Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

Johny

Dickinson, TX

#104691 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your stupidity ever quit?
The sun is not a closed system you moron.
If evolution were real, it's goal is to evolve you moron. Life's goal is to cling to life for as long as possible and work to make life better.
However, evolution does not exist, because it does not work at anything.
Psychology, I appreciate your support but it is important to show respect for people even if you do not agree with them. Even when they misuse the facts respect is important. Our conduct and words must rise above the standard norm we see in society.
Johny

Dickinson, TX

#104692 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us one boundary in space. If you can't, you have no reason to think that the universe is closed.
Show us where one black hole exits. I believe black holes exist, even though they are only theory, with my own reasoning.
Our solar system is not closed but the universe is - at least we have not seen anything to counter this.
Johny

Dickinson, TX

#104693 Oct 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you do not.
Taking a snippet of my post is misleading, without the full context. If evolution was true, new biological systems would require a very large number of specific mutations for a new system to come about. In this sense, the first mutation defines a purpose or goal where the next many and very precise mutations are required to achieve the new system.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#104694 Oct 13, 2012
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creati...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104695 Oct 13, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
Taking a snippet of my post is misleading, without the full context. If evolution was true, new biological systems would require a very large number of specific mutations for a new system to come about. In this sense, the first mutation defines a purpose or goal where the next many and very precise mutations are required to achieve the new system.
No, all the first mutation has to do is to increase the individual animal's ability to survive and reproduce slightly. It does not need a goal, it only needs to be reacting in a way that will increase its ability to survive in the animal's current environment. That is why changes in environment will drive large evolutionary changes.
Johny

Dickinson, TX

#104696 Oct 13, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution does not have a goal. It's just that what works the best within a given environment tends to survive the best. The sloth survives as a tree dweller--it wouldn't last very long in the open plains. It does not have a goal to be faster or slower, it either survives or it doesn't.
The blind spot in every creature that has an optic nerve exists because there are no rods or cones at the intsection of the back of the eye where the optic nerve is attached. The blind spot is not "useful"--it just is. Maybe some future generation of some future species will develop a random mutation that allows for rods and cones to exist at the intersection of the optic nerve, and that species might have a slightly better survival advantage than it previously had.(But maybe this will never happen because it's not a goal.)
Goal - the physics of systems requires the "goal" because there are so many very specific mutations to achieve the new function. You are correct to say that evolution cannot have a goal! This is why I say it is not possible.

You make the claim that the blind spot is not "useful" but I make the claim that it could be. It could be useful for the eye to track objects as you move your eyes around. The point could serve as a reference frame for your brain to process images. This notion that the blind spot serves a useful purpose is another Creationist prediction. Time will tell on this as more research is done on the eye and the cognitive response of visual information within the brain.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104697 Oct 13, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creati...
Very close to 46%. You and the writer of that article do not know how to read graphs or how to understand polls. There is always an error bar. This is not like a political poll where people's minds change regularly. When you see the numbers jump a bit that indicates poll error and the odds are that the actual number is either 44 or 45%.

So what? If you asked the same people if time passes at the same rate everywhere what percent would answer "no"? The correctness of a theory has nothing to do with what people who are uneducated in that theory think. Look at how many creationists who come here to debate get the theory of evolution wrong? If you get the theory wrong the odds are huge that you will have an incorrect opinion about it.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#104698 Oct 13, 2012
New state law confirms a teachers right to discuss weaknesses and alternatives to evolution. Now in Tennessee as well as Louisianna. This should be the law everywhere. If the theory of evolution were any good its proponents wouldn't have anything to worry about now would they? Students should be shown both sides. They should at least be taught the weaknesses in evolution as well as its "strengths" (if there are any, that is!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/law-al...

