Greetings all!
[Stefanie: I hope you don't delete this before reading it.]
This has been a fecund discussion of whether resources and opinions about
evolution belong on Museum-L. My feelings are that anything belongs on this
list provided it is information: (1) already known to or under investigation
by people; and, (2) that has been, is or soon will be fodder for museum
exhibitions, programs and/or publications. Broad, huh?
Regardless, I'll declare myself more interested in one specific aspect of
evolution -- the physiology of the human eye and its relation to perception
and sensation. After all, it's indisputable that every aspect of visual
processing is relevant to museums. So, I include a link to a fascinating
article entitled "How did the human eye evolve" from TheScian Science Wiki:
www.thescian.com/wiki/index.php/How_did_the_human_eye_evolve
Please note, especially, the following:
"Many animals, including humans, have developed ways to
detect photons and use it to their survival advantage.
The most visible of these light detecting biological
contraptions is the biological eye. The giant of a man,
Darwin was too cautious about the evolution of eyes and
made remark a about how complex the eye is and how hard
it is for the eye to evolve by blind forces of nature.
Although he later clarifies, people (read Creationists,
Intelligent Design theorists) looking for evidence of
divine intervention selectively read the remark and
leave without picking up the later part which all the
more important.
"The eye, particularly the human eye, has provided an
enduring platform for creationists to stage their magical
theories. To set the records straight, let me state that
the human eye is not a particularly well-evolved design.
Octopus, for instance has a better evolved eye than the
human eye."
[For even more scientific detail, see: www.catalase.com/retina.htm]
Of course, TheScian Science Wiki article points to the Creationist/ID
argument concerning the evolution of mammalian (particularly human) eyes.
Here ya' go . . .
³The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been
the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin¹s] dilemma.
Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in
its final, complete form, how could natural selection
have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution
when the variations had no possible survival value? No
single variation, indeed no single part, being of any
use without every other, and natural selection presuming
no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ,
the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be
irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking
examples of organs and processes which seem to defy
natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of
chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which
the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is
of no value at all, and only the end product, the final
elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful‹and not only
useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing
nothing of the end or final purpose of this process,
function when the only test is precisely that end or
final purpose?² Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the
Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday,
1959), pp. 320321.]
[Snagged from: www.creationscience.com]
Of course, this discussion could branch into famed neurologist Oliver Sacks'
books (i.e., The Island of the Colorblind, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for
a Hat), dealing with aberrations of human perception. And so many other
researchers, thinkers, writers through history -- some physiological, some
psychological, some theoretical on the evolution of the eye, perception,
comprehension, pedagogical methods, etc.:
Optics
Cognitive psychology
Semiotic theory
Reception theory
Visual culture
etc.
So, is all this, too, irrelevant to Museum-L? Hardly.
In an age when museums have hosted exhibitions of Barbie, Star Wars, and
plasticized human corpses, its outlandish to conceive of anything beyond the
scope of our professional eyes . . .
[BTW, John, whilst I haven't found evidence of a museum about chickens,
generally, there is a Col. Sander's Café & Museum . . .
www.corbinkentucky.us/sanderscafe.htm. Greasy fun and fingers for one and
all, I'm certain.]
Best wishes, sincerely,
Jay Heuman
Curator of Education
Salt Lake Art Center
20 South West Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
T 801-328-4201
F 801-322-4323
E [log in to unmask]
W http://www.slartcenter.org
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
