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
113,501 - 113,520 of 172,150 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 If he searches for research and cannot find it in Google Scholar then it is not peer reviewed.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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116558
Feb 9, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid.....?
Nauseated perhaps
Besides, our guy smashed their guy ages ago
http://creation.com/the-debate-creationist-ve...
a quick glance at your link tells me immediately that it could not have possibly refuted the points made in

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

Therefore, how about reading it instead of this "my guy smashed your guy" empty rhetoric?

Pathetic and cowardly, even in your tone of communication employed.

Scratch the surface of a Creatard and we always see a terrified little yellow-belly before long.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116559
Feb 9, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid.....?
Nauseated perhaps
Besides, our guy smashed their guy ages ago
http://creation.com/the-debate-creationist-ve...
...and as I expected, after a more thorough reading, the usual tripe.

As if a stand-up debate lasting an hour or two with talking points covering mountains of scientific data means anything. In this case, so called "elephant hurling" was perfectly justified.

Not good enough. Read my link and then, if you are capable, HONESTLY tell me whether that superficial debate, conducted in front of a hostile audience and reported with obvious bias, can even scratch the surface of the real issues.

Oh, and by the way...the "my guy" that "your guy" supposedly smashed was not the guy who wrote:

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

Unfortunately for you, these tactics and one-liners will not win scientific debates even if they play well to a fundie audience who are really just watching a political debate, not a scientific one.

Nor will the cowardly little smears written in the "style" of a real scientific paper have any effect, as per the mitochondrial paper you posted. Might fool willing idiots like you, but they do not fool scientists and more intelligent lay people who still have their critical faculties intact.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116560
Feb 9, 2013
 
So now we have two for two, YEC creationists

Russell and
Urban Cowboy

Both afraid to read material that seriously challenges their views in the form of

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

A perfectly readable, interesting, and detailed look at the geologic column and the various strata within it.

They know that its hand's down more complete and detailed than any superficial pseudo-scientific paper or "public debate" they can throw at it.

So they scamper away, cowards as usual, when the rubber hits the road. They are afraid to even spend 15 minutes looking at something that might challenge them.

Read your Mitochondrial Haplotype paper, Russel.

Read your Magnetic Field paper, UC, months ago.

Had a good laugh in both instances.

What else have you got you lunatics?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116561
Feb 9, 2013
 
So I see Russell visited again with a whole lot of nothing.

Russell, there may be a better method to review science than peer review. Scientists are always open to improvement. Nothing better has been found to date. If you find something better than present it to the world. Improving peer review might even be worth a Nobel prize.

Yes, Talk Origins is not updated regularly. They don't have to be updated. Their main concern is debunking creatard claims and arguments. Creatards have not come up with anything new for years so there is no need to update.

It still trumps your sites. Since they do not rely on real science. They are afraid of peer review there. There is no peer review conspiracy, that would be immediately obvious. Peer review exposes your mistakes before they are published so that people cannot laugh at them the way we do your various posts here.

Your idiotic comets claim was thoroughly debunked. What is your next question?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116562
Feb 9, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...and as I expected, after a more thorough reading, the usual tripe.
As if a stand-up debate lasting an hour or two with talking points covering mountains of scientific data means anything. In this case, so called "elephant hurling" was perfectly justified.
Not good enough. Read my link and then, if you are capable, HONESTLY tell me whether that superficial debate, conducted in front of a hostile audience and reported with obvious bias, can even scratch the surface of the real issues.
Oh, and by the way...the "my guy" that "your guy" supposedly smashed was not the guy who wrote:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...
Unfortunately for you, these tactics and one-liners will not win scientific debates even if they play well to a fundie audience who are really just watching a political debate, not a scientific one.
Nor will the cowardly little smears written in the "style" of a real scientific paper have any effect, as per the mitochondrial paper you posted. Might fool willing idiots like you, but they do not fool scientists and more intelligent lay people who still have their critical faculties intact.
Don't panic

I have seen noanswers before

Never impressed by it

But that was years ago

Please don't think I only read Creationist literature

That just ain't true...

Just like evolution

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116563
Feb 9, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't panic
I have seen noanswers before
Never impressed by it
But that was years ago
Please don't think I only read Creationist literature
That just ain't true...
Just like evolution
I did not say read all of no answers.
I said, read the article I posted.
Something you are obviously afraid to do.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116564
Feb 9, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I did say "please don't go to..."

Reading through some of the evolutionary literature regarding mtDNA I did think "what a crock" and on one occasion I even thought, "They don't know SQUAT"...

Its a shame so many reject God and the Bible based on ridiculous ever changing capricious "science"

This afternoon I am left with one question...

Is it out of Africa?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

Or out of Europe?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

Rock...paper...scissors....?

Actually when I think about it...
I don't really care...

Capricious science will catch up eventually

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116565
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>You were doing just fine right up to the last statement. Again, SETI was established for what purpose?

To rule Egypt.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116566
Feb 9, 2013
 
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>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.


Is it possible? Yes, there is dang little that is fully impossible.

Is it likely? Not even a little bit.

If someone claimed such would there be a better explanation (failing to take prescribed antipsychotic medication, for example)? Almost certainly.


Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116567
Feb 9, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say "please don't go to..."
Reading through some of the evolutionary literature regarding mtDNA I did think "what a crock" and on one occasion I even thought, "They don't know SQUAT"...
Its a shame so many reject God and the Bible based on ridiculous ever changing capricious "science"
This afternoon I am left with one question...
Is it out of Africa?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...
Or out of Europe?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
Rock...paper...scissors....?
Actually when I think about it...
I don't really care...
Capricious science will catch up eventually
Of course science changes. But moves closer to the goal as it does.

Newton was close, Einstein was closer.

Darwin was close, neo-Darwinism is closer, and there may be future elements that further modify the theory.

They are all light-years ahead of your book of mythology, with its dubious virtue of being unchanging (though tell that to a Muslim or a Mormon).

Is it out of Africa or out of Europe? A question of detail that will be settled when there is enough data. So what? The question is as fundamental to evolution as asking whether Jesus was really born in 4BC or 6BC would be fundamental to Christianity. Does it affect the underlying principles? No.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116568
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.

Looking at the one planet for which we have sufficient information what can we deduce? Out of the hundreds of millions of species that have lived on this planet for over 3 billion years, one one life form had had the intellect and knowledge to even begin to grapple with these problems. If that one went away how long before another so capable species might come along? We COULD have a universe teaming with life but with few others having developed even our rudimentary mental skills.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116569
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...
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

If you eat too much junk food you get fat, develop diabetes, heart disease, cancer and die.

If you consume to much junk science ( creation.com ) you get over bloated with pseudoscience, get thick in the head, and die to science knowledge.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116570
Feb 9, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
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

So, Hypervariability in exon 2 is evolution.

Cool

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116571
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_...

First of all, that was not a scientific paper. It was an op-ed piece doing a poor imitation of a scientific paper. If you have the time I will gladly explain the difference and talk to how pseudoscience writers try to make their papers look sciencey (but fail).

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••