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/201...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104699 Oct 13, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
Goal - the physics of systems requires the "goal" because there are so many very specific mutations to achieve the new function. You are correct to say that evolution cannot have a goal! This is why I say it is not possible.
You make the claim that the blind spot is not "useful" but I make the claim that it could be. It could be useful for the eye to track objects as you move your eyes around. The point could serve as a reference frame for your brain to process images. This notion that the blind spot serves a useful purpose is another Creationist prediction. Time will tell on this as more research is done on the eye and the cognitive response of visual information within the brain.
How many times do you need to be corrected that no "goal" needs to exist? You are mischaracterizing evolution so of course you will get the wrong answers. Evolution is all about survival and that is it. Goals are not part of the theory when it comes to changes of specie.
Johny

Dickinson, TX

#104700 Oct 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, all the first mutation has to do is to increase the individual animal's ability to survive and reproduce slightly. It does not need a goal, it only needs to be reacting in a way that will increase its ability to survive in the animal's current environment. That is why changes in environment will drive large evolutionary changes.
This notion that one mutation will really increase function is a pipe dream. Without any added function you will not get the selection! Without the selection the trait will not be highly probable in the larger population. When your system requires many very specific mutations to coalesce in one genome, you need a high probability of the mutations being within a large percentage of the population. Otherwise, this process will reach the universal probability bound where all the time since the beginning of time is not enough to allow it.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#104701 Oct 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You and the writer of that article do not know how to read graphs or how to understand polls.
I think Gallup knows how to read their own data. It clearly says 46%. It also indicates that only 15% believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life and God had no part of the process.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creati...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#104702 Oct 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
The correctness of a theory has nothing to do with what people who are uneducated in that theory think. Look at how many creationists who come here to debate get the theory of evolution wrong? If you get the theory wrong the odds are huge that you will have an incorrect opinion about it.
It's been my experience that it's really the evolutionists who fail to understand the details of the theory. Evolution is mostly a blind faith situation. People who discover the truth about it then tend to reject it.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#104703 Oct 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do you need to be corrected that no "goal" needs to exist? You are mischaracterizing evolution so of course you will get the wrong answers. Evolution is all about survival and that is it. Goals are not part of the theory when it comes to changes of specie.
The only change you get from mutations is disease and death. It is only in rare circumstances does a mutation produce a benefit for survival but it is always at a cost to the overall fitness and represents a loss of genetic information. This has been observed and demonstrated in large, long term studies in bacteria and flies. This means there is no mechanism for macroevolution to ever occur.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104704 Oct 14, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The only change you get from mutations is disease and death. It is only in rare circumstances does a mutation produce a benefit for survival but it is always at a cost to the overall fitness and represents a loss of genetic information. This has been observed and demonstrated in large, long term studies in bacteria and flies. This means there is no mechanism for macroevolution to ever occur.
Nope, we have shown that is not true by countless laboratory experiments.

Let's see which is more believable, actual experiments in the laboratory that show viruses and bacteria evolving new abilities that increase survival or the ranting of an uneducated religious zealot.

Sorry Urb, I am going with the scientists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104705 Oct 14, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
This notion that one mutation will really increase function is a pipe dream. Without any added function you will not get the selection! Without the selection the trait will not be highly probable in the larger population. When your system requires many very specific mutations to coalesce in one genome, you need a high probability of the mutations being within a large percentage of the population. Otherwise, this process will reach the universal probability bound where all the time since the beginning of time is not enough to allow it.
All I can say is "Prove it". The opposite has been proved in the laboratory. And in the field. In the field Nylonaise evolved to consume nylon. It did not exist before nylon was developed by man. In the laboratory they have run countless experiments that showed evolution in action. There is the well known evolution of E. Coli to digest citrate. There are others, do you need to see them?

