Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179697 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.

Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116472 Feb 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, if you have a real article let's see a link to it.
One article by some wannabes does not amount to anything.
I searched for your paper and came up with bupkis, so until you can beat what is the current paradigm supported by the articles you can find on Google Scholar like these:http://scholar.google.co m/scholar?hl=en&q=kuiper+b elt+comets&btnG=&as_sd t=1%2C48&as_sdtp=
Over 8,000 of them.
I knew you were thick, but to think one measly paper, which you are too much of a chickenshit to even link can overcome all the rest is laughable. Odds are it is a stinking pile of crap that could be only published in the so called "ICR".
Once again, find some real science. Do you even know why peer review is the only way to go in the world of science?
Heavens!
What on earth are you jabbering on about?

Make your self clear

What paper?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116473 Feb 9, 2013
Russell, Russell, Russell. You are trying to pull a Maz. She would find one article, misinterpret it and hang her hat on it. Your interpretation of the mitochondrial DNA article is wrong. It does not apply to the mDNA used to date mDNA Eve:http://www.talkorigins.org /indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html
The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al.(1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.

Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.

A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times older than that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116474 Feb 9, 2013
I think this part was worth posting again
Mainly due to one frenzied evo-god worshipper who fell of his perch trying to get me to email Kondrashov...

It was hilarious

He then vanished in a black cloud after not "speaking" to me

Man, he was one angry guy...

I believe it was due to Baylor College rejecting his dissertation, "Is Jesus really Satan?"

But he refused to admit it......

All on the parallel debate thread...

For me to enjoy in a hundred years in my old age
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
12 : how come we have a few hundred mutations per generation
Nice to see you admit this
I have asked why we are not dead 100 times over and am met with stony silence

Kondrashov, A S, "Contamination of the genome by slightly very deleterious mutations: why we have not died 100 times over? J Theoret Biol 175:583-594, 1995

Confirmation of our youngish genomes
Naturally, no one thinks 6000 years is ..'young'
...Now, really...

By the way, Mugwump
You have asked a good question recently
Cant find it anymore

Where you asked
Why attack evolution, when there are so many other available disciplines in science ...to trash...

--My paraphrasing---

Well, it's quite simple

Evolution is NOT science

Mere wishful thinking parading as science

Science is observable, testable, repeatable,

...evolution IS NOT

In Nature and in the lab...is precisely what one would see with Created order

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116475 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Heavens!
What on earth are you jabbering on about?
Make your self clear
What paper?
Me jabbering? That would be you, you half evolved simian.

You listed several papers, actually, no links were given.

If you want to count an article as support it needs to be properly linked. Otherwise you have nothing.

Earlier I said that thousands of Kuiper Belt objects had been spotted since telescope technology improved enough in the 1990's so that we could begin to observe them. It is hypothesized that the numbers of objects are easily in the hundreds of thousands.

Oort cloud comets are observed. Those are the long term comets, not the short term comets that convicted felon creatards squawk about. The Oort cloud is supposed to be a sphere that surrounds our Solar System and the observed long term comets support that hypothesis.

So once again, find some papers that support your idiocy. You are about 8,000 behind right now.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116476 Feb 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Me jabbering? That would be you, you half evolved simian.
You listed several papers, actually, no links were given.
If you want to count an article as support it needs to be properly linked. Otherwise you have nothing.
Earlier I said that thousands of Kuiper Belt objects had been spotted since telescope technology improved enough in the 1990's so that we could begin to observe them. It is hypothesized that the numbers of objects are easily in the hundreds of thousands.
Oort cloud comets are observed. Those are the long term comets, not the short term comets that convicted felon creatards squawk about. The Oort cloud is supposed to be a sphere that surrounds our Solar System and the observed long term comets support that hypothesis.
So once again, find some papers that support your idiocy. You are about 8,000 behind right now.
So

As I thought...

You have nothing...

Just a Talk-oddities web site

And you..

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116477 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And you guys fall for it everytime. You see, what he is demonstrating day after day, what he provokes out of your group so easily, is the arrogance, presumptousness, conceitedness, and insolence. That is what he hates most and sees this as corruption with regards to science. And that is what he seeks to teach you. He's no dummy but he's no Einstein (neither am I) but he is honest and transparent.

