You'e probably come across the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. 'Microevolution' is generally taken to mean small-scale changes in a population's gene pool, while 'macroevolution' is evolutionary change at the level of species, or genus, or phylum. This distinction can cause problems with understanding…
Continue readingCategory: nature of science
Ants, drugs & aphid slaves
I was browsing SciTech Daily Review (always a good source of breaking science stories) when this headline caught my eye: Ants drug their aphid slaves. What a tantalising title! It led me to a just-published article (T.H.Oliver et al. 2007) looking at how ants control the aphids that they 'farm'.
Continue readingThings to think about when reading a scientific paper
Sometimes I base these blogs on a scientific paper that's caught my eye. I'm hoping that sometimes you'll search out the original reference and read it for yourself. But when a paper is cited in support of an argument – how can you decide whether the contents stack up?
Continue readingFurther food for thought
After I posted Food for thought?, I got a message from a student saying that she'd seen the study reported on the Documentary Channel. She thought the results looked good, but commented … it never stated if they had a control, possibly placebos, so that it can be assesed whether some of the children merely concentrated more […]
Continue readingFood for thought?
We hear a lot, these days, about eating healthy foods (& not too much of anything!). If you read the ads, and sometimes news items, you'll find some particular foods promoted as being particularly good for you. One of these is fish oil, rich in omega-3 oils and supposedly good for brain development, among other […]
Continue readingThe improbability of an eye… (‘intelligent design’ part 2)
The camera-type eye of humans (& in fact all vertebrates) is often held up as a classic example of what ‘intelligent design’ (ID) proponents call irreducible complexity. The argument goes like this: a) the camera-type eye needs all its parts to function. b) It couldn’t possibly be assembled randomly as Darwinian theory claims. c) The […]
Continue reading“intelligent design” – science or philosophy?
At my scholarship preparation day yesterday I was asked if students could expect an exam question about evolution and intelligent design. My answer? No, because "intelligent design" is not a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth. My reasons for saying this? Read on…
Continue reading