Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,558

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
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116537 Feb 9, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Just pickin you brain, you seem to use it. Ok, lets focus on technologies that are possible, like manipulating brain activity. Lets say controlling the part of the brain that controls sleep. Could that technology be available to humans today? And, what would the average human think of them using that technology on the public?
Personally I think the brain is simply another organ, and if technology was available to 'control' it then it would go through the same moral debate as does with many technologies that effect 'free will'

Such advances of course are already used in the medical community to control some of the more extreme mental illnesses that afflict certain people.

But let me fast-track your argument - you are presumably suggesting that such technology is already being employed by aliens on the human race already.

So care to provide a coherent argument to support this - would just save a lot of time.

Anyway have to go - Zork has his probing rod out.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116538 Feb 9, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Humans have explored only 1% of the deep oceans. What in the world makes you think humans are ready for deep space exploration. Read about how human technology is not capable or adequate enough for contact.Wait, its not in text books ........cant read about it, cant comprehend it. Regurgitate all the info and stats known to man......good luck.
I never said we are ready for deep space exploration. There may or may not be a technology somewhere in the universe more advanced than ours.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116539 Feb 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally I think the brain is simply another organ, and if technology was available to 'control' it then it would go through the same moral debate as does with many technologies that effect 'free will'
Such advances of course are already used in the medical community to control some of the more extreme mental illnesses that afflict certain people.
But let me fast-track your argument - you are presumably suggesting that such technology is already being employed by aliens on the human race already.
So care to provide a coherent argument to support this - would just save a lot of time.
Anyway have to go - Zork has his probing rod out.
You were doing just fine right up to the last statement. Again, SETI was established for what purpose?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116540 Feb 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
God promised that good obedient loving wives could be found in all corners of the Earth. Then he created the Earth in the shape of a sphere and laughed and laughed and laughed!!
I like that!

Gonna borrow that line.

Thanks!
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116541 Feb 9, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said we are ready for deep space exploration. There may or may not be a technology somewhere in the universe more advanced than ours.
Lets just for aurgument, say that a craft came within 10ft, put us(more than one)to sleep and cruzed over us without a sound. Could that in your mind ever be possible. Put on your tinfoil hat and try to think.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116542 Feb 9, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>You were doing just fine right up to the last statement. Again, SETI was established for what purpose?
Actually I apologise for the last line was probably unjust.

On SETI - was established to try and detect the 'artifacts' of intelligent life outside of the earth by Initally searching for non-natural patterns in the Stella 'noise'.

But you misunderstand, I am not saying that life dosent exist elsewhere (personally find it unlikely that it dosent - universe being huge and all) but that doesn't lead to aliens have obviously (as I suspect you are suggesting) visited us.

Anyway -again apologies for the Zork comment - but you got to admit, it was mildy amusing at least.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116543 Feb 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I apologise for the last line was probably unjust.
On SETI - was established to try and detect the 'artifacts' of intelligent life outside of the earth by Initally searching for non-natural patterns in the Stella 'noise'.
But you misunderstand, I am not saying that life dosent exist elsewhere (personally find it unlikely that it dosent - universe being huge and all) but that doesn't lead to aliens have obviously (as I suspect you are suggesting) visited us.
Anyway -again apologies for the Zork comment - but you got to admit, it was mildy amusing at least.
It was funny. I find knowledge and understanding of "Deep Space Aliens" at the level of when the paper was being made to write the Bible.Or, when finding fossels became scientific discoveries. One day, a scientists didnt just awake up and decide to ask Congress to fund SETI. It happened thru a series of events, sightings and Govt findings....not by accident.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116544 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The morons telling fortunes make claims they can never prove. They claim comets are billions of years old. Frikken morons.
Spin causes gravity.

