Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
112,981 - 113,000 of 171,579 Comments Last updated 57 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116015
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Monod and Jacob must be turning in their graves....
Anyhoo...
This is all covered ground...
Just ask the Dude while he sits in a corner, cradling SETMAR, gentle rocking back and forth, saying, "I like you SETMAR. You're not all useless for evolutionary causes...I still like you...."
No mate.
Adaptation is not evolution.
Lenski started with an organism with a complete genome. Reasonable to suggest that the transporter gene suffered a mutation. May have been neutral. A second mutation may have...who knows, converted the tartrate transporter to start transporting citrate even with oxygen present?
Who knows really....
However, evolution it ain't.
Citrate transportation is energy hungry. Therefore reserved only for special occasions where anaerobic respiration, less efficient, is needed. It benefits the organism to have this switched off in times of oxygen replete-ness
A mutation ruining this status quo, eg no citrate uptake unless absolutely needed...is not beneficial.
By the way, the generations needed to achieve just two mutations was 20,000. This is with huge numbers with short generation times...the mutations were barely achievable....
What does this say for human or mammalian evolution?
This has all been covered before...
I get the feeling that you view, as SubDud does, life as a huge overturned bowl of Jelly, with DNA amd RNA darting around ferociously mutating wildly and producing....well, er....design...
No Bud, that just does not work.
What else you got?
There were 12 flasks in Lenski's experiment, and all of them adapted to the environment given and showed population increases over time as they adapted. Just as we would expect in the evolution / adaptation paradigm. And while all of them came from a monoclonal starting culture, the specific adaptations and mutations involved in every flask were different. The famous citrate-eater flask was an unexpected bonus.

Adaptation is not evolution? Perhaps, in the same way that driving a mile a mile is not a trip across America, but evolution is nothing but adaptation continued. You now have to explain what effect exists that you think prevents adaptation from continuing indefinitely, especially in environments that are not as stable as provided in the Lenski experiment. What is this magic wall that you IDers are so sure has to exist?
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116016
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are stuck...
Try this on for size:
http://www.gizmag.com/first-synthetic-organis...
It must end badly, for what has man made or contrived, that has not been abused? What is released in nature will find its way into man and mutate.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116017
Feb 4, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have a scientific survey. I know that the majority of physicians I know think goo-to-you evolution is absurd. Any survey that you can site will invariably fail to define "evolution".
So you're full of crap then. Thanks ever so much for clearing that up.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116018
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's my original post from a sister thread:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
Number 609
....So, as is quite obvious, this experiment showed nothing but information reducing change. Deterioration. Proof of this was that none of the tribes could utilize ribose anymore and some lost their DNA repair ability. These poor pampered bugs could not compete with the wild types outside the environment of the lab.
"A very clever man said this,“Chemicals obey the second Law of Thermodynamics and do not arrange themselves into self sustaining metabolic pathways.
"Living cells have molecular machinery, whose assembly is directed by programmed instructions, to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts.”
This brings me to Lenski’s citrate-using E coli.
Rather than labour this point, suffice to say, utilising citrate is not Climbing Mount Improbable for bacteria....
Even this experiment neatly illustrates the difficulty with obtaining two mutations, even with thousands of generations and a massive population, a new function requiring two mutations was barely obtainable....
End of my old quote.
You don't have to agree with everything....
You are allowed to have your views
Well, I will grant that you argue better than most ID/creationists.

More generally, you are making the argument that adaptation involves a loss of function and adapted organisms are weaker than their wild cousins. Yes, often, but not always.

"Kassen and Bataillon (2006) took a wild-type Pseudomonas flourescens bacterium, and exposed it to an antibiotic. They obtained over 600 antibiotic-resistant strains, with an estimated frequency of 2.4 x 10-9 beneficial mutations per cell division....These antibiotic-resistant strains were much fitter in the new environment than the parent wild-type bacteria, which could not survive at all in the presence of the antibiotic. Interestingly, even in the absence of antibiotic, at least 2.7% of the mutants were superior to the wild-type."

Nature Genetics 38, 484 – 488 (2006)
Rees Kassen and Thomas Bataillon

Abstract: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n4/abs/n...

