Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179708 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113591 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Linnaeus was a biblical creationist and developed our current method of taxonomy. This is used to classify what is observed. Created kinds is what was created as described in Genesis. So the challenge is to link the two together.
However, the taxanomic pattern that made sense to him was a nested hierarchy and it is one that is extremely close to the evolutionary tree later discovered and the genomic tress discovered after that.

Linnaeus is testament to the fact that even WITHOUT a pre-existing "evolutionary bias", living species naturally fall into patterns consistent with evolution!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

South Bend, IN

#113592 Jan 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
However, the taxanomic pattern that made sense to him was a nested hierarchy and it is one that is extremely close to the evolutionary tree later discovered and the genomic tress discovered after that.
Linnaeus is testament to the fact that even WITHOUT a pre-existing "evolutionary bias", living species naturally fall into patterns consistent with evolution!
It made sense to him because he was a creationist. Of course the genomic pattern would also make sense with creation. That is why I'm not much impressed with it as evidence for macroevolution. It makes just as much sense for a common design/common designer.

The only criticsm I receive for that is why would designer re-use design modules? I say why wouldn't he? That is the common practice. In fact there really is no argument or reason why God would need to have two genetic codes or design some chordata with one eye and some with two.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113593 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Linnaeus was a biblical creationist and developed our current method of taxonomy. This is used to classify what is observed. Created kinds is what was created as described in Genesis. So the challenge is to link the two together.

Linnaeus was no more a creationist than Plato was a Marxist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113594 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
http://creationwiki.org/Barami nology

We are getting some good laughs off the creationwiki. Please keep them coming. We all know creationism is not science, but it is wonderfully fun to see that creationists also realize it.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

South Bend, IN

#113595 Jan 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so you are claiming that the majority of methylation alterations will be deleterious?
In other words, nothing new. To spell it out, during the 6-7 million years that human brains have been diverging from chimp brains, the vast majority of changes whether mutation of the coding part of the genome, or changes in the control sequences, will be deleterious or neutral. i.e. only a small minority will be beneficial.
Now tell us something biologists haven't already heard and accounted for inside the framework of evolution.
No, that's not it. These are not mutations. This is a new field. Epigenetics. Not genetics. This is something completely different than you're thinking. There is a lot more to the genome besides genes and protiens. Methylation is like a temporary bookmark on a specific nucleotide that alters the code without changing the actual sequence. It controls the timing and duration and other control markers. This research proves we could not possibly have a linnage with chimps.(That's how we interpret it anyway.)
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Blacksburg, SC

#113596 Jan 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw, how unfair. The taxonomic system that's based on evidence doesn't coincide with an ambiguous term that refers to "common ancestry" but doesn't explain what is and isn't considered the limits of common ancestry. Gee whiz, won't science ever give Bible stories a chance?:(
Linneaus developed the taxonomic system based on Biblical Creation.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Blacksburg, SC

#113597 Jan 6, 2013
"DNA methylation is a biochemical process that is important for normal development in living organisms. It involves the addition of a methyl group to the 5 position of the cytosine pyrimidine ring or the number 6 nitrogen of the adenine purine ring (cytosine and adenine are two of the four bases of DNA). This modification can be inherited through cell division.

DNA methylation is a crucial part of normal organismal development and cellular differentiation in multicellular organisms. DNA methylation stably alters the gene expression pattern in cells such that cells can "remember where they have been" or decrease gene expression; for example, cells programmed to be pancreatic islets during embryonic development remain pancreatic islets throughout the life of the organism without continuing signals telling them that they need to remain islets. DNA methylation is typically removed during zygote formation and re-established through successive cell divisions during development. However, the latest research shows that hydroxylation of methyl groups occurs rather than complete removal of methyl groups in zygote.[1][2] Some methylation modifications that regulate gene expression are inheritable and cause genomic imprinting."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#113598 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Linneaus developed the taxonomic system based on Biblical Creation.
"One should not vent one's wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a soul and that the animals are mere 'aoutomata mechanica,' but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility." - Linneaus

OOPS!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113599 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It made sense to him because he was a creationist. Of course the genomic pattern would also make sense with creation. That is why I'm not much impressed with it as evidence for macroevolution. It makes just as much sense for a common design/common designer.
The only criticsm I receive for that is why would designer re-use design modules? I say why wouldn't he? That is the common practice. In fact there really is no argument or reason why God would need to have two genetic codes or design some chordata with one eye and some with two.

