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 5,746)

Showing posts 114,901 - 114,920 of171,269
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117977
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117978
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117980
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117982
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If he wasn't formally charged, then that reflects poorly on his peers. He was guilty of fraud. His drawings were grossly inaccurate, and were embellished expressly for the purpose of convincing the public of evolution, not of establishing scientific truth. YOu're continuting to justify his actions and minimize his exaggerrations. You're proving my point.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117983
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sketches never look exactly like the drawn object. You still have no clue what he did wrong.
Why don't you use Google and look it up. Here is a hint, you won't find the answer on a creatard site. Haeckle's claims were not that far off. That is why they use photographs to illustrate his claims today.
Don't worry, I will let you know what Haeckle did wrong after your next failure.
There you go again... justifying scientific fraud. Haeckle was a professionial scientific illustrator. I don't need to google anything. I've seen dozens of three week old human embryos in my practice, and they look nothing like Haeckle's drawings. Why do you continue to defend him when they are widely criticized by embryologists? How far off do they have to be to be condemned. Are you denying that he had ulterior motives for his embellishments?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117984
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Ever since 1859 Darwinism has been progressively been invalidated by scientific research. When DNA was described in 1953, Darwinism should have been dead. There is simply no way that coded information can be randomly changed with a progressively positive result as is required by NDT. However, the cherished tradition of gradualism was too strong for a major paradigm shift. Instead, biologists continued to cling on to a theory which could not be supported by scientific observation.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117985
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like when you keep posting your 'new science' crap over and over? I agree. It is insane.
Mike, you have not contributed one constructive intelligent point to this forum in the several months that you've been contributing. You're a spineless DarwinBot, mindlessly swallowing whatever BS you are fed by the MSM.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117986
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Every time someone brings up bacterial mutants as "evidence" of evolution, I am reminded how flimsy the Darwinian hypothesis is. Trillions of trillions of organisms to work with, involving tens of thousands of generations that reproduce ASEXUALLY, and the DarwinBots get excited over a mutant that can catabolize citrate through the deregulation of a PRE-EXISTING citrate utilization system. Armed with that "evidence", they expect us to believe that millions of positive mutations, each imparting a survival advantage, occurred in a populations of about 10,000 humans over about 350,000 generations to result in the transmutation from ape to man. They think that the higher faculties of man, such as mathematical ability, aesthetic appreciation, complex emotions, etc., sprung into existence in an analogous manner. They call this "science".

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117987
Feb 19, 2013
 
All very interesting stuff, not. Subduction Zone should i thnk keep these pages to her professional interest in science and not some kind of morose infidel bastard form of current affaires.

i too had big brave ideas about blogging on this chat room, and my handiwork when it is revealed is not exactly what you might call for human consumption, nor is it of interest to most of us. In fact to put it mildly, it about as interesting on the written page as Picasso on canvas.

HTS leavr the girl alone, are you some kind of lesbian.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117988
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Mike, you have not contributed one constructive intelligent point to this forum in the several months that you've been contributing. You're a spineless DarwinBot, mindlessly swallowing whatever BS you are fed by the MSM.
Yeah. Ain't it great?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117989
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Ever since 1859 Darwinism has been progressively been invalidated by scientific research. When DNA was described in 1953, Darwinism should have been dead. There is simply no way that coded information can be randomly changed with a progressively positive result as is required by NDT. However, the cherished tradition of gradualism was too strong for a major paradigm shift. Instead, biologists continued to cling on to a theory which could not be supported by scientific observation.
So, are you telling us that there is a century-long global conspiracy in the scientific community to hide evidence of evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that there is a century-long global conspiracy to disregard the connection between the evidence and evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that only Christian cundamentalists are capable of scientific competence and integrity?

By the way, you didn't actually answer me. Try doing that, too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117990
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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...

Nice refutation of Sanford. Sort of beating a dead horse, but whatever.

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117991
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS here's one.

The environment is split down the middle between evolutionary flux and evolutionary regression, Darwin's just another observer and conjurer of a diabolical tricks on the mind.

No string theory of biology - Darwinism is the biggest hoodwink to obsess over narrow-minded series of arbitrary social observations to be construed as fact.

Bet you would struggle to find another biological theory for mankind. Of course you can't. Just like your struggle in the nineteenth century to name any other religious text other than the bible. You wouldn't. And the point is that you would not of thought it odd that you wouldn't.