He is mentally ill and has anger issues. And that IS completely transparent.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116478 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Man!
Have you heard of carboxyhaemoglobin?
Me thinks there may be something of that ilk lurking around in your system...
Is this your idea of responding to my answer?
<quoted text>
When my original post went thusly--->
----------
Who the heck is Hovind?
And why would I "listen" to him anyway
I go where the evidence is, bud
Don't be a prat
The Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disc are HYPOTHETICAL
Nice bit of astrophysics, admittedly
But they fall into the realms of the usual evo-wishful thinking...
Kuiper belt: in order to work would need BILLIONS of comets
Hooray for your thousands...
Besides, they are TOO LARGE....over 100 km in diameter
Therefore, are at least TEN times wider than comets
Which means they are over a thousand times more massive!
Indeed, KBO's Orcus and Quaoar are over 1000 km in diameter.
Where Kuiper Belt failed as a potential reservoir for short distance comets, by virtue of its stability,
...enter stage R--> The Scattered Disc
--Levinson, H F and Donnes, L, "Comet populations and cometary Dynamics", in McFadden, L A A et al, Encyclopedia of the Solar system, 2nd Ed, Amsterdam, Boston,Academic Press, pp 575-588, 2007
Scattered disc objects are too few and too large eg SDO Eris is larger than Pluto, with a diameter of 2,400 km
Sedna SDO is larger than Quaoar
For long distance comets, with the Oort Cloud---> No observational support
--Sagan C and Druyan A, Comets, Michael Joseph, London, p 175, 1985
If there really was an Oort cloud, there should be 100 times more comets than we see...
So what do evolutionary astronomers do?
Fudge factor
"Arbitrary fading function"....or that they are broken before we see them
--Bailey, M E, Where have all the comets gone? Science 296 (5576):2251-2253, June 2002
--Levison, H F et al, The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science, 296, 5576, 2212-2215, June 2002
See the fallacy?
Hypothetical source for comets
Not observable even today
Claimed to be billions of years old
Then make something up to explain why this hypothetical source does not provide the comets it should
BIG FAIL

Just real quick, everything you said above is incorrect and even your references do not support your contentions.

You need to unlearn all your pseudoscience and start from scratch.

Belief is pseudoscience are like mind weeds. They grow fast and kill off the flowers of the mental garden.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116479 Feb 9, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
"We" is 1st person, Genius.

Urb is a mental giant.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116480 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you daftly trying to imply that Mosaic turner syndrome or indeed Turner syndrome are great for evolution?
They are syndromic anomalies
DEAD ENDS
-Renal anomalies
-Cardiovascular disease eg Coarctation/aortic valve disease
-Aortic dissection
-Hypertension
-Variable experience of fertilty issues, eg primary or secondary amenorrhoea
-Aortic rupture possible during birth if pregnancy is attained via IVF
And the list continues
Incidentally
Many men become 'mosaic' in their 40's
There exists documented evidence of this
<quoted text>
I have
Not impressed at all
But I live in hope....
<quoted text>
May be he got it here:
--Gibbons, A, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock", Science 279: 28-29. Copyright 1998, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/referenc...
Quoting from the on-line article:
"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."
<quoted text>
Biggest ever fossil jelly fish were found in a Wisconsin sand quarry, found in Cambrian strata---dated at 510 million years
--Hagadorn J W, Dott R H and Damrow D, " Stranded on a later Cambrian shoreline: Medusae from central Wisconsin, Geology 30(2):147-150, 2002
Evidence of rapid burial
And does not support the evolution of "big-evolved-from-little " idea
ALSO-->
--Dasycladalean algae
--Pipiscids
--Agnathan fishes
--VEREBRATES found in the Early Cambrian of south China
--Lystrosaurus in the Permian of Zambia.
--The sponge Neoguadalupia — another Permo-Triassic boundary ‘violator'
--The bivalve Camptochlamys
--> In this particular instance, there is more than a stratigraphic-range extension. There also is a contradiction between this particular fossil’s stratigraphic occurrence in European strata, and that of North America. So much for the myth that there is a consistent succession of fossils from one continent to another! Of course, this is not the only such instance....
So you have nothing. Why not just say so.
Throughout your post you give away the fact that you really don't understand evolution. Here are some examples.
"Are you daftly trying to imply that ......are great for evolution?"
Genetic disorders are well accounted for in evolutionary theory.
""Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate."
Why would you quote this. It is another dead giveaway.
"Evidence of rapid burial
And does not support the evolution of "big-evolved-from-little " idea"
Evolution does not state that big evolved from little. Where do you get this nonsense?
Everything else you mention either DOES support evolution or your understanding of how it functions in evolution is in error.
It seems that you, like so many other creationists, swallow whole whatever claptrap that comes your way. The reasons for this are because you are so desperate for creationism to be true and because you do not have enough understanding of science in general and evolution in particular to be able to filter out the nonsense.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116481 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Heavens!
What on earth are you jabbering on about?
Make your self clear
What paper?

His points were very clear. Let me distill them for you.

1. If you have a question about an article please post a link to it.

2. Real science is published in Real peer review journals by Real scientists.

3. If he searches for research and cannot find it in Google Scholar then it is not peer reviewed.

4. Peer review is critical in science.

These points were all clear enough in SZ's post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116482 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
As I thought...
You have nothing...
Just a Talk-oddities web site
And you..
Wrong again O Master of the Turds.

Talk Origins is only one of many sites that I can bring up. And Talk Origins is hated by all creatards since, unlike the sites that you list, all of their articles are based upon peer reviewed science articles and they list those articles clearly in their biographies.

That means that unlike your sites TalkOrigins is based upon real science and can back it up.

You still lose, loser.
One way or another

United States

#116483 Feb 9, 2013
Funny, you Evo children have suggested both about me. By the way, my daughter is a portrait, sketch artist.

I have beaten several lawyers at their own game and I expose a lot of ignorant thinking in science, even though you children hate me for it.

There is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes, scientists have found.

Psychologists have discovered that creative people have a gene in common which is also linked to psychosis and depression.

They believe that the findings could explain why "geniuses" like Vincent van Gogh and Sylvia Plath displayed such destructive behaviour.

The gene, which is called neuregulin 1, plays a role in brain development but a variant of it is also associated with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Researchers from Semmelweis University in Hungary recruited a group of volunteers who considered themselves to be very creative and accomplished.

To measure creativity, the volunteers were asked to respond to a series of unusual questions. For example: "Just suppose clouds had strings attached to them which hang down to earth. What would happen?"

They were scored based on the originality and flexibility of their answers.

The volunteers also completed a questionnaire regarding their lifetime creative achievements before the researchers took blood samples.

The report concluded: "The results show a clear link between neuregulin 1 and creativity.

"Volunteers with the specific variant of this gene were more likely to have higher scores on the creativity assessment and also greater lifetime creative achievements than volunteers with a different form of the gene."

The head researcher Dr Szabolcs Kéri said that this is the first study to show that a genetic variant associated with psychosis may have some beneficial functions.

He said: "Molecular factors that are loosely associated with severe mental disorders but are present in many healthy people may have an advantage enabling us to think more creatively."

The study was published in the journal Psychological Science.
One way or another

United States

#116484 Feb 9, 2013

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116485 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
>gibberish deleted from this point<
I have asked why we are not dead 100 times over and am met with stony silence.
The 75 to 200 mutations per generation is what is needed to keep a species evolving. If we had less than that something like a major climate change would kill off the species due to lack of genetic diversity.
Russell wrote:
Kondrashov, A S, "Contamination of the genome by slightly very deleterious mutations: why we have not died 100 times over? J Theoret Biol 175:583-594, 1995
Confirmation of our youngish genomes
LOL Why do creationist like to misuse real science to their own ends? Clearly you have not read the article as it EXPLAINS WHY this mutation rate is NOT REALLY too high.
Heck, it appears you never even read the abstract.
Russell wrote:
Why attack evolution, when there are so many other available disciplines in science ...to trash...
--My paraphrasing---
Well, it's quite simple
Evolution is NOT science
Sorry chum, but he was referring to all the other sciences that refute the literal view of the bible (especially Genesis).
Geology,
Chemistry,
Physics
Anthropology
Paleontology
..........
and the list goes on.
Second, as I have demonstrated, evolution is not only science, it is among the best science in the history of science.
Evolution has multiple independent lines of evidence from multiple fields, over 150 years of research and published research into 6 figures!
Russell wrote:
Mere wishful thinking parading as science
Science is observable, testable, repeatable,
...evolution IS NOT
???? Again you don't seem to actually know anything about evolution and the above quote is classic creationist ignorance.
Evolution is Observable (environment, genetics, fossil record, laboratory)
Evolution is testable. No other scientific theory has been tested as much as the theory of evolution. Over 100,000 published peer review articles.
Evolution research is replicable and all major research in evolution has been replicated.
Evolution also is consistent with the principle of parsimony and is falsifiable.
Evolution is massively peer review.
Now, will you investigate this an admit you are dead wrong? I am not holding my breath.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116486 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
As I thought...
You have nothing...
Just a Talk-oddities web site
And you..

