Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178667 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.

LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#117962 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Listening to an evolutionist speak of "peer review" is laughable. Since you're so interested in truth, let's start by an objective evaluation of Haeckle's fraudulent drawings that have been published in biology textbooks for over a century.
Put your money where your mouth is. Find us a current textbook with the drawings. I'll sweeten the deal. From the last ten years. Better yet, from the last twenty years.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#117963 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Oh really? Show me the "evidence" of abiogenesis. Show me the "evidence" that hemoglobin evolved through gradualism. Show me the "evidence" that man evolved from a worm. You have raw conjectures... Nothing more. Show me the "evidence" that simple can evolve into complex through random mutations. Tell me how evolution created echolocation in whales and migratory instincts in salmon. I' m asking for science, not stories.
How did you get from evolution to abiogenesis? Why do creationists think evolutionary theory must explain how life arose? It merely addresses biodiversity. Using a strawman to smuggle in an argument from ignorance is poor form.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117964 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And here goes Marshmallow Terminator....
As always...
Sanford stands
Chimney's paper...and the one I have referred to...nicely illustrate what creationists have always said....
That antibiotic resistance
C difficle
Estes et al with the C elegans
C elegans pesticide resistance...
ALL>>>
Number One:--->Are not EVOLUTION
Number Two:---> Do not refute Sanford
The C elegans population was heterogeneous and contained the genetic variability to re-express the ancestral fitness
SINCE THE ANCESTRAL FITNESS WAS NEVER LOST FROM THE POPULATION...not entirely
When the mutant genotype was tested...NO REVERSAL
Go figure...
No reversal in the mutant clone....
Only in the heterogeneous populations
All of the above is for Chimney's benefit...
Not your's SubDud
Because all you'll say is "you're wrong"
Whinge whinge...
Rusty, how could Sanford's paper be standing now? It was not standing when he published it, remember, he knew it was a failure so he avoided peer review.

His paper was stillborn. All we have been doing kicking its dead and rotting corpse around.

If this counts as a victory for you I would hate to see a loss. Poor Rusty's mother probably had to pick him up from school in a wheel barrel. Of course after being kept back for 6 or 7 grades the kids probably quit picking on the extra large idiot.

By the way, Americans never whinge, we don't even know what that word means. I think it must involve an Australian accent of some sort.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117965 Feb 18, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Put your money where your mouth is. Find us a current textbook with the drawings. I'll sweeten the deal. From the last ten years. Better yet, from the last twenty years.
If you read up on Haeckel in a recent article you will find that his "cheating" was not clear cut. Some people have accused him of cheating but there is no record of formal charges. In fact now there is some argument that it may have been only personal battles that fueled the charges.

Still I know what he was accused of. The losers don't and can't find it.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117966 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.
http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...
The separate population was a control population.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117967 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Rusty, how could Sanford's paper be standing now? It was not standing when he published it, remember, he knew it was a failure so he avoided peer review.
His paper was stillborn. All we have been doing kicking its dead and rotting corpse around.
If this counts as a victory for you I would hate to see a loss. Poor Rusty's mother probably had to pick him up from school in a wheel barrel. Of course after being kept back for 6 or 7 grades the kids probably quit picking on the extra large idiot.

Education is highly over-rated

Since you are pleased by moving pictures....

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

[QUOTE who="Subduction Zone"]<quoted text>
By the way, Americans never whinge, we don't even know what that word means. I think it must involve an Australian accent of some sort.
No, an American accent does quite nicely

High pitched

Middle falsetto

Droning...

"You're wrong....
You're, Oh so very wrong......
...I provide NO evidence to support what I say....but I just carry on with my GREAT BIG WHINGE.......American evo-whinge".
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117968 Feb 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Put your money where your mouth is. Find us a current textbook with the drawings. I'll sweeten the deal. From the last ten years. Better yet, from the last twenty years.
What's in it for me?
Mugwump

UK

#117969 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What's in it for me?
Credibility ?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117970 Feb 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Credibility ?
But I'm just a willfully ignorant cretard......

What if I can't answer the textbook challenge?

And........

What do I get if I do?

Where's the sweetener?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117971 Feb 19, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that the lesson learned from this experiment is that a population CAN recover fitness when natural selection is reintroduced. But I doubt if a return to fitness would be the only possible outcome. The nematodes might have gotten to a critical point where extinction would be a more likely outcome.
I agree - fitness recovery would not be inevitable.

