Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,817

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
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117915 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're an arrogant jackass. I've studied evolution for over thirty years.
No you haven't. That's why you can't even get the basics right.

In fact you're not even capable of scientific discussion. You've never even tried. All your posts are nothing but denials and dismissals, and repostings of typical creo mischaracterizations of evolution.
HTS wrote:
I've read extensively what is posted on talkorigins
And dismissed them because they didn't gel with creationism.
HTS wrote:
and have read numerous scientific articles on proposals of abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution does not rely on the abiogenesis hypothesis.

And you know why.

And you know why you keep avoiding it.
HTS wrote:
I have read very little from creationist sources.
Yes, and you've also had 4 years in med school. And I'm sure the fact that you ARE a creationist is just a coincidence.
HTS wrote:
The entire unwieldy paradigm of evolution is complete BS.
Your grandiose proclamations have never addressed the scientific validity of evolution. You don't even cause an itch.

Time to appeal to another quote now, is it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117916 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a noisy child that has brought nothing of value here. All your claims outside here are just so much BS, because what one says here is all any here have to go on.
In all the years you've been here, you have brought only childish nonsense.
Perhaps you can find others to fight with you.
Jimbo suffers from projectionitus.
One way or another

United States

#117917 Feb 18, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I should not have responded at all. You are just too unreasonable.
Very true, however, you want to talk science, just like myself, HTS, Russell and others that just aren't speaking, because the Evo morons don't want intelligent science spoken here. All they want is one sided nonsense.

I might suggest that you, myself, Russell and HTS simply read what they claim and then we assess what they say between ourselves, leaving them out of the conversation all together. That way, other people that want to discuss both sides will see they don't have to fight, just because they think differently. We know they will be running off whether we speak to them or not.

The Evo crowd will be left to their own devices.

Just a suggestion to you, HTS and Russell.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117918 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Contesting what's fasonable in academic circles is not "anti-science".

Evolution was first mentioned 2,500 years ago based on observation

Some form of an evolutionary hypothesis has been around at least 200 years.

The First mechanism of evolution was discovered over 150 years ago.

What is fashionable has come and gone hundreds or thousands of times since then. The fact of evolution is still a fact. The ToE is the only scientific explanation of that fact.

So,... I can't even honestly say "nice try" to your comment.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117919 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Very true, however, you want to talk science, just like myself, HTS, Russell and others that just aren't speaking, because the Evo morons don't want intelligent science spoken here. All they want is one sided nonsense.
I might suggest that you, myself, Russell and HTS simply read what they claim and then we assess what they say between ourselves, leaving them out of the conversation all together. That way, other people that want to discuss both sides will see they don't have to fight, just because they think differently. We know they will be running off whether we speak to them or not.
The Evo crowd will be left to their own devices.
Just a suggestion to you, HTS and Russell.
The Four Stooges?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117920 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're an arrogant jackass. I've studied evolution for over thirty years. I've read extensively what is posted on talkorigins, and have read numerous scientific articles on proposals of abiogenesis. I have read very little from creationist sources.The entire unwieldy paradigm of evolution is complete BS.

So, what I read you saying is:

1. You admit you have not been studying evolution as long as I have.

2. You have your mind (such as it is) made us and don't want to be confused with the scientific facts (religious fundamentalism has that effect on people).

3. You are still conflating evolution with abiogenesis which is not possible if you had REALLY read as much as you say.

4. Perhaps I should have lead with this, your ignorance of evolution in particular and science in general makes your assertions moot. The evidence of your ignorance fills your posts. They are filled with assertions you cannot support. You quotemine stuff OR pick the quotemines off creationist ready quotemined.

I could CLAIM to be a brain surgeon, but if I mislabel the parts of the brain then you would be right to call me a liar. Based on a comparable level of errors about evolution I have concluded you are a liar about the extent to which you have studied it.

That is all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#117921 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The Four Stooges?
Three. Jimbozo wouldn't meet the minimum stooge requirements.
One way or another

United States

#117922 Feb 18, 2013
As usual, the Evo morons childish clique cackle about people, because science means nothing to these morons, all though they can copy and paste. Too bad they never offer even one new thought as a group, for science, in all the years they have been here. Then they pretend to judge other people as the classic, childish cliques, from elementary school.