Of course, the bacteria are adapting to the environment they are in so one would expect them to become less well adapted to the original wild environment anyway. But the fact that some do better falsifies the assertion that adaptation causes a general loss of fitness.

There are also documented benefits from gene duplication events which show that information can be "created" and provide novel material for further evolutionary development.

And pulease, don't give us the old 2nd Law canard. If that version of the second law held, snowflakes and glaciers would be impossible. In an energy flux, localised spontaneous reduction of entropy is not an issue in physics.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116019
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
For your reading pleasure:
http://creation.com/chemical-soup-is-not-your...
and
also by Dr Aw Swee-Eng
http://creation.com/origin-of-life-critique
For yours:

[19]:“One example of a beneficial mutation comes from the mosquito Culex pipiens. In this organism, a gene that was involved with breaking down organophosphates – common insecticide ingredients -became duplicated. Progeny of the organism with this mutation quickly swept across the worldwide mosquito population.” Further details on this mutation are available [44]. It involves multiple duplications of two genes that generate carboxylesterases. As with the two examples below, gene duplication gave increased expression of certain enzyme(s), which increased the fitness of the organism. Natural selection would then favor the retention of the additional genes.

http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...
Mugwump

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116020
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
For your reading pleasure:
http://creation.com/chemical-soup-is-not-your...
and
also by Dr Aw Swee-Eng
http://creation.com/origin-of-life-critique
No what you have linked to is a creationist site that presents the strawman that the first life consisted of a fully formed complex cell that coded for 1000s of proteins.

What you meant to post I am sure is where science states this is the case.

Fancy another try ?
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116021
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Monod and Jacob must be turning in their graves....
Anyhoo...
This is all covered ground...
Just ask the Dude while he sits in a corner, cradling SETMAR, gentle rocking back and forth, saying, "I like you SETMAR. You're not all useless for evolutionary causes...I still like you...."
No mate.
Adaptation is not evolution.
Lenski started with an organism with a complete genome. Reasonable to suggest that the transporter gene suffered a mutation. May have been neutral. A second mutation may have...who knows, converted the tartrate transporter to start transporting citrate even with oxygen present?
Who knows really....
However, evolution it ain't.
Citrate transportation is energy hungry. Therefore reserved only for special occasions where anaerobic respiration, less efficient, is needed. It benefits the organism to have this switched off in times of oxygen replete-ness
A mutation ruining this status quo, eg no citrate uptake unless absolutely needed...is not beneficial.
By the way, the generations needed to achieve just two mutations was 20,000. This is with huge numbers with short generation times...the mutations were barely achievable....
What does this say for human or mammalian evolution?
This has all been covered before...
I get the feeling that you view, as SubDud does, life as a huge overturned bowl of Jelly, with DNA amd RNA darting around ferociously mutating wildly and producing....well, er....design...
No Bud, that just does not work.
What else you got?
So, it's not evolution; it's just a genetic mutation that conferred a survival advantage and was thus spread through the population. The frequency of expression of the allele responsible for the survival advantage changed in the population over time, but it wasn't evolution. You do realize that this is the definition of evolution, don't you?
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116022
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
For your reading pleasure:
http://creation.com/chemical-soup-is-not-your...
and
also by Dr Aw Swee-Eng
http://creation.com/origin-of-life-critique
Creation.com : science :: Snoop Dogg : just say no

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116023
Feb 4, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We admit a duality of religion and science. You misrepresent ideology and history as "science", i.e., you guys are the ones at fault - not us.
When you have to make up your own "science," you've stopped doing science.

Tell us again about all the actual research being done by ICR and DI. Tell us about the experiments they're doing, and the innovations and technologies that are being derived from their research. You have yet to cite a single innovation or technology stemming from creationism. It's been months. You've certainly had plenty of time to find one. No luck thus far? Shocking.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116024
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Monod and Jacob must be turning in their graves....
Anyhoo...
This is all covered ground...

You solved this problem? When do you receive your Nobel Prize?
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is not evolution.

Actually, it is. It is one of the (actually part of several of the) mechanisms of evolution.

Look it up.