1. he was not a creationist.
2. His pattern falls into a nested hierarchy (another reason for you to learn what they are).
3. Why can't a perfect god create a perfect creation? Why the mess we actually see in nature and organisms?

Why disease?
Why genetic problems?
Why death?
Why decay?
Why evil?
Why asteroids, solar flairs, black holes, entropy, comets, tornadoes, infections, tsunami, volcanoes, creationists, Nazis, mass murderers,......... and all the other evils of the natural universe?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113600 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's not it. These are not mutations. This is a new field. Epigenetics. Not genetics. This is something completely different than you're thinking. There is a lot more to the genome besides genes and protiens. Methylation is like a temporary bookmark on a specific nucleotide that alters the code without changing the actual sequence. It controls the timing and duration and other control markers. This research proves we could not possibly have a linnage with chimps.(That's how we interpret it anyway.)

Epigenetics is a new field? That would surprise people who have been working on it since the 1940's.

Epigenetics can be considered to be a hybred field of genetics and evolution.

"Epigenetic mechanisms were a necessary part of the evolutionary origin of cell differentiation.[45] Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is expected to be far more common in plants and microbes. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[46][47]

Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene.[48] When the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes.[48] Interestingly, recent analyses have suggested that members of the APOBEC/AID family of cytosine deaminases are capable of simultaneously mediating genetic and epigenetic inheritance using similar molecular mechanisms.[49]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Evol...
LowellGuy

United States

#113601 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Linneaus developed the taxonomic system based on Biblical Creation.
If that were true, he wouldn't have grouped humans with chimpanzees.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#113602 Jan 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true, he wouldn't have grouped humans with chimpanzees.
And immediately pissed off all the theologians.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113603 Jan 6, 2013
wide observer, a close thinker; but the atmosphere in which he lived and moved and had his being was saturated with biblical theology, and this permeated all his thinking. ...Toward the end of his life he timidly advanced the hypothesis that all the species of one genus constituted at the creation one species; and from the last edition of his Systema Naturæ he quietly left out the strongly orthodox statement of the fixity of each species, which he had insisted upon in his earlier works. ...warnings came speedily both from the Catholic and Protestant sides.[161]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113604 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
wide observer, a close thinker; but the atmosphere in which he lived and moved and had his being was saturated with biblical theology, and this permeated all his thinking....Toward the end of his life he timidly advanced the hypothesis that all the species of one genus constituted at the creation one species; and from the last edition of his Systema Naturæ he quietly left out the strongly orthodox statement of the fixity of each species, which he had insisted upon in his earlier works....warnings came speedily both from the Catholic and Protestant sides.[161]

So he was a victim of circumstances. As are we all. As are we all.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#113605 Jan 6, 2013
Iron Ranger wrote:
Absolutely NO "evolution" should be taught in schools.

The so-called theories of evolution have been shown to be false. Darwin made up a lot of "facts." He "filled in" when he had no proof.

God made us.

Don't be odd.
Get with God!
... Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. I cannot believe you used the word "fact" in your argument for religion. You are no different than any other religious zealot group who ignores science and believes the fairy tails. More people are killed over "religion" than anything else. Most people follow the religion of parents or geographic location and not because they read and searched for truth.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#113606 Jan 6, 2013
Tddoff wrote:
Only if it is explained that evolution is nothing more than one theory with very little evidence and that intelligent design also should be taught as another possibility. Otherwise if not, evolution should be removed from the schools.
Excellent reply. I could not agree more. Put it all out there and allow people to go on their own spiritual journey. The people who want other views withheld are the ones that fear truth, like North Korea. I attended Catholic grade school. The experience was good, but when I look back, I think my studies should of included all religions and evolution, then in retrospect I would have more respect for the institution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113607 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It made sense to him because he was a creationist. Of course the genomic pattern would also make sense with creation. That is why I'm not much impressed with it as evidence for macroevolution. It makes just as much sense for a common design/common designer.
You are missing the point. ADesigner could do anything, but a system consistent with the nested hierarchy is NECESSARY for evolution with common ancestry.