But its POSSIBLE and its demonstrated that it happens, and that completely refutes Sanford's hypothesis.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117972 Feb 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
For Chimmney to read:
...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....

...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 ...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....

....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.
....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...
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.

The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.

Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.

To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!

There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
Mugwump

UK

#117973 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.
The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.
Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.
To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!
There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
To be honest the assertion that previously seperate 'fit' populations were added was too ridiculous to contemplate - it would so obviously invalidate the results.

why would anyone believe that this is what happened?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117974 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so, Bud
Yes, so. The fitness recovery of the nematodes would be impossible according to Sanford.
Are you aware of the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance??
Yes. And are you aware that contrary to the Creationist shibboleth that antibiotic resistant bacteria always show a weakness or loss of function elsewhere, making them generally weaker than the "wild type" is false?
Similarly, the Estes et al papers had the same findings
Get mono-clonal and the reversion to ancestral fitness disappears...
It is quite possible that once we are down to a mono-clonal population, or a tiny one, reversion to fitness may not be possible. But Sanford claims its a one way street towards entropy and decay no matter what the population size (only that smaller populations will decay faster). So you have refuted nothing.

What happened to the nematodes is simply not possible according to Sanford's hypothesis. But it happens.

When are you guys going to learn what falsification of a hypothesis means in science????? Well, I suppose if you understood that, you would not by Young Earth Creationists in the first place.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117975 Feb 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
To be honest the assertion that previously seperate 'fit' populations were added was too ridiculous to contemplate - it would so obviously invalidate the results.
why would anyone believe that this is what happened?
Urban Cowboy was hoping for an easy answer...remember this totally violates what he has come to believe in, almost as fervently as he believes in the Bible's infallibility. Saint Sanford HAS to be right! There must be a loophole!

There ain't. Sanford was wrong.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117976 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Yes, so. The fitness recovery of the nematodes would be impossible according to Sanford.
Again, Sanford never said that. You have to change Sanford's claim to fit the article to debunk him but you're not debunking anything Sanford claimed! Note how the MA-R lines are produced. If you take agar chunks of of every generation and maintain large populations, of course they will recover. Sanford would expect the MA-R to recover. But this experiment says nothing about stopping altogther the slow steady accumulation of deleterious mutations permanently. All the researchers did was create genetic bottlenecks which they later removed. This says nothing about Sanford's work and nothing about macroevolution. They didn't even identify the specific mutations. They just managed to measure fitness of bottlenecked population and their degree of recovery.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117977 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.
The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.
Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.
To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!
There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
There is no escape Chimney
Your clinginess reeks of evo-desperation and it makes me quite uncomfortable

I do not want to indolently toy with you......

There is no way that Estes et al could determine that fitness reduction via mutation was universalw

They even checked for fixation of ancestral DNA markers.....found in all lines tested......

Two lines went extinct......why?

The researchers could NOT know if ancestral fitness was completely obliterated

They surmise that regained fitness was due to beneficial mutation....And other possibilities incl back mutations, which I find difficult to accept......

Please do not ignore that M-AR was derived from MA an already severely mutated population but a heterogeneous one

The rubber met the road in their follow up study in 2011

And then, the single genetic mutant clone DID NOT DISPLAY REVERSAL to ancestral fitness

Because regaining fitness is not possible once deleterious mutations occur

Unaffected portions of a population, eg C difficile, can demonstrate rapid expansion when the opportunity arises

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117978 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.
The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.
Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.
To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!
There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
No, sorry. It doesn't even come close.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117979 Feb 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have done, expecting a different outcome.
You mean like when you keep posting your 'new science' crap over and over? I agree. It is insane.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#117980 Feb 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
No, sorry. It doesn't even come close.
You should learn to be a more gracious loser. As you continue to in insert yourself into discussions of Life Scince, that will be the usual result. Just accept that you were mistaken, try to learn from the experience and move on to another silly hypothesis.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#117981 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What's in it for me?
The better question is, why does an old scientific error, or even the gravest of all possible frauds, matter more than everything else we've learned?

And, beyond that, do you recognize that science has a self-correcting mechanism that works, and that new evidence informs, if not outright changes, how we understand reality? Or, do you think science is monolithic and eternally cemented into certain understandings of how things work?

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) 54 min dirtclod 19,743
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr polymath257 6,169
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr ChristineM 168,558
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 6 hr Chimney1 190
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Chimney1 141,793
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web