Consistently Incorrect Lecture Information?

[Shirafune]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So one of my professors seems to frequently provide misinformation during lectures. For example, she referenced a protocols paper in a slide and explained the molecular basis of the assay (her explanation didn't make sense), but the actual paper used a different methodology. When some students asked questions out of confusion, her explanation contradicted the paper she posted even more. Also, in the context of genome editing, she is trying to convince us that homologous recombination is not a method for generating mutations, but that double-strand breaks and non-homologous end joining are. She also uses molecular biology terms incorrectly a lot (i.e. processivity vs. fidelity, knockouts vs. knockdowns, etc). These are just a few examples of many. And just fyi, this is a genomics/proteomics class...

A lot of other students seem to feel the same way. I don't want to piss her off by continually questioning her lectures as the final is coming up, but a lot of what I hear in lecture doesn't match up with the papers she assigns or material from other courses.

Not sure what to do about the final or how to even approach this issue...

 

[deleted577188]

Office hours. Bring your concerns up to her.

 

[Kelevra]

Office hours. Bring your concerns up to her.

With additional examples, and scholarly proof supporting your claims/refuting hers.

But first, ask her to once again clarify her points. Don't just go in and reference four lectures ago and say, "you were wrong".

Knew an arrogant bastard of a kid who did that. Always used semantic arguments to twist what he heard into phrases that made the professor seem wrong.

Perhaps you misheard, and perhaps your classmates don't understand the material enough to actually follow what you're saying, so they just agree because they actually don't understand any of it anyways. Not saying this is you, but consider the possibilities.

 

[Miss_Premed]

I had a professor who was in her first year teaching a molecular + cellular biology course and she did many of the same things you were describing. She would tell us a fact or something that was completely opposite of what our textbook said. Many of my classmates would ask her questions during lectures and she got so annoyed that she banned all questions! She also stopped responding to emails requesting appointments (she had no office hours). At the end of the semester she was fired. It was a tough semester. I ended up just not going to class and just reading my textbook because I would hear her say something incorrect in class and then inadvertently remember that on the test. Thankfully the tests were not made by her so if you knew your stuff you could do well on them.

I second what others have said, try and talk with here one on one and if that doesn't work you could always email the department head.

Good luck with your class!

 

[Goro]

This is the only tried and true solution to having a poor professor. Also agree with bringing this up with the Dep't Chair.

I ended up just not going to class and just reading my textbook because I would hear her say something incorrect in class and then inadvertently remember that on the test.

 

[Blue Blood]

Yeah. I had a neuropsychology professor who was stuck on repeat with information that was likely from ~2000, when he finished his PhD. The required book for the class was from 2001 and had so many inconsistencies with current biology it was silly.

 

[Shirafune]

I hope it'll be of more help this time. Previously, I brought up an incorrect question on a quiz and referenced the paper she had us read specifically for that quiz and it took a while for her to see where I was coming from. She didn't even remember that this was the paper she had us read.

 

[DokterMom]

Is there a grad student TA you could ask for clarification? If it's just 'semantics' or 'slip of the tongue' then you wouldn't want to make a big deal out of it, but if you've got reason to believe she lacks understanding of the subject material, or if her 'slips of the tongue' are wrong more than occasionally, or her class handouts/Powerpoints are wrong, then yes, go to the dept. chair.

 

[AspiringERMD]

In the theme of professors giving horribly out-of-date information... a friend of mine had an environmental science professor who made several references to Creationist-like "facts" about global floods and how "neo-Darwinists" have hijacked evolution to convince people that we are only made to reproduce and that love and consciousness don't exist. Also some weird crap about genes being, and I just dug up the quote, "energy receptors to God's consciousness which allows us to traverse the spiritual ladder through reincarnation."

She was also saying some really untrue and uncalled for things about atheists, and my friend is an atheist. He went to the department head, relayed the crazy things she was saying along with her bigoted comments, and after talking to some other students, the department fired her between semesters. This was at a Catholic school, but my friend said that he couldn't have been happier with how seriously they took his complaints, including the anti-atheist bigotry.

Your story makes me wonder if I've accepted anything as true from professors that isn't actually true...

 

[chemist16]

In the theme of professors giving horribly out-of-date information... a friend of mine had an environmental science professor who made several references to Creationist-like "facts" about global floods and how "neo-Darwinists" have hijacked evolution to convince people that we are only made to reproduce and that love and consciousness don't exist. Also some weird crap about genes being, and I just dug up the quote, "energy receptors to God's consciousness which allows us to traverse the spiritual ladder through reincarnation."