Sorry, were you saying something?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116545 Feb 9, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>It was funny. I find knowledge and understanding of "Deep Space Aliens" at the level of when the paper was being made to write the Bible.Or, when finding fossels became scientific discoveries. One day, a scientists didnt just awake up and decide to ask Congress to fund SETI. It happened thru a series of events, sightings and Govt findings....not by accident.
Which government agency is responsible for putting RFID chips into our bodies?
alan

Kansas City, MO

#116546 Feb 9, 2013
Lowell Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Which government agency is responsible for putting RFID chips into our bodies?
Chips? That just one way of human tracking/study group infology. Their are more humans studying human behavior that human behavior can provide. They cant wait to control human thoughts and modify human behavior.....first they need the drug, they are working around the clock to control humans, only on Thursdays to find cures.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#116547 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Everyone knows you're a liar dodger, because I challenged everyone and not one person here, could refute my red shift, blue shift facts.
No, not one person could be bothered arguing to your ignorance regarding red shift and blue shift facts. Your fantasies are so far off the mark that its a waste of time, as I have come to learn whether its global warming, the height of Eskimos, the fundamentals of gravity, red shift, the speed of light, or of course evolution.

All of these things have the following in common: you argue against the prevailing understanding from a position of extreme ignorance, and you do not even know the facts and theories you think you are arguing against.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#116548 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are they supposedly being "created" now?
If billions of years old....and if the ones we see today were created billions of years ago...that would be a miracle
No evolutionary cosmologist believes that
Simple fact, Bro'
And I say "Bro'" since we, you and I, will be in eternity together...
Does take the shine off a little....? For me too
Naturally when eternity happens you will be a full blown Creationist...
But, have no fears
NO WAY will I make any snide remarks....
I swear!
Well....OK...
May be just a few snide remarks
Anyhoo
Comets lose so much mass by every "fly" past the sun they should have evaporated after a few tens of thousands of year
The concoction of hypothetical sources to replenish comets was the result of this fact
Depends what you mean by comets being created. The material - the orbiting rocks - are out at the edge of the solar system and have been since the beginning of the system. It makes sense that the material that far from the centre of the original gas cloud was too diffuse to form planets and remained in smaller chunks spread through space, so its hardly some weird anomaly made up by astronomers just to thwart creationists.

Actually, as an aside, what really is funny is that astronomers, biologists, geologists, for the most part just do their own thing and do not give a moment's thought to creationists. Then, when the creationists see that the scientists' theories are incompatible with their scripture, they all get up in arms about a conspiracy against them (or against "God" in their supremely arrogant way of identifying themselves as the REAL "Hezbollah", or translated, "Party of God").

Nothing could be further from the truth. Your mythical views are not even on the scientific radar, you are ignored. You only become significant to the scientific community when you make political noises and try to corrupt science teaching in school.

So, back to comets. When an orbit is disturbed by interaction of one of these rocks with another on the fringes of the solar system, it may come careening in towards the centre and we have a "comet". That is the understanding of science.

Where is your problem with that?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116549 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.
Don't hang your hat on 'talking-idiots'

I actually broke a cardinal rule of mine never to visit potentially badly written, poorly researched sites, and went there...

After a cursory survey of your link....and cursory it will remain

IT IS TRASH

Its not updated often enough to be reliable

Creation.com is far superior

Its interesting that sites exist with the sole purpose of refuting creationism...

This nicely supports the Creationist claims that evolution is a religious philosophy intended to eject God out of the picture....
Otherwise why bother what Creationists think?

Not with standing, of course, Dogem's crazy theology, but I'll be getting to that shortly

Now to the topic of mtDNA and your post

FIRSTLY,

Heteroplasmy is virtually universal
There is low level heteroplasmy in nearly all tested healthy individuals

Discarding the Gibbons study due to this alone is ridiculous, but as you will hastily....read desperately...point out, that wasn't entirely what happened

You are suggesting that Gibbons et al was discarded on the basis of the use of a control segment with high substitution rates?

Right?

Well, having supported this stance places you in the precarious position having to discard Ayala's phylogenetic tree based on studies of the HLA -DRB1 gene exon 2 sequences

Starting with the assumption of common descent, he had set out to disprove the notion of two individual first parents, published a few years before Gibbons

--Ayala, F, "The myth of Eve: Molecular biology and human origins", Science 270 (1995)

He was not the only one to do so
--Takahata, N, "Allelic Genealogy and human evolution", Mol Biol Evol 10 (1993): 2-22

Ayala,citing gene coalescence, argued against a bottleneck before the emergence of modern humans in the OOA scenario

He chose HLA-DRB1, presumably due to the large number of versions known, meaning diversity at the time of alleged divergence of chimp human lineages

All the HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DRA, with which it forms its renowned dimer....important in immune function...