Our side is willing to prove our case by citing research that backs it up. I have noticed a lack on your side to do that. They do occasionally find a doctor or some such that will right a paper, but it is usually fatally flawed and it is still cited for years after it has been debunked.
Tyler in the Exosphere

Elkton, MD

#104706 Oct 14, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creati...
I KNOW! Isn't this the saddest thing you've ever seen? It's like come on get with the program America! I mean geeze. Another poll conducted across twenty countries placed the US second to last in acceptance of evolution--literally, the only country with a lower rate of acceptance was Turkey. Frikkin /Turkey/, aka the single least scientifically inclined nation in Europe (right now, at least. Once upon a time Turkey was really rockin' the science, but then, uh, various things happened. I don't want to sound antitheist or anything but it actually did have a lot to do with an influx of Christianity in that area). This is not a proud day for the US. Not a proud day at all.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#104707 Oct 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
All I can say is "Prove it". The opposite has been proved in the laboratory. And in the field. In the field Nylonaise evolved to consume nylon. It did not exist before nylon was developed by man. In the laboratory they have run countless experiments that showed evolution in action. There is the well known evolution of E. Coli to digest citrate. There are others, do you need to see them?
Our side is willing to prove our case by citing research that backs it up. I have noticed a lack on your side to do that. They do occasionally find a doctor or some such that will right a paper, but it is usually fatally flawed and it is still cited for years after it has been debunked.
Theists are liara. They know that their god isn't real, that's why they lie about science and atheism. It's pathetic when you think about it really.
Tyler in the Exosphere

Elkton, MD

#104708 Oct 14, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been my experience that it's really the evolutionists who fail to understand the details of the theory. Evolution is mostly a blind faith situation. People who discover the truth about it then tend to reject it.
Man you've seen people coming in here all the time arguing about things like abiogenesis and the second law of thermodynamics like they has any bearing at all on this. Seriously I'd probably look into Creationism more seriously if they had some credible people backing it (I'm no expert, after all, and am not looking to become one in the future--gotta know who to trust on the issues, it'd be pretty dumb of me to expect to know more than someone actually educated in the subject, right?) So yeah I pretty much have go with the Steves on evolution.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Snellville, GA

#104709 Oct 14, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, we have shown that is not true by countless laboratory experiments.
Let's see which is more believable, actual experiments in the laboratory that show viruses and bacteria evolving new abilities that increase survival or the ranting of an uneducated religious zealot.
Sorry Urb, I am going with the scientists.
The longest study of its kind, Lenski's long-term E.coli experiments have reached 50,000 generations with no hint of macroevolution of any kind occurring. Adaptation and genetic variation, or microevolution, is all that happened in Lenski's E.coli as happens with all organisms, ever. Lenski's experiments have clearly demonstrated that if you start out with E.coli, after 50,000 generations of struggle, you wind up with E.coli bacteria. There was no genetic mutation that created some new or nascent organ or limb evident. Universal common descent could not have happened because there is no mechanism for macroevolution to occur and this long-term experiment demonstrates that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-ter...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Snellville, GA

#104710 Oct 14, 2012
Tyler in the Exosphere wrote:
<quoted text>
I KNOW! Isn't this the saddest thing you've ever seen? It's like come on get with the program America! I mean geeze. Another poll conducted across twenty countries placed the US second to last in acceptance of evolution--literally, the only country with a lower rate of acceptance was Turkey. Frikkin /Turkey/, aka the single least scientifically inclined nation in Europe (right now, at least. Once upon a time Turkey was really rockin' the science, but then, uh, various things happened. I don't want to sound antitheist or anything but it actually did have a lot to do with an influx of Christianity in that area). This is not a proud day for the US. Not a proud day at all.
I'm sorry you feel that way because I see it as a blessing. America is still the greatest place on the planet and we have the best people. I used to be an evolutionist myself but when I really studied it in detail found it to be totally wrong and lately science is overwhelmingly confirming the truth of the Bible in so many ways. Also remember that pratically all the founding fathers of science were Christians, who througout history have always been at the top of the educated world.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 min Zog Has-fallen 283
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min woodtick57 171,976
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 21 min thetruth 20,644
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 51 min Chimney1 142,662
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 51
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) 23 hr Chimney1 248
evolution is correct. prove me wrong Fri Paul Porter1 9
More from around the web