Poor ignorant children, they add nothing of value for all the years they have been here.

The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.

The Evo clique is totally one sided. That's the best way to dumb down your children.

Deceit is their first and last line of defense.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#117923 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
As usual, the Evo morons childish clique cackle about people, because science means nothing to these morons, all though they can copy and paste. Too bad they never offer even one new thought as a group, for science, in all the years they have been here. Then they pretend to judge other people as the classic, childish cliques, from elementary school.
Poor ignorant children, they add nothing of value for all the years they have been here.
The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.
The Evo clique is totally one sided. That's the best way to dumb down your children.
Deceit is their first and last line of defense.
Must be time for one of Ryan's drunken, late night rants again.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117924 Feb 18, 2013
For Chimmney to read:

It is well established that the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations via genetic drift under conditions of relaxed selection can threaten the health and persistence of small populations.

Our experiment was initiated with 74 lines of C. elegans, each derived from mutation-accumulation lines that had been independently maintained by single-individual bottlenecks for an average of 240 generations (Vassilieva et al. 2000). These MA lines were themselves derived from a single, wildtype Bristol-N2 individual from the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN). The method of transferring single progeny each generation effectively removes natural selection, allowing mutations with mildly deleterious effects to accumulate essentially freely. Because C. elegans reproduces by self-fertilization, this procedure also rapidly removes heterozygosity at all other loci (see fig. 4.15 in Hartl and Clark 1997), a particularly important point for the current study.

For the current experiment, these previously bottlenecked lines were independently expanded to extremely large population sizes to test whether populations that have amassed substantial mutational loads may regain original levels of fitness by selection for new advantageous mutations.

For the current study, each line remaining after 240 generations of mutation accumulation was separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes by transferring agar chunks containing well over 1000 individuals to fresh plates with a sterilized scalpel every four days (equivalent to approximately one generation)(hereafter referred to as MA-R lines for mutation-recovery).

To test whether any fitness gains shown by the MA-R lines could be due to a generic form of aboratory adaptation (i.e., due to unconditionally beneficial mutations), 30 lines were also enerated from the ancestral (time zero, premutation accumulation) control animals (previously stored cryogenically) and maintained in the same manner as outlined above. Henceforth, these will be referred to as C-R lines, for control-recovery.

After 10 generations of large-population-size treatment, fitness of the MA-R lines was assessed in parallel with MA generation 250 (maintained by single-individual bottlenecks since the beginning of the recovery experiment) and the ancestral control. Despite this short period of time, mean fitness of the MA-R lines had rebounded substantially, approximately 11% for progeny production and 5% for survival to maturity.

In this second assay, 30 randomly chosen pairs of MA-R and MA lines were surveyed for fitness in parallel with the ancestral control and with the C-R lines. At the time of this assay, the MA lines had reached 280 generations on average. Our results indicate that the MA-R lines had fully recovered on average for both fitness-related characters, whereas the CR lines showed no significant fitness gains compared to the ancestral control (Fig. 2, Table 3).

We show that when returned to a population-genetic environment that is conducive to efficient natural selection, mutationally degraded lines are capable of recovering original levels of mean fitness at a rate that is at least three times that of mutational degradation in the absence of selection, although there is variation in response among individual lines.

Although any mechanism of fitness recovery involving the accumulation of new mutations would be an important result, several lines of evidence suggest that fitness recovery observed in the MA-R lines was largely due to compensatory mutation accumulation.