If life was created ex-nihilo, there is absolutely no reason for the nested hierarchy to be essential. You could indeed have croco-ducks, and creatures with the features of bats and birds mixed, anything you like. A flowering fern, a fish with a 3-boned middle ear, whatever you (He) liked. Your creation makes NO prediction, therefore you can claim ANYTHING is consistent with it, therefore no particular pattern is evidence for (or against) it.

You will note the asymmetry here, just as I pointed out with Junk DNA, except this time the asymmetry goes the other way!

Common ancestry is bound by the nested hierarchy. If life does not display it, common ancestry is falsified.

Does life display it? Yes.

Was this why Linnaeus was able to classify the species as he did? Yes!

Good then, its evidence FOR evolution!(Though not specifically evidence against a Designer).
The only criticsm I receive for that is why would designer re-use design modules? I say why wouldn't he?
Of course. The Designer could do anything He liked, including creating a pattern that happened to be fully consistent with common ancestry. But ONLY evolution specifically predicts the pattern we see.

Not to mention, you have a much harder time explaining why the elements of the genome - pseudogenes, ERVs, and ubiquitous protein sequences, ALSO follow the same nested hierarchy. That part, you cannot explain. We can! So:

1/ A pre-evolutionary classification system, not "biased" by evolutionary assumptions;

2/ The fossil record; and

3/ The evidence of the genome;

ALL agree on the same nested hierarchy which is a core prediction of common ancestry.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113608 Jan 7, 2013
Hey Cowboy! Wasn't it you that said there was no Oort Cloud?

"The biggest excitement is being reserved for Comet ISON, named after the International Scientific Optical Network, whose telescope was used by Russian astronomers Vitaly Nevski and Artyom Novichonok to make the find last September.

Right now, it is unclear how bright ISON will be, but by some calculations it could become visible to the naked eye by late November and maybe linger brilliantly for months, becoming a once-a-century event.

ISON is an extraordinary beast, for it last returned to Earth 10 million years ago, or more, says Bailey. "It's a 'new comet', which comes from a region of the Solar System that's called the Oort Cloud, an extensive system that extends from around a thousand times the distance of the Earth to the Sun to around 100,000-200,000 times this distance," Bailey says.

"If you imagine a model of the Solar System whereby the Sun's a football in the centre of a football pitch and the Earth is on the perimeter, then this comet has come effectively from Australia. That's the scale of things."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-celestial-flybys...

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#113609 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't lie. You did! And please look up pussywhipped you idiot.
Yes you did, you not only lied (which I have pointed out several times) you also deliberately tried to provoke a nation and hence pick a fight with your lies and ignorance.

When it all backfired on you, you claimed it was just fun. My dearest honeybitch, fun doesn’t work that way. You want fun then you choose a subject that is fun for all, not a subject that only you can masturbate to yet are so clueless you have to lie about and make yourself look stupid.

Then because you were highlighted for being a liar you went into the usual godbot rant of hatred, name calling, verbal abuse and spite. Your god has taught you well how to be a decent human being - yes?

However if you feel that lying and name calling based on nothing more than good old christian guesswork is ok in the eyes of your god then feel free, it’s your conscience you have to live with.

Honey I have already told you that I don’t lie, I have no god to lie for therefore there is no need for me to lie and yet you repeatedly lie in making the claim that I lied but you have never been able to verify your statement. Once again such typical deliberately ignorant christian behaviour

Yes I know what pussywhipped means and you are pussywhipped you condescending, ego-testicle moron.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#113610 Jan 7, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess you havent read any if my post..I believe it's a possibilty that our origins are not of earth..Christians and other religious people will never believe in alien life. So I guess the god dunnit thing is out
Nope, I’m quite selective so usually it's only the posts addressed to me and undressed posts with particular words/phrases that catch my attention.

However alien life > higher power > god? Unless you are considering the organic material that can be found in the makeup of non terrestrial objects.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min scientia potentia... 48,405
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 min Genesis Enigma 154,616
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 31 min slurps8414 216,617
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr ChristineM 23,486
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 3 hr It aint necessari... 638
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Timmee 7
Science News (Sep '13) Fri _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web