She was also saying some really untrue and uncalled for things about atheists, and my friend is an atheist. He went to the department head, relayed the crazy things she was saying along with her bigoted comments, and after talking to some other students, the department fired her between semesters. This was at a Catholic school, but my friend said that he couldn't have been happier with how seriously they took his complaints, including the anti-atheist bigotry.

Stuff like this isn't really a big deal. It's the professor's opinion (somewhat political, but you're in college) and he/she is entitled to have that opinion. Everybody in the class obviously recognizes it's an opinion. I'm not trying to target you specifically, but learning to recognize somebody else's viewpoint is a skill that every liberally educated person should have. What would somebody like your friend do in the real world, when his/her coworkers or boss are/is a bigot? As long as the professor is still teaching the subject material, any interjections of opinion should be viewed as that - just someone's opinion.

This is somewhat different from OP's case, where the professor is actually teaching the wrong material. It is factually incorrect as opposed to politically incorrect.

 

[AspiringERMD]

Stuff like this isn't really a big deal. It's the professor's opinion (somewhat political, but you're in college) and he/she is entitled to have that opinion. Everybody in the class obviously recognizes it's an opinion. I'm not trying to target you specifically, but learning to recognize somebody else's viewpoint is a skill that every liberally educated person should have. What would somebody like your friend do in the real world, when his/her coworkers or boss are/is a bigot? As long as the professor is still teaching the subject material, any interjections of opinion should be viewed as that - just someone's opinion.

This is somewhat different from OP's case, where the professor is actually teaching the wrong material. It is factually incorrect as opposed to politically incorrect.

Creationism isn't an opinion; it's just factually wrong. As for the anti-atheist comments, they did not occur just in one lecture. It happened over and over again in multiple lectures and was really starting to get excessive. Neither of these belong in a science classroom.

 

[ccountry28]

in the context of genome editing, she is trying to convince us that homologous recombination is not a method for generating mutations, but that double-strand breaks and non-homologous end joining are.

That is 100% correct. HR repairs DNA without inducing any base conversions aka mutations by actively seeking the proper bases on the other chromatid. DS breaks repaired through p51 and ATM are reconnected in a randomized fashion which causes mutation.
I'm not arguing that professors never say dumb and incorrect things, but your prime example of your professor being incorrect demonstrates that you do not understand the core concepts of Molecular biology 1. Consider reviewing the content again before approaching her else she is going to torch you.

 

[chemist16]

Creationism isn't an opinion; it's just factually wrong. As for the anti-atheist comments, they did not occur just in one lecture. It happened over and over again in multiple lectures and was really starting to get excessive. Neither of these belong in a science classroom.

Depends on what you define as "creationism." If one believes that Being created the singularity that existed before the Big Bang, that has not been disproven. It also cannot be disproven. It's not factually wrong. In fact, it's consistent with the facts. One could also argue that creationism is evolutionarily feasible. Imagine a God that micromanages each little detail of life. That has also not yet been disproven. The fact that you're saying that this is "factually wrong" only says that you do not understand the opposing viewpoint. (I'm not making an assertion of my own views here - only the point that you're not getting where others' opinions come from).

Whether or not the "anti-atheist" comments occurred over and over again is not relevant unless you are saying that they occurred so much as to become disruptive to what was being taught. In other words, students were actually hindered in their learning of the subject material by the excessive comments. If that's the case, then I agree - any parallel disruptions should not be welcome in any classroom. But learning to get along with others is a skill that is useful not only for college but also for the workplace. How many coworkers will make offensive remarks? Are you going to tattle on them?

 

[AspiringERMD]

Depends on what you define as "creationism." If one believes that Being created the singularity that existed before the Big Bang, that has not been disproven. It also cannot be disproven. It's not factually wrong. In fact, it's consistent with the facts. One could also argue that creationism is evolutionarily feasible. Imagine a God that micromanages each little detail of life. That has also not yet been disproven. The fact that you're saying that this is "factually wrong" only says that you do not understand the opposing viewpoint. (I'm not making an assertion of my own views here - only the point that you're not getting where others' opinions come from).

Whether or not the "anti-atheist" comments occurred over and over again is not relevant unless you are saying that they occurred so much as to become disruptive to what was being taught. In other words, students were actually hindered in their learning of the subject material by the excessive comments. If that's the case, then I agree - any parallel disruptions should not be welcome in any classroom. But learning to get along with others is a skill that is useful not only for college but also for the workplace. How many coworkers will make offensive remarks? Are you going to tattle on them?

So if a professor repeatedly made disparaging remarks about black people, women, or Muslims, you wouldn't reprimand them because it's "just their opinion"? It's not any less offensive when you change the class of people being discussed. And it is particularly inappropriate in a science classroom when religion isn't even relevant.

The aspects of Creationism she was alluding to also don't belong in a science classroom; they belong in a theology or literature classroom. There is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood 6000 years ago. Whatever nonsense she was asserting as fact about genetics is also not a conclusion that was derived from the scientific method. That's what science is. She wasn't talking about what she thinks. She was asserting things are true that aren't even testable. And again, the department head *at a Catholic school* was stunned by what non-scientific mythology she was teaching in a science classroom, and it was a factor in her being fired.

 

[Shirafune]

That is 100% correct. HR repairs DNA without inducing any base conversions aka mutations by actively seeking the proper bases on the other chromatid. DS breaks repaired through p51 and ATM are reconnected in a randomized fashion which causes mutation.
I'm not arguing that professors never say dumb and incorrect things, but your prime example of your professor being incorrect demonstrates that you do not understand the core concepts of Molecular biology 1. Consider reviewing the content again before approaching her else she is going to torch you.

The answer choice was "Homologous recombination," not "homologous recombination in the absence of an exogenous donor template."

In the context of genome editing, talking about homologous recombination in the absence of an exogenous repair template bearing your desired homology arms is pointless. It was a paper on CRISPR/Cas9, with some reference to ZFNs and TALENs. Typically, your homology cassette also contains a selectable marker to facilitate clonal selection, such that NHEJ events are negatively selected. Now, as far as I'm concerned, chance substitution by NHEJ is not a preferable way to generate point mutants. Not to mention how limited your disease models can be if you are only studying knockouts.

I'm fully aware of DSBs and ATM/Chk2 DNA damage signaling; some of my undergraduate research is closely related to DSBs and DNA damage signaling. And for the record, I am not aware of p51/p63's role in DSB signaling. The classic DSB marker I am aware of is p53...Plus, I think you are implying that DNA damage signaling proteins are responsible for repair, when I am fairly sure that ATM can potentiate both NHEJ and HR.

 

[chemist16]

So if a professor repeatedly made disparaging remarks about black people, women, or Muslims, you wouldn't reprimand them because it's "just their opinion"? It's not any less offensive when you change the class of people being discussed. And it is particularly inappropriate in a science classroom when religion isn't even relevant.

Again, this is not high school. People in the real world are not politically correct and the sooner you realize that, the better off you will be in the workplace. There are Palestinian and Jewish professors - even in the same science departments - who refuse to speak to each other and make snide remarks about the other. Unless their remarks are actually disruptive to learning the subject material, they should be free to express their thoughts. This whole ordeal speaks to the startling trend of students petitioning to remove commencement speakers for their political views/actions. The true value of a liberal arts education lies in listening to others' views and evaluating them critically, not seeking to dismiss everybody who does not have the same viewpoint.

If a professor made disparaging remarks about black people, women, or Muslims, I would invite them to an open discourse about why they hold such views. They are free to express their views under the First Amendment and unless those views are actually becoming extremely disruptive to learning, they have still done their job of teaching. The wrong approach is to go to the dean or department head and demand an apology, demand for the professor's removal, etc. The fact that the department head at that Catholic school acquiesced speaks more to the school's commitment to a liberal education than to the content of her remarks. I have been a party to several faculty-student forums in which we discussed certain sensitive issues - stuff from Palestine to affirmative action - and we were able to remain civilized and accepting of the others' viewpoints even though they were not our own.

The aspects of Creationism she was alluding to also don't belong in a science classroom; they belong in a theology or literature classroom. There is no scientific evidence of a worldwide flood 6000 years ago. Whatever nonsense she was asserting as fact about genetics is also not a conclusion that was derived from the scientific method. That's what science is. She wasn't talking about what she thinks. She was asserting things are true that aren't even testable.

