this. The topic came up of not accepting macroevolution based on evidence (or lack of quality evidence), and he seemed like, "Well, it's wonderful that you're basing your judgment on evidence instead of a religious bias, but eventually you'll be swayed by all of the data." This method rubs me the wrong way...

...and leads me to wonder whether it'd make a good podcast topic or not- the fringes of both ends of the spectrum, and the 'conversion' to one side or another. That, or macroevolution itself, as I'd like to convince people of its validity without feeling like some kind of missionary preaching the Origin.

Macroevolution hasn't explicitly been covered in the course yet, but it frustrates me so when people accept micro but don't make the next step to macro (oh god, I'm starting to sound like that prof...). Building off of the pepper moths, you can look at the honeycreepers of Hawaii (or any other endemic island bird population for that matter) and see how an incredible amount of diversification can arise with so few difference in genes (see cichlids in the African lakes). As the NOVA video illustrated, birds with an appropriate beak type will increase in population in the right areas, and eventually that WILL lead to new species.

I'll have to double check on the definition of a species (I'll go by genetic/fertile offspring, which makes sense in my mind...) before I dig into this, but it should be incredibly fun. Particularly if I get an opposing view. Whee!

~Danielle