Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 173,929

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." Full Story
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#111259 Dec 6, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Actual studies have shown that fitness returns in a few generations when natural selection is restored.
That's hilarious. It's logically equivalent to saying that evolution is reversible when natural selection is operating.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#111260 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. If I decide to try and write a novel and struggle with the first pages and decide to take it and wad it up in my hands and throw it away into the garbage. Is that excused?
Question not answered, dodger.

The Midianites were slaughtered at the hands of other men, ordered by your God, at least according to their charismatic leader Moses. Stop squirming, read Numbers. Again. Kill the boys and mothers. Then tell me how it differs from the Nazis. Then try to tell me that Nazis were inspired by Darwin. Then try to explain how you can believe this crap.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#111261 Dec 6, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Clearly, the point is that Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is irrefutable and that Darwin's philosophy is an absurd non-science that doesn't even pass the threshold of anecdote.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf
Why did the author of this paper use that analogy at the end about textbooks ?~? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use an actual genetic algorithm? Or the well-known Weasel Program? Or most crowdsourcing programs? It's like he intentionally chose an absurd example rather than using a more analogous one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#111262 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. If I decide to try and write a novel and struggle with the first pages and decide to take it and wad it up in my hands and throw it away into the garbage. Is that excused?
You are always excused, human cowboy, if your realisation of your error is genuine.

So, how about this error of moral judgement where you thought it must be OK to hack a three year old boy to death if Moses said God ordered it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111263 Dec 6, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>That's hilarious. It's logically equivalent to saying that evolution is reversible when natural selection is operating.
Actually no, it's saying what has been observed. It's called an observation. You don't even have an observation, just a bunch of hearsay.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#111264 Dec 6, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
It's like he intentionally chose an absurd example rather than using a more analogous one.
Perfect except for "its like"

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111265 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I am glad at least you agree that our Sun is dying. Good. Now, life on Earth gets its energy from the dying Sun. Entropy moves from the less complex energy source to the more complex organism receiving the energy. This is a mathematical fact. Therefore, entropy is increasing in life on Earth and macroevolution never happened.

This is poor reasoning. As long as we are in an energy positive system we need not worry about entropy. True, it will be a problem someday, but that day is, quite literally, billions of years from now.

All you have demonstrated is that creationists can't think things through.

Hardly a news flash.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111266 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you do believe in the spiritual concept of good vs. evil? You believe that I am somehow related to this "Ryan"?

Sometimes your logic is just as bad as his. The last post I responded to of yours was fully worthy of Jimbo.

If you can't tell the difference,....
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#111267 Dec 6, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Muller's Ratchet assumes that fitness lost cannot be recovered in the one way street of genetic entropy.
I agree that assumption is false. However, Sanford's theorem says something entirely different. Put simply, all evolution away from the original creation is devolution.

You are certainly correct in emphasizing that advantageous positions can be achieved in a random walk. However, mathematically speaking, the expectation in a biological model mirroring a random walk is that the distance from an optimal point will tend toward infinity.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111268 Dec 6, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Clearly, the point is that Sanford's genomic degeneration theorem is irrefutable and that Darwin's philosophy is an absurd non-science that doesn't even pass the threshold of anecdote.
http://everythingimportant.org/genome.pdf

It's the shubster! If you want to post on this forum you have stiff competition for the title of most crazy. Jimbo is just as crazy as you are and has never been served with a restraining order BY A CHURCH!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111269 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, of course, as for example a refrigerator.

Other examples: the earth, evolution, Jupiter.....

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111270 Dec 6, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that assumption is false. However, Sanford's theorem says something entirely different. Put simply, all evolution away from the original creation is devolution.
You are certainly correct in emphasizing that advantageous positions can be achieved in a random walk. However, mathematically speaking, the expectation in a biological model mirroring a random walk is that the distance from an optimal point will tend toward infinity.

Have you forgotten that Stanford's book got refuted before the presses completed the first run.
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Elkton, MD

#111271 Dec 6, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that assumption is false. However, Sanford's theorem says something entirely different. Put simply, all evolution away from the original creation is devolution.
You are certainly correct in emphasizing that advantageous positions can be achieved in a random walk. However, mathematically speaking, the expectation in a biological model mirroring a random walk is that the distance from an optimal point will tend toward infinity.
Actually, if we're talking purely mathematics, a true random walk will tend toward its starting point, at least ultimately. What you're talking about is a random walk with a bias in one direction. You seem to hypothesize that the bias is toward the negative (away from the "optimal position" [I use that term in quotation marks because it's all relative anyway]) but from observation the bias is in the positive (closer to the "optimal position")

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#111272 Dec 6, 2012
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I agree that assumption is false. However, Sanford's theorem says something entirely different. Put simply, all evolution away from the original creation is devolution.
You are certainly correct in emphasizing that advantageous positions can be achieved in a random walk. However, mathematically speaking, the expectation in a biological model mirroring a random walk is that the distance from an optimal point will tend toward infinity.
You are assuming that mutations are completely random, when nothing in chemistry is random. You are assuming that ratios of the unpredictable variables are the same, which is a common creationist canard actually, usually involving more mundane and inane events like tornadoes. Then you are assuming that there is direction to something which is demonstrably, and explained ad naseum, directionless.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#111273 Dec 6, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
You are assuming that mutations are completely random,
That's a necessary mathematical assumption.
KittenKoder wrote:
You are assuming that ratios of the unpredictable variables are the same,
Where did I make that assumption?
KittenKoder wrote:
Then you are assuming that there is direction to something which is demonstrably, and explained ad naseum, directionless.
It appears that you don't know the difference between assumptions and conclusions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111274 Dec 6, 2012
Sanford cannot claim an original creation without evidence of an original creation. His non-peer reviewed claim of genetic entropy was debunked long ago. Short version of the debunking: Selection is more than able to filter out bad mutations.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111275 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Curious, where did these life dimensions come from?
Probably the same "place" your God came from.

Is it possible for the energy that makes up the universe to be eternal? If not, why not? If so, of what necessity is your God?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111277 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, of course, as for example a refrigerator.
And, what decreases the entropy inside the refrigerator?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111278 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm impressed that you respond at 4am your local time. But sorry, do not agree with much of your response.
But, you're not about to specify what or why. After all, that would require things like evidence, of which you're in dearly short supply.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#111279 Dec 6, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if we're talking purely mathematics, a true random walk will tend toward its starting point, at least ultimately. What you're talking about is a random walk with a bias in one direction.
Obviously not. Theoretically, I'm admitting a staggeringly small probability of return to the initial creation in high dimensions but propose that the most relevant probability is an extinction event if the random walk is taken beyond the edge of a cliff on a dangerously high plateau.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 42 min messianic114 116,793
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 1 hr susanblange 70
Need clarification on evolution 1 hr Dogen 15
New review critical of "Origins" 1 hr ugome 31
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr MikeF 137,107
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 3 hr Strel 11
The problem of evil and hate (Oct '13) 3 hr The Dude 357
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••