Since you sound so knowledgeable about the matter, I'm sure you've read the Ryan et al. "An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf" paper published in a well-known academic journal in '97. That study sparked much further debate/discovery about whether or not such a flood occurred. Notice that nobody actually pushed for Ryan's removal from his post at Columbia University. Whether or not you buy into this paper is up to you, but the point is, either way, it shows that the scientific debate is still going on over whether such a flood occurred. That you continuously fail to realize that this is testable and a valid scientific viewpoint again says more about your education than the content of the professor's speech.

 

[AspiringERMD]

Again, this is not high school. People in the real world are not politically correct and the sooner you realize that, the better off you will be in the workplace. There are Palestinian and Jewish professors - even in the same science departments - who refuse to speak to each other and make snide remarks about the other. Unless their remarks are actually disruptive to learning the subject material, they should be free to express their thoughts. This whole ordeal speaks to the startling trend of students petitioning to remove commencement speakers for their political views/actions. The true value of a liberal arts education lies in listening to others' views and evaluating them critically, not seeking to dismiss everybody who does not have the same viewpoint.

If a professor made disparaging remarks about black people, women, or Muslims, I would invite them to an open discourse about why they hold such views. They are free to express their views under the First Amendment and unless those views are actually becoming extremely disruptive to learning, they have still done their job of teaching. The wrong approach is to go to the dean or department head and demand an apology, demand for the professor's removal, etc. The fact that the department head at that Catholic school acquiesced speaks more to the school's commitment to a liberal education than to the content of her remarks. I have been a party to several faculty-student forums in which we discussed certain sensitive issues - stuff from Palestine to affirmative action - and we were able to remain civilized and accepting of the others' viewpoints even though they were not our own.



Since you sound so knowledgeable about the matter, I'm sure you've read the Ryan et al. "An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf" paper published in a well-known academic journal in '97. That study sparked much further debate/discovery about whether or not such a flood occurred. Notice that nobody actually pushed for Ryan's removal from his post at Columbia University. Whether or not you buy into this paper is up to you, but the point is, either way, it shows that the scientific debate is still going on over whether such a flood occurred. That you continuously fail to realize that this is testable and a valid scientific viewpoint again says more about your education than the content of the professor's speech.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of demographic bashing by a professor to a class. First Amendment rights are irrelevant here though, as they only apply to government censorship, and they don't free you from the consequences of your actions.

That study says absolutely nothing about a global flood. I never said there couldn't have been a regional flood somewhere on Earth 6,000 years ago. There probably was; they happen all the time.

 

[chemist16]

That study says absolutely nothing about a global flood. I never said there couldn't have been a regional flood somewhere on Earth 6,000 years ago. There probably was; they happen all the time.

Sure, but now you've acknowledged that there could have been a massive flood in the time period she was referring to. If you had actually read the study, you would realize that this is not just any regional flood anywhere and definitely not one that happens "all the time." This was a flood of massive proportions. If you were in that area at that time, you probably would have thought it was global too because, sadly, there was no such thing as Google Earth 6000 years ago. And if you recorded it as a global flood, then that sticks and becomes embellished over time. So now what we're arguing about is the term "global." Sure, your professor shouldn't save said something about a "global" flood as fact, but the fact stands that there is some evidence pointing to a massive, one-of-a-kind regional flood that could have been interpreted as a global flood by people living in that time. Coincidentally, in the same Biblical era that you decry as belonging to the theology classroom. No, my friend, this is science supporting the beginnings of what is now known as a Biblical story. Not so irrelevant to an environmental science classroom.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the appropriateness of demographic bashing by a professor to a class. First Amendment rights are irrelevant here though, as they only apply to government censorship, and they don't free you from the consequences of your actions.

You're right - there are no First Amendment rights in the workplace. But this is not just any workplace. This is a university where scholars of all opinions come to discuss their views. To completely disregard and punish those with any particular view is simply not the function of any liberal university. This is akin to a Muslim professor saying something offensive about Christianity and some student, instead of opening discourse with the professor, going to some higher authority and bitching about it. No, how you solve this professionally and civilly is you have an open debate or an open forum where students and faculty members can discuss the bases of their viewpoints and defend it. Maybe then somebody will be convinced. Suppressing one side of the debate is not the place of any liberal university. The fact that you think broadly "creationism" is indisputable only makes me question whether you understand and accept opposing views.