Sorry Charles we began as God's and will end up bacteria swimming in another gods DNA protein molecular cell.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117992
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text Yes, of course they recover, but they still carry all the accumulated mutations and sooner or later will hit the wall again.

LOL. Again, your noticeable lack of eduction related to evolution is showing. Selection tends to removes negative attributes and reinforce positive ones.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Notice this says nothing about macroevolution either.

Evolution is evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This is not even relevant to Sanford's genetic entropy.

Not that it matters since Sanford has long since been refuted, but this is a lie. Sanford predicts that damaging mutations are accumulative. Thus they should not recover, but rather continue to degrade.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Good stuff but not a refutation of genetic entropy, which was clearly the protagonist here!

Why would anyone want to refute genetic entropy anymore? That is sort of like refuting luminiferous aether. Its been done. Its been replicated. It is dead.

You seem to want to reincarnate genetic entropy by showing unrelated research does not refute it. Is that the way science is done in your world?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117993
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

the dark lord wrote:
HTS here's one.
The environment is split down the middle between evolutionary flux and evolutionary regression, Darwin's just another observer and conjurer of a diabolical tricks on the mind.
No string theory of biology - Darwinism is the biggest hoodwink to obsess over narrow-minded series of arbitrary social observations to be construed as fact.
Bet you would struggle to find another biological theory for mankind. Of course you can't. Just like your struggle in the nineteenth century to name any other religious text other than the bible. You wouldn't. And the point is that you would not of thought it odd that you wouldn't.
Sorry Charles we began as God's and will end up bacteria swimming in another gods DNA protein molecular cell.
As I've before stated, it is fallacious scinetific logic to challenge a skeptic of a theory to provide an alternative scientific theory in the attempt to prove evolution. Intelligent design has been philosophically rejected. Darwinism is all that is left. What has occurred is this: Intellectuals have proclaimed ID has unscientific. Therefore, NDT must be true by default.

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117994
Feb 19, 2013
 
I create spaceship and the machines that go inside them. Do the algebraic geometry that's the only science i know that works.

Science outside algebra seems to me to be like whose right and wrong all the figging time. Isn't about time that these religious bishops (of science) gave it arrest.

Did you know that there exists nothing in creation that cannot be worked out in algebra. Wow. Now that is science in action.

The whole point of science is that there's only facts without the argument, i think it long over due that all the politicians got out of science completely and left it to the real scientific brains like my Mensa IQ1 scored mind.

You may not like it but you can not beat it or do a fig about that.

That's real science the facts speaking for themselves without all that fancy speak.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117995
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you telling us that there is a century-long global conspiracy in the scientific community to hide evidence of evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that there is a century-long global conspiracy to disregard the connection between the evidence and evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that only Christian cundamentalists are capable of scientific competence and integrity?
By the way, you didn't actually answer me. Try doing that, too.
Call it whatever you want. The history of science is one of the overwhelming "scientific" consensus being overthrown time and again, with popular theories supported by intelligent scientists completely collapsing. If you want another example, I'll give one to you... the AID/HIV hypothesis. Just because thousands of scientists say that HIV causes AIDS doesn't make it so. AIDS is not transmitted sexually. It is not an infectious disease. You heard it on this thread. It's not a conspiracy theory. Physicians are not deliberately trying to deceive anyone. Intelligent people are mislead because they're mired in a false paradigm.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117996
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Again, your noticeable lack of eduction related to evolution is showing. Selection tends to removes negative attributes and reinforce positive ones.
<quoted text>
Evolution is evolution.
<quoted text>
Not that it matters since Sanford has long since been refuted, but this is a lie. Sanford predicts that damaging mutations are accumulative. Thus they should not recover, but rather continue to degrade.
<quoted text>
Why would anyone want to refute genetic entropy anymore? That is sort of like refuting luminiferous aether. Its been done. Its been replicated. It is dead.
You seem to want to reincarnate genetic entropy by showing unrelated research does not refute it. Is that the way science is done in your world?
No one on this thread has intelligently refuted genetic entropy. All that is given are arrogant proclamations that the debate is over. No one has logically explained how 100+ mutations per generation can be neutralized by natural selection. How about a logical explanation, rather than canned statements that Sanford has been "debunked"?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,901 - 114,920 of171,269
|
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
•••
•••