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 (Page 5,745)

Showing posts 114,881 - 114,900 of171,270
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117957
Feb 18, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot refute him... all you are capable of is parroting canned responses.
I have refuted Sanford in multiple ways.

But none of that even matters, now that he has been refuted more simply by empirical testing.

Doesn't matter how cute you think his theories are. They are falsified by reality. End of story.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Richard P. Feynman

Note: evolution on the other hand has been confirmed by every observation and experiment thrown at it for 150 years.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117958
Feb 18, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I completely refuted your silliness. And now all you can say is "nice try" because you cannot answer me. Instead you bring up antibiotic resistance! That is too funny...as its another great example of adaptive evolution fueled by random mutation and selection.
And as a side note, the creationist claim that antibiotic resistant bacteria are otherwise weakened is also debunked. Sometimes the AB resistant bacteria are stronger than their "wild" counterparts...
Not so, Bud

Are you aware of the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance??

Similarly, the Estes et al papers had the same findings

Get mono-clonal and the reversion to ancestral fitness disappears...

ONLY with variability and heterogeneity do you get the wild type fitness

Check out Zorastrianism

A nice little biological anthropological study happening in real time

Also Icelandic peoples....

BTW

I thought Iceland was the armpit of the Universe...really

Worse than the ME...

And mosquitoes on the East coast as large as horses...I kid you not...

Anyhoo....
Back to the point at hand...

Your papers, I include the one I have referred to, DO NOT refute Sanford

But thanks anyway

They nicely show non-evolution.....yet again....quite by accident

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117959
Feb 18, 2013
 
Once again, yes Chimney's papers did refute Sanford, Though Sanford does not need refuting since he never ever made his case. All he ever had was a flawed computer model. Since reality debunked Sanford he wisely never compared his idea to reality.

Sanford's claim came pre-broken.

Chimney's paper showed that life regained the loss that Sanford predicted it would. He was such an idiot he forgot half of the driving forces of evolution.

So since he did bust your claim I believe that I probably did already bust the claim that you are yammering about. You bring up so much nonsense that is so easily debunked that I do not remember all of them that have been shot down. The victories we have all had over you would not be classed as difficult battles. They have all been yawners.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117960
Feb 18, 2013
 
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.
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.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117961
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Once again, yes Chimney's papers did refute Sanford, Though Sanford does not need refuting since he never ever made his case. All he ever had was a flawed computer model. Since reality debunked Sanford he wisely never compared his idea to reality.
Sanford's claim came pre-broken.
Chimney's paper showed that life regained the loss that Sanford predicted it would. He was such an idiot he forgot half of the driving forces of evolution.
So since he did bust your claim I believe that I probably did already bust the claim that you are yammering about. You bring up so much nonsense that is so easily debunked that I do not remember all of them that have been shot down. The victories we have all had over you would not be classed as difficult battles. They have all been yawners.
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...
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117967
Feb 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117968
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

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

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117970
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117976
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,881 - 114,900 of171,270
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••