 

[NeuResurgens]

Make sure to study te material and understand it very well before calling her out - I've been saved a lot of embarrassment by giving myself time to chew on the supposed incorrect statement, only to realize that I had misinterpreted it, before actually bringing it up.

If you find that it is in fact wrong, talk to her in office hours or go to the department.

Interesting religious debate also going on BTW.

 

[genericpremedstudent]

Lol that someone doesn't understand that disparaging an entire religious group (or lack thereof, however you choose to look at it) should have to face the consequences of the organization they work for. In the work place, which includes educational institutions, bigoted comments are taken seriously and usually fall under a zero tolerance policy.

 

[chemist16]

In the work place, which includes educational institutions, bigoted comments are taken seriously and usually fall under a zero tolerance policy.

There's a difference between having an open discussion about these comments and suppressing one side of the debate. Plenty of Muslim and Jewish professors have civilized discussions in open forums on Palestine. I've been to them and it's actually quite interesting to watch and you leave with more mutual understanding than before.

 

[chemist16]

I guess we will have to, in the wise words of the poster above, agree to disagree on this issue. To me, the right way to approach this would be to open discourse with the professor to understand why she thinks that way and see if a mutual understanding could be reached. Only if she was completely intolerant and bigoted would I approach the department head or dean. But that's just how I would do it and I realize that others may think differently and I respect that.

 

[genericpremedstudent]

There's a difference between having an open discussion about these comments and suppressing one side of the debate. Plenty of Muslim and Jewish professors have civilized discussions in open forums on Palestine. I've been to them and it's actually quite interesting to watch and you leave with more mutual understanding than before.

yeah, according to his post it really sounded like an open discussion. I feel like you are arguing this just because you have nothing better to do.

 

[chemist16]

yeah, according to his post it really sounded like an open discussion. I feel like you are arguing this just because you have nothing better to do.

Nah, keeps me sharp. GRE coming up. But you're right. Friday is my drinking night. Today's a lazy Saturday for me.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Stuff like this isn't really a big deal. It's the professor's opinion (somewhat political, but you're in college) and he/she is entitled to have that opinion. Everybody in the class obviously recognizes it's an opinion. I'm not trying to target you specifically, but learning to recognize somebody else's viewpoint is a skill that every liberally educated person should have. What would somebody like your friend do in the real world, when his/her coworkers or boss are/is a bigot? As long as the professor is still teaching the subject material, any interjections of opinion should be viewed as that - just someone's opinion.

This is somewhat different from OP's case, where the professor is actually teaching the wrong material. It is factually incorrect as opposed to politically incorrect.

Companies fire bigots for being bigots if the bigotry is bad for their non-bigoted public image.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Again, this is not high school. People in the real world are not politically correct and the sooner you realize that, the better off you will be in the workplace. There are Palestinian and Jewish professors - even in the same science departments - who refuse to speak to each other and make snide remarks about the other. Unless their remarks are actually disruptive to learning the subject material, they should be free to express their thoughts. This whole ordeal speaks to the startling trend of students petitioning to remove commencement speakers for their political views/actions. The true value of a liberal arts education lies in listening to others' views and evaluating them critically, not seeking to dismiss everybody who does not have the same viewpoint.

If a professor made disparaging remarks about black people, women, or Muslims, I would invite them to an open discourse about why they hold such views. They are free to express their views under the First Amendment and unless those views are actually becoming extremely disruptive to learning, they have still done their job of teaching. The wrong approach is to go to the dean or department head and demand an apology, demand for the professor's removal, etc. The fact that the department head at that Catholic school acquiesced speaks more to the school's commitment to a liberal education than to the content of her remarks. I have been a party to several faculty-student forums in which we discussed certain sensitive issues - stuff from Palestine to affirmative action - and we were able to remain civilized and accepting of the others' viewpoints even though they were not our own.



Since you sound so knowledgeable about the matter, I'm sure you've read the Ryan et al. "An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf" paper published in a well-known academic journal in '97. That study sparked much further debate/discovery about whether or not such a flood occurred. Notice that nobody actually pushed for Ryan's removal from his post at Columbia University. Whether or not you buy into this paper is up to you, but the point is, either way, it shows that the scientific debate is still going on over whether such a flood occurred. That you continuously fail to realize that this is testable and a valid scientific viewpoint again says more about your education than the content of the professor's speech.

LO...L?

