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 5,747)

Showing posts 114,921 - 114,940 of171,189
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117997
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree - fitness recovery would not be inevitable.
But its POSSIBLE and its demonstrated that it happens, and that completely refutes Sanford's hypothesis.
Explain logically how 100+ random mistakes in coded information can be "corrected" in one generation through "fitness recovery.
Mugwump

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117998
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
As always - I will ask you to backup your claim re: HIV/AIDS.

As always you will refuse

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117999
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
No but evolution is lousy at creation. Evolution (i have little or no doubt at all) explains everything about creational change over time inside eco-biological environments. No problems at all period.

But Darwin was a sound researcher who had a tendency to leap to wild conclusions. Of course the real darwin was taking monkey enhancer drags at the time he came up with his notorious (and sometimes ludicrous) string theory.

First law of Thermodynamics is a pure fiction. Split the atomic nucleoli and your left with depleted uranium. Another words a cultured monucular nature that is evolving but regressing over time.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118000
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Explain logically how 100+ random mistakes in coded information can be "corrected" in one generation through "fitness recovery.
Simple.

If the organism with the "100+ random mistakes" is handicapped by those "mistakes" (i.e.: "mutations") to the point that that organism is unable to procreate, he/she will not pass on those traits to his/her offspring.

Otherwise if those mutations are minor (eye color, etc), and there is no hindrance to bear offspring, then this 'mistake' may be passed on to the next generation of that organism.

Evolution 101, buddy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118001
Feb 19, 2013
 

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118002
Feb 19, 2013
 
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
No but evolution is lousy at creation. Evolution (i have little or no doubt at all) explains everything about creational change over time inside eco-biological environments. No problems at all period.
But Darwin was a sound researcher who had a tendency to leap to wild conclusions. Of course the real darwin was taking monkey enhancer drags at the time he came up with his notorious (and sometimes ludicrous) string theory.
First law of Thermodynamics is a pure fiction. Split the atomic nucleoli and your left with depleted uranium. Another words a cultured monucular nature that is evolving but regressing over time.
WTF?!?!?

RPG, maybe?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118003
Feb 19, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
<quoted text>
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

Stanford was refuted years back.

And it is evolution. Evolution incorporates mutation. Or didn't you know that?

In all you put forth a very emotional rant that falls short of both science and reasonable argumentation.
Mugwump

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118004
Feb 19, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.
If the organism with the "100+ random mistakes" is handicapped by those "mistakes" (i.e.: "mutations") to the point that that organism is unable to procreate, he/she will not pass on those traits to his/her offspring.
Otherwise if those mutations are minor (eye color, etc), and there is no hindrance to bear offspring, then this 'mistake' may be passed on to the next generation of that organism.
Evolution 101, buddy.
You are forgetting that (according to HTS) all mutations are harmful - he argues this by pointing out that the harmful effects can't always be measured .....

.......

Ah got it now , HTS was making shit up

Move along , nothing to see here

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118005
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
Explain logically how 100+ random mistakes in coded information can be "corrected" in one generation through "fitness recovery.
They don't have to be. 100+ point mutations represent less than .000005% of the total genome (in us) and 80% or so of that genome is "junk". Mutations which don't express themselves, are not "corrected".

“Pope & President”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118006
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

No but you split the atom of plutonium and you end up with depleted uranium.

So the 1st law of thermodynamics is a dead fish? i wished it frigging was.

The educators board to physics wants it continued so as to prove that all the algebra come back E = mc2(squared). Which it always frigging does how ever the algebra stacks up. And that's the meaningless point of it all, to prove Einstein's theory of relativity.

But Einstein was wrong on something else and that the speed of light being the fastest mode for communication and transport.

Today satellites are transferring information along timelines of space faster than the speed of light.

And wait for it Mantis warp to the Mantis spaceship is faster in speeds that the speed of light, a lot faster in fact.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118007
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't have to be. 100+ point mutations represent less than .000005% of the total genome (in us) and 80% or so of that genome is "junk". Mutations which don't express themselves, are not "corrected".
80% of the genome is not "junk". At least 80% is functional, according the ENCODE project.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118008
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.
If the organism with the "100+ random mistakes" is handicapped by those "mistakes" (i.e.: "mutations") to the point that that organism is unable to procreate, he/she will not pass on those traits to his/her offspring.
Otherwise if those mutations are minor (eye color, etc), and there is no hindrance to bear offspring, then this 'mistake' may be passed on to the next generation of that organism.
Evolution 101, buddy.
No one is saying that anyone is "handicapped" by 100+ mutations. That's my whole point. Natural selection cannot get rid of what it cannot see. In one generation, there is no measurable effect. In thousands of generations, there is measurable entropy. How does natural selection stop the progressive accumulation of mutations over generations? You haven't answered the question.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118009
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
No but evolution is lousy at creation. Evolution (i have little or no doubt at all) explains everything about creational change over time inside eco-biological environments. No problems at all period.
Evolution explains "everything" about creational change over time?
Explain how the first sperm-producing male and egg-producing female evolved from an asexually-producing species. Explain how sea turtles developed their migratory insticts that no one even understands? Explain how photosynthesis gradually developed in plants through mutations and natural selections. Do you know what changes in genetic code were involved? How do you know that such a process is even possible?
You are apparently mired in the paradigm of evolution, imagining that the repetitive parroting of stories constitutes science. Evolution cannot explain ANYTHING in the creation of species without acceptance of unprovable assumptions founded on a paradigm of atheism. A belief in evolution requires the deliberate misrepresentation of obstacles that logically prevent transmutation of species.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118010
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
As always - I will ask you to backup your claim re: HIV/AIDS.
As always you will refuse
I'm not going to simply post links. Explain to me why AIDS (a "sexually transmitted disease") is absent in teenagers. Explain why nearly 80% of AIDS patients in the US are males, whereas every other infectious disease known to man has no geneder predilection. Ask any physician who has treated AIDS patients if he has seen any empirical evidence that AIDS is transmitted through semen. Explain why AIDS is not seen in female prostitutes or in wives of hemophiliac patients. Explain why AIDS has NEVER been transmitted through a needlestick injury, whereas over 1,000 cases per year of hepatitis are so contracted. Explain why ONLY male homosexuals with AIDS develop Kaposi's sarcoma, while other AIDS groups (IV drug users, hemophiliacs) never contract it.
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118011
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution explains "everything" about creational change over time?
Explain how the first sperm-producing male and egg-producing female evolved from an asexually-producing species. Explain how sea turtles developed their migratory insticts that no one even understands? Explain how photosynthesis gradually developed in plants through mutations and natural selections. Do you know what changes in genetic code were involved? How do you know that such a process is even possible?
You are apparently mired in the paradigm of evolution, imagining that the repetitive parroting of stories constitutes science. Evolution cannot explain ANYTHING in the creation of species without acceptance of unprovable assumptions founded on a paradigm of atheism. A belief in evolution requires the deliberate misrepresentation of obstacles that logically prevent transmutation of species.
What a load of B.S. Try reading an actual science book.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118012
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is saying that anyone is "handicapped" by 100+ mutations. That's my whole point. Natural selection cannot get rid of what it cannot see. In one generation, there is no measurable effect. In thousands of generations, there is measurable entropy. How does natural selection stop the progressive accumulation of mutations over generations? You haven't answered the question.
[sigh]

First the mutations are not ALL deleterious (harmful). Most mutations are benign or neutral. Some are even beneficial. Of those that ARE harmful, if the organism is able to procreate prior to that mutation affecting the health of that organism, then it is passed on to the next generation.

If a PROFOUNDLY deleterious mutation is exhibited in an organism in one generation, it is unlikely that that organism will be able to procreate and pass on that mutation to the next generation.

How about those critters with the slightly harmful mutation, you ask? If successive generations acquire and accumulate additional mutations that eventually affect the ability for that animal to produce offspring, then guess what happens to that line of critters?

This aint rocket science, HTS....

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118013
Feb 19, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not going to simply post links. Explain to me why AIDS (a "sexually transmitted disease") is absent in teenagers. Explain why nearly 80% of AIDS patients in the US are males, whereas every other infectious disease known to man has no geneder predilection. Ask any physician who has treated AIDS patients if he has seen any empirical evidence that AIDS is transmitted through semen. Explain why AIDS is not seen in female prostitutes or in wives of hemophiliac patients. Explain why AIDS has NEVER been transmitted through a needlestick injury, whereas over 1,000 cases per year of hepatitis are so contracted. Explain why ONLY male homosexuals with AIDS develop Kaposi's sarcoma, while other AIDS groups (IV drug users, hemophiliacs) never contract it.
HOLY CRAP! What a bunch of HORSE SHIT!

Where are you getting this (above) "information"?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118014
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
HOLY CRAP! What a bunch of HORSE SHIT!
Where are you getting this (above) "information"?
Are you going to actually refute any of my points, or are you going to blindly swallow whatever you are told by the MSM?
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118015
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of B.S. Try reading an actual science book.
Try actually refuting my points, rather than making broad inflammatory statements.
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118016
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
[sigh]
First the mutations are not ALL deleterious (harmful). Most mutations are benign or neutral. Some are even beneficial. Of those that ARE harmful, if the organism is able to procreate prior to that mutation affecting the health of that organism, then it is passed on to the next generation.
If a PROFOUNDLY deleterious mutation is exhibited in an organism in one generation, it is unlikely that that organism will be able to procreate and pass on that mutation to the next generation.
How about those critters with the slightly harmful mutation, you ask? If successive generations acquire and accumulate additional mutations that eventually affect the ability for that animal to produce offspring, then guess what happens to that line of critters?
This aint rocket science, HTS....
How do you know that most mutations are neutral? What are your criteria for that determination? If mutations cannot affect reproduction as you suggest, then how in the world does evolution operate?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 114,921 - 114,940 of171,189
|
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
•••
•••