http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117925 Feb 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
For Chimmney to read:
It is well established that the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations via genetic drift under conditions of relaxed selection can threaten the health and persistence of small populations.
Our experiment was initiated with 74 lines of C. elegans, each derived from mutation-accumulation lines that had been independently maintained by single-individual bottlenecks for an average of 240 generations (Vassilieva et al. 2000). These MA lines were themselves derived from a single, wildtype Bristol-N2 individual from the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN). The method of transferring single progeny each generation effectively removes natural selection, allowing mutations with mildly deleterious effects to accumulate essentially freely. Because C. elegans reproduces by self-fertilization, this procedure also rapidly removes heterozygosity at all other loci (see fig. 4.15 in Hartl and Clark 1997), a particularly important point for the current study.
For the current experiment, these previously bottlenecked lines were independently expanded to extremely large population sizes to test whether populations that have amassed substantial mutational loads may regain original levels of fitness by selection for new advantageous mutations.
For the current study, each line remaining after 240 generations of mutation accumulation was separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes by transferring agar chunks containing well over 1000 individuals to fresh plates with a sterilized scalpel every four days (equivalent to approximately one generation)(hereafter referred to as MA-R lines for mutation-recovery).
To test whether any fitness gains shown by the MA-R lines could be due to a generic form of aboratory adaptation (i.e., due to unconditionally beneficial mutations), 30 lines were also enerated from the ancestral (time zero, premutation accumulation) control animals (previously stored cryogenically) and maintained in the same manner as outlined above. Henceforth, these will be referred to as C-R lines, for control-recovery.
After 10 generations of large-population-size treatment, fitness of the MA-R lines was assessed in parallel with MA generation 250 (maintained by single-individual bottlenecks since the beginning of the recovery experiment) and the ancestral control. Despite this short period of time, mean fitness of the MA-R lines had rebounded substantially, approximately 11% for progeny production and 5% for survival to maturity.
In this second assay, 30 randomly chosen pairs of MA-R and MA lines were surveyed for fitness in parallel with the ancestral control and with the C-R lines. At the time of this assay, the MA lines had reached 280 generations on average. Our results indicate that the MA-R lines had fully recovered on average for both fitness-related characters, whereas the CR lines showed no significant fitness gains compared to the ancestral control (Fig. 2, Table 3).
We show that when returned to a population-genetic environment that is conducive to efficient natural selection, mutationally degraded lines are capable of recovering original levels of mean fitness at a rate that is at least three times that of mutational degradation in the absence of selection, although there is variation in response among individual lines.
Although any mechanism of fitness recovery involving the accumulation of new mutations would be an important result, several lines of evidence suggest that fitness recovery observed in the MA-R lines was largely due to compensatory mutation accumulation.
All very interesting but you willing to back up your claim that the resumption of 'fitness' was down to the researchers adding a seperate, preciously isolated population to the original test ?

Sorry but you are back onto dodge mode as far as I can tell

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#117926 Feb 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
For Chimmney to read:
It is well established that the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations via genetic drift under conditions of relaxed selection can threaten the health and persistence of small populations... etc.
http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...
To quote Inigo Montoya: "I do not think it means what you think it means."

No "reintroduction".
One way or another

United States

#117927 Feb 18, 2013
Lies and obfuscation only serve to destroy intelligent thought.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have done, expecting a different outcome.

Oh well, morons are everywhere.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117928 Feb 18, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
All very interesting but you willing to back up your claim that the resumption of 'fitness' was down to the researchers adding a seperate, preciously isolated population to the original test ?
Sorry but you are back onto dodge mode as far as I can tell
"Because the descendants of such populations are often targeted for reintroduction into natural habitat, it is important
to know whether acquired mutational loads have permanent
effects on fitness. Hence, there is a necessity to understand
both the process of fitness decline in small populations
and the potential for fitness recovery subsequent to
the accumulation of genetic deterioration."