Mutation (Biased or not)
Migration
Genetic Drift
Natural selection
Genetic hitchhiking
Gene Flow
Adaptation
Co-evolution
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Lenski started with an organism with a complete genome. Reasonable to suggest that the transporter gene suffered a mutation. May have been neutral. A second mutation may have...who knows, converted the tartrate transporter to start transporting citrate even with oxygen present?
Who knows really....
However, evolution it ain't.

Actually, that is the very definition of evolution. You are saying purple is a shade of green.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Citrate transportation is energy hungry. Therefore reserved only for special occasions where anaerobic respiration, less efficient, is needed. It benefits the organism to have this switched off in times of oxygen replete-ness
A mutation ruining this status quo, eg no citrate uptake unless absolutely needed...is not beneficial.
By the way, the generations needed to achieve just two mutations was 20,000. This is with huge numbers with short generation times...the mutations were barely achievable....
What does this say for human or mammalian evolution?

It says it happened. BTW, it did not take 20,000 generations to achieve the the mutations. The experiment has gone on 20,000 generations but the mutations occurred early in the experiment.

You seem to want to avoid the real issue which is that evolution happens. Evolution has been observed in the field, in the fossil record, in the genomic record and now in the laboratory.

You might as well try to philosophically argue away gravity. It still happens and it is still observable regardless of what nonsense you posit to disrupt it.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116025
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on current observable phenomena, my theory is that evolution is patently wrong.
Based on current observable phenomena, your hypothesis is wrong:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
Russell wrote:
And, no.
Simply stating that I lie, does not make it true.
That is correct. However:
Russell wrote:
I never lie.
Based on current observable phenomena, your hypothesis is wrong:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116026
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon Mugwump
Stop being such a baby
What else you got?
You're stuck on 1000's base pairs and nothing can budge you!
Pretty stubborn creature?
By the way, have you met Prof Andy McIntosh? Much beloved by creationists and despised by the Dude?
I think the Dude is just jealous since HE has no thermodynamic credentials....
Nothing to be jealous of, the Dude....
You too could be a Christian and Creationist one day, just like good ol' Prof

He is not a biologist and not an expert in biology or genetics.

The applicability of thermodynamics in evolution has been shown to be a creationist canard by many other experts in thermodynamic.

Proving evolution can't happen when it DOES happen is pointless.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116027
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's my original post from a sister thread:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
Number 609
"PART 4
All this sounds great to an evolutionist. Until, enter Stage Left, operons. Thus the changes were not independent at all, but due to a change in just one control gene. A regulatory gene called spoT. The cost of the changes were that the energetically costly genes that make the bacterial flagellum were switched off.
So, as is quite obvious, this experiment showed nothing but information reducing change. Deterioration. Proof of this was that none of the tribes could utilize ribose anymore and some lost their DNA repair ability. These poor pampered bugs could not compete with the wild types outside the environment of the lab.
"A very clever man said this,“Chemicals obey the second Law of Thermodynamics and do not arrange themselves into self sustaining metabolic pathways.
"Living cells have molecular machinery, whose assembly is directed by programmed instructions, to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts.”
This brings me to Lenski’s citrate-using E coli.
Rather than labour this point, suffice to say, utilising citrate is not Climbing Mount Improbable for bacteria. The Kreb’s cycle , aka Citric acid cycle, can occur in anaerobic conditions. The reason that this mutation to enable one tribe to utilise citrate, similar to chloroquine resistance, did not occur in the other tribes, was perhaps due to the requirement for more than one mutation. Difficult to achieve.
Even this experiment neatly illustrates the difficulty with obtaining two mutations, even with thousands of generations and a massive population, a new function requiring two mutations was barely obtainable. Three would have been unreachable.
E coli have a whole suite of genes, an operon, able to ferment citrate, including a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein that embeds in the cell wall.
This operon is activated under low oxic conditions, as anaerobic respiration is less efficient than aerobic, so there is good reason for this to be switched off unless O2 is lacking. But, the Lenski citrate E coli demonstrated a lack of regulation, so it’s a downhill change. Lost specificity. So citrate-transporter-regulation damaged by mutation remains permanently switched on regardless of the oxygen state. A fault in this system. Also a tartrate transporter may have lost specificity and started to take up citrate."
End of my old quote.
You don't have to agree with everything....
You are allowed to have your views
Just appreciate that we have all previously covered a lot of ground.
So don't be astonished if I don't fall over backwards in amazement by what you have to say.
Although I am ever hopeful...