....and every time I get a cold, which is never, I shake my fist and yell, "Get to work, HLA-DRB1 and HLA-DRA dimer! You slug"

...are very stable and do not exhibit anywhere near the variabilty of HLA-DRB1 exon 2

Ayala, using chimp, human and macaque DNA sequences from JUST exon 2 of HLA-DRB1, constructed the phylogenetic history of those sequences using population genetics algorithms

For this phylogenetic tree, if all his estimates are correct, there would have been 5 lineages 50 years ago and two lineages 250 years ago

With this established he calculated that there were 32 separate versions of the entire HLA-DRB1 gene present at the so-called time of divergence

And he came up with a minimum population size of a minimum of 40, 000 and an average effective population size of 100,000

Thus, claimed Ayala, that at no time was it possible for the human population to have passed through a bottleneck of two

...DUE to TOO MUCH DIVERSITY in the human ancestral HLA-DRB1
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116550 Feb 9, 2013
PART TWO
Ayala was quoted in The Los Angeles Times saying:
""It is a romantic theory, yes, to have a mitochondrial Eve," Ayala said in an interview Friday, "it is consistent with the biblical myth and it is easier to imagine. But it is wrong, it is flawed logic."

-- BOUCHER, G,“UCI Professor Argues 'Mitochondrial Eve' Had Many Genetic Forebears”, Los Angeles Times, December 23, 1995

Exon 2 is the most variable region of one of the most variable genes in our genome

It has a higher mutation rate than the background mutation rate
It may be a hot spot for gene conversion

A later study by Bergstrom et al examined the same HLA-DRB1 gene, but used intron 2

This was chosen expressly to avoid the confounding effects of strong selection that HLA-DRB1 is known to be under, a high mutation rate and/or gene conversion

This intron has a mutation rate close to the genomic background

They concluded that only seven versions of the gene existed in ancestral populations, and that the population had an estimated size of 10, 000 rather than 100,000 estimated by Ayala

So, BIG change to the phylogenetic tree...

--Bregstrom, T F et al,“Recent origin of HLA-DRB1 alleles and implications for human evolution”, Nature Genetics 18, 1998: 237-242

And, this was altered yet again by Doxiadis et al who also studied the HLA-DRA1 gene of humans, chimps and macaques

But they used sequences from either exon 2 or introns 1-4

Use of one or the other, eg exon 2 or introns 1-4 give markedly different pictures of the gene’s phylogenetic tree

Surprised? Considering both sets of sequences come from the same genes, you should be

--Doxiadis et al,“Reshuffling of ancient binding motifs between HLA-DRB1 multigene family members:Old wine served in new wineskins,” Molecular Immunology 45, 2008: 2743-2751

Strangely, intron lineages group together according to species, but the exon 2 lineages do not

Therefore
Whether you use hypervariabilty of a control segment or not

Subduction Zone

You are stuffed

Yes, time to wake up....

Because Ayala’s bottleneck is busted

We have dropped from an estimated 32 lineages based on DRB1 exon 2 comparisons to 7 lineages using DRB1 intron 2 comparisons

And then to 3 and 5 ancestral haplotypes when the whole region is considered

This shows that a first couple are indeed within the realms of possibility...even from within evolutionary framework....

HLA haplotype diversity cannot rule out two first parents

There is additionally a lack of recombination extending over 80,000 base pairs--> extreme linkage disequilibrium in HLA-DQB and HLA-DQA, HLA-DRB1’c closest neighbours

Why would that be ?

Why would there be hypervariability in exon 2 and suppression of recombination elsewhere?