 

[chemist16]

Companies fire bigots for being bigots if the bigotry is bad for their non-bigoted public image.

That wouldn't protect an employee from his/her boss's racist or religious views. Companies fire bigots when bigots start giving them a bad name. Otherwise, as long as such bigots are making the publicly unbigoted company good money, the company couldn't care less about the bigot managers' racist/religious views. Which translates to, unless the employee comes forward with the statements and some news company is bored enough to air it, nothing's gonna be done. Unless, of course, it's a huge corporation like Walmart, in which case any local news company would jump for the chance.

 

[Long Way to Go]

LO...L?

This stuff turns out to be really interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

Unrelated, but also really cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood

 

[AspiringERMD]

This stuff turns out to be really interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis

Unrelated, but also really cool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood

Still, a regional flood would not support the story of Noah. It makes no difference whether or not people at the time thought it was global. Would have been easier to transfer two of each of the animals of the world somewhere besides the region (which means having most of the animals of the world simply stay put, and not wiping out everyone but one family). You wouldn't need to stay on the boat for a year either. Incidentally, the Bible was also written thousands of years later than 6,000 years ago.

By the way, I always wonder who the Creationists believe had to carry all the intestinal parasites. ^_^

 

[chemist16]

Still, a regional flood would not support the story of Noah. It makes no difference whether or not people at the time thought it was global. Would have been easier to transfer two of each of the animals of the world somewhere besides the region (which means having most of the animals of the world simply stay put, and not wiping out everyone but one family). You wouldn't need to stay on the boat for a year either. Incidentally, the Bible was also written thousands of years later than 6,000 years ago.

The point is not to read the Bible completely literally. Very few branches of Christianity still do that. If one were to do that, half of the Old Testament would be just outrageous. What you're calling "The Bible" was written throughout great spans of history by very many different people. Book of Genesis, in particular, is usually dated to 1500-1000 B.C., circa 4,000 years post Black Sea deluge. The point is that there was a great flood in the region that could have been interpreted by people at that time as global. Such a historical story was passed down, generation after generation, until it was finally committed to writing in the Book of Genesis. By that time, there had been quite a few embellishments, I'm sure. Maybe Noah never existed. The story of transferring two of each animal to the ark probably never actually occurred either. But the point is, there actually was a great regional flood that people at that time would have interpreted as a global flood. That's what the science supports.

Notice that I never sought to actually support the story of Noah. All I am trying to do is to figure out how that story came to be. Here is science and history, mixed together. If you read (or, better yet, listen to) any first-hand accounts of any observation, you'll definitely find embellishments and inaccuracies. Now multiply that by hundreds of generations and you get something like the story of Noah.

 

[Long Way to Go]

Still, a regional flood would not support the story of Noah. It makes no difference whether or not people at the time thought it was global. Would have been easier to transfer two of each of the animals of the world somewhere besides the region (which means having most of the animals of the world simply stay put, and not wiping out everyone but one family). You wouldn't need to stay on the boat for a year either. Incidentally, the Bible was also written thousands of years later than 6,000 years ago.

By the way, I always wonder who the Creationists believe had to carry all the intestinal parasites. ^_^

Noah's Ark isn't my cup of tea. Geology is still super cool.

 

[AspiringERMD]

The point is not to read the Bible completely literally. Very few branches of Christianity still do that. If one were to do that, half of the Old Testament would be just outrageous. What you're calling "The Bible" was written throughout great spans of history by very many different people. Book of Genesis, in particular, is usually dated to 1500-1000 B.C., circa 4,000 years post Black Sea deluge. The point is that there was a great flood in the region that could have been interpreted by people at that time as global. Such a historical story was passed down, generation after generation, until it was finally committed to writing in the Book of Genesis. By that time, there had been quite a few embellishments, I'm sure. Maybe Noah never existed. The story of transferring two of each animal to the ark probably never actually occurred either. But the point is, there actually was a great regional flood that people at that time would have interpreted as a global flood. That's what the science supports.

Notice that I never sought to actually support the story of Noah. All I am trying to do is to figure out how that story came to be. Here is science and history, mixed together. If you read (or, better yet, listen to) any first-hand accounts of any observation, you'll definitely find embellishments and inaccuracies. Now multiply that by hundreds of generations and you get something like the story of Noah.

You'd be surprised how many people take Genesis literally regardless of what their branch of Christianity says.