You seem to continually miss the point. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is observable. Evolution has been observed.

Therefore any argument about why evolution can't happen is mental masturbation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116028
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are stuck...
Try this on for size:
http://www.gizmag.com/first-synthetic-organis...

Self refuting. Thanks for not making me work.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116029
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He is not a biologist and not an expert in biology or genetics.
The applicability of thermodynamics in evolution has been shown to be a creationist canard by many other experts in thermodynamic.
Proving evolution can't happen when it DOES happen is pointless.
Even his university thinks he's full of crap:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070505104117/htt...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116030
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hey, Forum Fairy
You are the only PROVEN liar!
I have only just posted on the sister-thread http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
Post #1623, that evolution hardly makes it as a theory, by the Dude's own definition, or anyone else's for that matter.
It can scarcely be called a hypothesis.
I noticed you keeping well away from discussion on ERV's!
Bottom still sore? Tsk, tsk...
Your baseless claims coupled with religious apologetics doesn't make him a liar. However your continued misquoting of evolutionary sources to support YECism makes you a liar.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116031
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Cheers dude - for some reason that thread only showed up on my phone, not on the tablet - hence could go back and fact check the details of the nonsense.
Strange that creationists never fess up to lying - thought there should be a commandment about it personally.
Russ is very similar to MAZ, kinda like a cross between the Black Knight and Nelson Muntz. With a smidge of Ned Flanders.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116032
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon Mugwump
Stop being such a baby
What else you got?
You're stuck on 1000's base pairs and nothing can budge you!
Pretty stubborn creature?
By the way, have you met Prof Andy McIntosh? Much beloved by creationists and despised by the Dude?
I think the Dude is just jealous since HE has no thermodynamic credentials....
Nothing to be jealous of, the Dude....
You too could be a Christian and Creationist one day, just like good ol' Prof
I'm not jealous of hypocritical liars for Jesus. Remember that he has not published any science papers on YECism, the vast majority of physicists who ALSO have creds in thermodynamics disagree with him, and he IS on video openly admitting his YEC bias.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116033
Feb 4, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Even his university thinks he's full of crap:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070505104117/htt...
Makes him and Behe part of a privileged posse. The martyrs of IDC!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116034
Feb 4, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you for real, Bud?
Have you totally lost it?
Ever heard of the Krebs cycle?
Know what else it is known as?
Please do not embarrass your self
The bigger they are the harder they fall
E coli have a whole suite ---an operon---to confer citrate fermenting ability. They already possess the ability to "digest" citrate, but only under certain circumstances.
We have been through this before....
Short attention span?
Too close to bedtime?
Lenski himself stated, " A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under high oxic conditions"
Also see, in regards to the transporter:
Pos, K M, Dimroth, P and Bott, M, "The Escherichia coli Citrate Carrier CitT: a member of a novel eubacterial transporter family related to the 2-oxoglutarate/Malate translocator from Spinach chloroplasts, J Bacteriol 180(16):4160-4165, 1998. www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi...
This transporter is only activated under oxygen free conditions with good reason.
But you will never know the reason.....
I see that you still like to swim in those long long rivers.

My specialty is not genetics, but geology, which is why I gave you that challenge on the age of the Earth. Of course you know that and ran away like the chickenshit that you are.

Several problems, first your link does not work. Try again. Who are you quoting? Is is some creatard? It probably is. If so your quotation means nothing. Even educated creatards are masters of denial. So if you want to bust my claim you will have to try again. You failed since you had no working link and an unsubstantiated quote.

Since the world of genetics seem to think that the E. coli test was done correctly I will believe the experts and ignore the Ozzie with his thumb up his sore ass.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

17 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution? 9 min THE LONE WORKER 45
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 min Dogen 134,609
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr The Dude 113,227
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 5 hr polymath257 453
art & intelligence (Mar '11) 6 hr THE LONE WORKER 68
Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) 6 hr THE LONE WORKER 3,391
GOP House candidate Bob Frey believes dinosaurs... 8 hr The Dude 25
•••
•••