There is evidence of high rates of microrecombination at some of the MCH loci
-->interallelic gene conversion--> nearly one in 10, 000 gametes in a study of sperm

HLA-DRB1 diversity is the result of a process that generates SPECIFIC hypervariabilty and/or gene conversion in exon 2

Such a process demolishes any population genetics arguments about ancestral population sizes

And by the way, Dogem
Hypervariability in exon 2 ain’t evolution
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116551 Feb 9, 2013
Anyone wanting a nice summary of mitochrondrial Eve

Please don't go to:

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_1/j23_...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#116552 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't hang your hat on 'talking-idiots'
I actually broke a cardinal rule of mine never to visit potentially badly written, poorly researched sites, and went there...
If I used the same rule, I would never bother to read the creationist links. The stupidity leaps of the page.

However, I do it, because I am not afraid of reading anything.

On the other hand, you clearly are afraid to go here...

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

...and it amuses me greatly the way your ilk insulates itself from any views it might not be able to deal with by rationalising your own fear. "Won't waste my time", "not worth it", "full of evolutionist propaganda", "heard it all before" and the like.

We all know you are cowards anyway, having flushed your brains down the toilet in order to deny death, but this simply proves it.

There is little point arguing further with an intellectual coward who restricts his own input to the Bible and Biblical apologetics. You are clueless, and want to remain that way.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116553 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How very charitable of you to run to SubDud's aid...

He needs all the help he can get

Incidentally
Has peer review been peer reviewed?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116554 Feb 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If I used the same rule, I would never bother to read the creationist links. The stupidity leaps of the page.
However, I do it, because I am not afraid of reading anything.
On the other hand, you clearly are afraid to go here...
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...
...and it amuses me greatly the way your ilk insulates itself from any views it might not be able to deal with by rationalising your own fear. "Won't waste my time", "not worth it", "full of evolutionist propaganda", "heard it all before" and the like.
We all know you are cowards anyway, having flushed your brains down the toilet in order to deny death, but this simply proves it.
There is little point arguing further with an intellectual coward who restricts his own input to the Bible and Biblical apologetics. You are clueless, and want to remain that way.
Afraid.....?

Nauseated perhaps

Besides, our guy smashed their guy ages ago

http://creation.com/the-debate-creationist-ve...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116556 Feb 9, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
We have samples of comet material.
We have measured its age.
Billions of years old.
Period.
How about a meteorite?

Have we dated one of those?

http://128.119.45.20/petrology /Brennecka%20et%20al_Science_2 010_UPb.pdf

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#116557 Feb 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
Anyone wanting a nice summary of mitochrondrial Eve
Please don't go to:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_1/j23_...
Just read your paper.

The author, Robert Carter, is criticising the assumptions of the underlying mitochondrial model which gives a common ancestry on the maternal line to circa 200,000 years, using the questions "raised openly in the evolutionary literature". For starters, this nicely highlights how, contrary to what most creationists claim, evolutionary biologists do openly critique findings and look for weaknesses, just as they should in academia.

So, right. They question the assumptions of the standard model, asking whether the simplifications of the model are significant enough to disqualify it. In other words, do the necessary simplifying assumptions made (as with all models), mean the result is approximate or simply useless?

Your author does not answer that question nor quote anyone who meaningfully does. He merely insinuates that we should not trust the output because of its simplifying assumptions, as identified by evolutionary biologists (not him, of course).

He IMPLIES that reducing N down to N=3 after a Flood might account for all the haplotype variation observed, without taking that line of thinking further and demonstrating it. You betcha either it cannot, or he is incapable of running the calculations, otherwise Carter would have triumphantly produced them. Better, then, merely to imply that together with a few other changes, it MIGHT be possible.

In short - a summary of the model's simplifying assumptions, which can lead to error, and the inference undemonstrate that the model us therefore unreliable (enough to change a haplotype tree of 200,000 years down to 4,500 years, forty five TIMES faster!).

Parasitical garbage (based on the the work of real scientists and real critics of elements of the model), dressed up in the language of science. As usual.

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
Darwin on the rocks 11 min TurkanaBoy 456
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min messianic114 122,109
How Life's Code Emerged From Primordial Soup (Sep '09) 2 hr The Dude 62
The Racist Theory of Evolution. (Jun '06) 2 hr gdjeirokrjdhk 1,306
Evidence for God. (Aug '13) 2 hr FREE SERVANT 340
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr Ricky F 2,892
Elon Musk: artificial intelligence is our bigge... Wed Ooogah Boogah 6

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE