Re: birds and dinosaurs

[dinoboygraphics@aol.com]

> > > TODAY, birds are not classified as reptiles . . .<<<

Either birds are reptiles, or dinosaurs are not.  Birds ARE dinosaurs, 
so there is no way around it.  As Keesey and others have pointed out, 
there are two schools of thought on this (I tend to favor dropping the 
term "reptile" altogether, since it's more misleading than useful).   
The fact that the previous use of taxanomic rankings (orders, familes, 
etc) confused the issue is no reason to promulage that garbage to 
children.

> > > If dinosaurs are reptiles, do we need to update all the textbooks 
ASAP?<<<

Without question, but as I mentioned above there is a disagreement as 
to what is the best way, and in the absence of a total agreement 
textbook makers tend to simply retain the outmoded version that doesn't 
require changing (even if it's more wrong than either potential 
solution, as it is here).  Worse, the way classification is changing 
more explicitly reflects evolutionary patterns, and U.S. textbook 
makers are not exactly falling over themsevles trying to include the 
most accurate and up to date information on evolution these days.

In fact, in my experience K-12 biology textbooks are by far the most 
out of touch with the current state of their respective science, and 
it's for the simple reason that modern biology is always never out in 
the absence of evolutionary theory, but textbook makers don't want to 
embrace this due to fears of upsetting non-scientific parents.  Instead 
the textbooks create a make-believe version of biology where what kids 
need to know is that there are many kinds of living things (duh), that 
they all live together in an ecosystem (true enough but not very useful 
or interesting without an understanding of how ecosystems react and 
evolve), and the very basics of cell biology and (eventually) protein 
synthesis (but not enough to understand how tissues are formed and how 
variations in the timing of gene events leads to phentoypic variation).

Not only do students graduate highschool with essentially no inking of 
modern biology, they then must undergo a remedial (and frequently dull) 
couple of semesters in college to make up for this deficiency (if they 
take an interest in biology at all).  They then either still don't get 
any significant evolutionary theory until late in their major (like at 
the University of Wyoming), or the students are flabbergasted if the 
subject is made the central part of their freshman courses, since they 
haven't run into it previously in their schooling.

The biological sciences have one of the strongest pedagological tools 
available in that they have a unified explanatory framework within 
which the entire field can be made sense of.  No need to memorize 
non-connected facts without a context, and the framwork can be made 
simple enough for non-specialists to understand without sacrificing the 
utility or accuracy of that framework.  The fact that U.S. schools shun 
this tool has to be one of the most unmitigated disasters in 21st 
century education.


Scott Hartman
Science Director
Wyoming Dinosaur Center
110 Carter Ranch Rd.
Thermopolis, WY 82443
(800) 455-3466 ext. 230
Cell: (307) 921-8333

www.skeletaldrawing.com


-----Original Message-----
From: hammeris1@bellsouth.net
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Sent: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 9:48 pm
Subject: re: birds and dinosaurs



Okay, sloppy talk, but in every current schoolbook in the K12,
TODAY, birds are not classified as reptiles . . .



I'm easy either way - but if the poster is trying to do a PPT chart for 
teens .
. .