Really!

You cannot dispute even one of his points!

Wow. You give up easily.

You DO know that TO references published peer review research in nearly all of its articles, right?
One way or another

United States

#116487 Feb 9, 2013
From my life experiences in my 60 years on earth, genius is likely turned to madness in the minds of those that are pressured by more than they could bear from childhood. Fighters like myself thrive on the adversity from childhood, mentally, physically and emotionally. Madness or genius also depend on the possible number of outlets that can be accessed by each person.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116488 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Funny, you Evo children have suggested both about me. By the way, my daughter is a portrait, sketch artist.
I have beaten several lawyers at their own game and I expose a lot of ignorant thinking in science, even though you children hate me for it.
There is a fine line between genius and madness because they share the same genes, scientists have found.
Psychologists have discovered that creative people have a gene in common which is also linked to psychosis and depression.
They believe that the findings could explain why "geniuses" like Vincent van Gogh and Sylvia Plath displayed such destructive behaviour.
The gene, which is called neuregulin 1, plays a role in brain development but a variant of it is also associated with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Researchers from Semmelweis University in Hungary recruited a group of volunteers who considered themselves to be very creative and accomplished.
To measure creativity, the volunteers were asked to respond to a series of unusual questions. For example: "Just suppose clouds had strings attached to them which hang down to earth. What would happen?"
They were scored based on the originality and flexibility of their answers.
The volunteers also completed a questionnaire regarding their lifetime creative achievements before the researchers took blood samples.
The report concluded: "The results show a clear link between neuregulin 1 and creativity.
"Volunteers with the specific variant of this gene were more likely to have higher scores on the creativity assessment and also greater lifetime creative achievements than volunteers with a different form of the gene."
The head researcher Dr Szabolcs Kéri said that this is the first study to show that a genetic variant associated with psychosis may have some beneficial functions.
He said: "Molecular factors that are loosely associated with severe mental disorders but are present in many healthy people may have an advantage enabling us to think more creatively."
The study was published in the journal Psychological Science.

I have never denied you are creative, now have I?

Quite the contrary, I have suggested you are fairly intelligent but you lack basic knowledge about science.

Even if you have a supercomputer for a brain you can only run the best program you have stored. In your case that would be 'pong'.

It you took the time to study science (and get your mental health issues under better control) you could be quite formidable.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116489 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
From my life experiences in my 60 years on earth, genius is likely turned to madness in the minds of those that are pressured by more than they could bear from childhood. Fighters like myself thrive on the adversity from childhood, mentally, physically and emotionally. Madness or genius also depend on the possible number of outlets that can be accessed by each person.

Genius requires information, processing and intuition/creativity.

You are missing the first component. Without that your "genius" is like a stool with two legs.

People with autism seem to have very creative internal worlds and sometimes very high IQ's. But with few exceptions they have contributed nothing to science.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116490 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Really!
You cannot dispute even one of his points!
Wow. You give up easily.
You DO know that TO references published peer review research in nearly all of its articles, right?
Russell does not realize that we instantly discount creationist sites since they practically never back up their articles with peer reviewed science. He tries to use the same tactic on TalkOrigins but fails because, as both you and I have pointed out, that TO is based upon peer reviewed, or as I like to say, real science.
One way or another

United States

#116491 Feb 9, 2013
Pong is good!

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) 1 min replaytime 45,472
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min replaytime 209,613
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 29 min It aint necessari... 152,175
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr karl44 20,239
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sun Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sat One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sat One way or another 4
More from around the web