Mugwump, this is the whole purpose of this research. To see measure the extent of recovery of previously genetically bottlenecked MA population if brought back to natural environment with sufficient large populations. Yes, of course they recover, but they still carry all the accumulated mutations and sooner or later will hit the wall again. Notice this says nothing about macroevolution either. This is not even relevant to Sanford's genetic entropy. All they did was rescue mutant bottleneck populations by removing the bottleneck. The study was unique because they measured quantitatively the extent of recovery. Good stuff but not a refutation of genetic entropy, which was clearly the protagonist here!
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117929 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what's been posted is a pretty thorough refutation by Chimney which includes peer-reviewed results falsifying Sanford's claims which were based on YEC apologetics anyway. Besides, every time you boys mention him you're STILL contradicting yourselves.
----------
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No UC, not the same thing. Do you understand?
1. An isolated population of nematodes is bred generation after generation with natural selection suspended. Fitness falls.
2. The SAME, isolated population, the descendants of (1) above, with no external material introduced, is subject once again to natural selection.
3. Over many generations of this STILL ISOLATED population, fitness recovers.
According to Sanford, this is not possible. Its the very core of his thesis. And its falsified by experiment.
Cougars brought into the everglades were introduced, as I understand it, to bring new diversity into a shrunken and inbred local population. This is NOT the same thing as with the isolated nematode population internally recovering fitness.
You can see this, of course. But now you are grasping at straws, to save your beloved "genetic entropy" hypothesis.
Chimney's paper falsified NOTHING

Clostridium difficile remains when other bacteria are wiped out by antibiotics

It reproduces rapidly to fill a vacant environmental niche

It NORMALLY causes no issues when it is maintained in small numbers...

But in larger numbers, when the suppressive effects of the competing microbes are removed, its toxins can cause death in the hapless individual
;
;
;
;

IT AINT EVOLUTION, BUD
;
;
;
;
That's precisely what was observed with the Estes et al studies

The mutational load was not fixed in every organism

They had a heterogeneous population

Hence the non-mutants ALREADY RETAINED the wild type fitness

This is EXACTLY why the bugs recovered ancestral fitness because it was never lost in the first place!

This is borne out sweetly in their 2011 study where the mutant genotype DID NOT provide the same results as in 2003

SINCE THE TEST POPULATION ALL-----UNDERLINE ALL--- had the same mutations

And so were unable to regain fitness

Stanford still stands....

....if that is all you have

What a brilliant couple of papers to illustrate NON-EVOLUTION

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117930 Feb 18, 2013
Rusty you gigantic douche.

The aim of the paper that Chimney quoted was not to prove evolution. That has already been done. The aim of it was to disprove Sanford's nonsense. According to Sanford the population should not have recovered, it did. There is no genetic entropy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117931 Feb 18, 2013
Let's look at Sanford's work again. He knew it was a failed idea so he skipped the peer review system.

For any reasonable person huge alarm bells would be going off already. Someone who has had papers successfully published using peer review avoids it this time around. What does he know that his readers don't know?

When scientists hear of his work they all have a good laugh. All he has is conjecture and unsupported claims. Now someone has done the work to show that a colony that has deteriorated according to Sanford's claim does not suffer, it recovers.

So John did not do his homework and the only people who believe him are other idiots who could not do their homework in high school. I guess it makes a sort of sense.
urban cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#117932 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Rusty you gigantic douche.
The aim of the paper that Chimney quoted was not to prove evolution. That has already been done. The aim of it was to disprove Sanford's nonsense. According to Sanford the population should not have recovered, it did. There is no genetic entropy.
You said you never read it! Sanford never says that! You are talking nonsense. If anyone's a douche it's YOU!
urban cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#117933 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Let's look at Sanford's work again. He knew it was a failed idea so he skipped the peer review system.
For any reasonable person huge alarm bells would be going off already. Someone who has had papers successfully published using peer review avoids it this time around. What does he know that his readers don't know?
When scientists hear of his work they all have a good laugh. All he has is conjecture and unsupported claims. Now someone has done the work to show that a colony that has deteriorated according to Sanford's claim does not suffer, it recovers.
So John did not do his homework and the only people who believe him are other idiots who could not do their homework in high school. I guess it makes a sort of sense.
Your stupid is showing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117934 Feb 18, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You said you never read it! Sanford never says that! You are talking nonsense. If anyone's a douche it's YOU!
Oh, he says that the population would be just fine and that his story was all bullshit. Nice to hear. Either way Sanford loses.

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) 5 min Titus33 149,306
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 min Denisova 16,658
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 27 min Gillette 604
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 38 min Gillette 5
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 44 min Denisova 140,950
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 6 hr paul porter 1
Human Activity Has Accelerated Climate Change 16 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web