Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#116021 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?
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

Lowell, MA

#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!

#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

#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

#116025 Feb 4, 2013
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

#116026 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

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

#116027 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
"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

#116028 Feb 4, 2013
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

Seffner, FL

#116029 Feb 4, 2013
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

#116030 Feb 4, 2013
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

#116031 Feb 4, 2013
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

#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

#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

#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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116035 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
I love it. This is as good as an open admission that even dumbshit here knows that he is wrong.

When all you can come up with are creatard sites you lose. Quoting from discredited sources throws out your whole argument.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116036 Feb 4, 2013
Clone wrote:
<quoted text>You said, "we come up with........", are you part of the scientific community? Answer this: Can humans apply their logic, knowledge and theories to comprehend how the alien world functions? One topix person said, "There is no way an alien craft could travel thru the universe to earth from another system, they cant go faster than C2". Their lies the problem, humans can not get passed the "learned" behavior or theories. They must think outside human understanding in order to analyze the alien world. Aliens don't fit in the realm of human thought. Hence, the religious cult like atmosphere on earth.
You do understand that this is the same logic that fundies use to "prove" the existence of God, right? Man cannot comprehend the mind of God, so our feeble attempts to define what is real is pointless. I suppose this is how fundies jump from one bandwagon to the next. In each new conversion they see themselves as having a special ability to understand more than anyone else.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116037 Feb 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And the evidence is......?
....is in the fossil record.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116038 Feb 4, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
That does not stop the hurt of the people those leaders have caused to be injured or maimed. Or the hurt of those whose loved ones have been murdered on either side.
The difference is that those protecting unionism in what is after all a predominantly “unionist” environment did not deliberately and arbitrarily target innocent children and unarmed civilians
I have to admit to having little understanding of the issues that have driven the bloodshed in that part of the world. The little I know (or think I know) of the situation in Northern Ireland is that England allowed Ireland to be independent, but kept hold of much of the economy by maintaining a foothold in Northern Ireland. What I understand (or again, think I understand) is that England gained control of Northern Ireland by shipping lots of English people to that area so the original population became the minority. After that, the original (catholic) population became second class citizens, while good jobs and political opportunities went to the protestant majority. I'd guess that we might have the same mess here if the U.S. had gained its independence from England while losing Massachusetts to England.

When both sides see the other as uncivilized murderers, it's hard to find a way to resolve the problem.
One way or another

United States

#116039 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Show proof that the citrus eater flask increased in population, liar.
LowellGuy

Central Islip, NY

#116041 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Show proof that the citrus eater flask increased in population, liar.
Your admission that you have no idea what you're talking about. Dumbass liar.

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) 9 min FREE SERVANT 133,664
How would creationists explain... 47 min DanFromSmithville 394
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr Kong_ 650
Science News (Sep '13) 17 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web