Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118358 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
SECONDLY
Irreducible complexity, as you have referred to the obvious design in living things, can not be dismissed quite so easily…
Irreducible complexity can be dismissed in one paragraph:

To establish that something could NOT have evolved in manageable steps, you would have to know and eliminate EVERY POSSIBLE pathway that could ever have occurred, which is impossible even in principle, as you cannot ever know and dismiss every single possible function, known and unknown, that any possible series of intermediate steps were evolved for. The most obvious mistake of IC is to assume the components or steps were aimed towards the function we see them performing today. Yet we know well that functions can change, parts can be co-opted from different functions, and so on. IC therefore fails, utterly, even in principle, even as a theoretical argument.

Sanford failed by making a falsifiable claim that was falsified.

IC cannot even get that far. Its a joke.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#118359 Feb 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I explained why it does not mean what you assume it means.
A particular slightly deleterious mutation that happens to get fixed in a population is unlikely to be reversed. Recovery comes from other, novel beneficial mutations. As it totally clear in all NDE literature on this subject, right back to Kimura.
Sanford, on the other hand, believes that when a deleterious mutation occurs, its another nail in the coffin for the genome and recovery cannot come from any quarter...hence his view that genetic entropy and fitness loss is inevitable.
Who is right? The nematode experiment tells us. Fitness recovers, meaning genetic entropy can decline under conditions of natural selection, meaning Sanford is falsified.
Sandford is right. You are jumping to the wrong conclusion. Besides mis-characterizing the recoveries as "beneficial mutations", the article is also right. Sanford would have no problem with this situation. He would say ok, this shows you can speed it up or slow it down, but that's all. The slow march toward meltdown continues regardless. The worm genome is finite so the mutations will eventually cripple it.

The deleterious mutations in each of the arrays, MA, MA-r, and C-L are all still there. They didn't get replaced or anything. And as time goes on generation after generation, they will continue to accumulate. If you took MA-R after 120, 220, 440, whatever, those same original mutations from the time they were pulled out of the MA population would still be there, plus some new ones. Fitness is restored - of course - with a large population and natural selection restored, but all the prevous mutations are still there and new ones are still being added.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#118360 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
SECONDLY
Irreducible complexity, as you have referred to the obvious design in living things, can not be dismissed quite so easily…
It is also the least of your problems when you believe that evo-god is the explanation for life and everything in it
Enter Stage (R)
Enzymes-->
“Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans. It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction”
--Wolfenden 2008
1)“Creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years in water’, but was speeded up 10^18 times by an enzyme. This absolutely essential enzyme is orotidine 5&#8242;-monophosphate decarboxylase, responsible for de novo synthesis of uridine 5&#8242;-phosphate, an essential precursor of RNA and DNA, by decarboxylating orotidine 5&#8242;-monophosphate (OMP).“
2) Another enzyme exceeded even this vast rate enhancement. A phosphatase, which catalyzes the hydrolysis of phosphate dianions, magnified the reaction rate by thousand times more than even that previous enzyme—10^21 times.
Without the enzyme, this essential reaction would take a trillion years—almost a hundred times even the supposed evolutionary age of the universe (about 15 billion years)!
3) In 2008, Dr Wolfenden co-authored a paper on another enzyme, which speeds up another essential reaction that would take 2.3 billion years. This one is ‘essential to the biosynthesis of haemoglobin and chlorophyll’, and it is sped up ‘by a staggering factor, one that’s equivalent to the difference between the diameter of a bacterial cell and the distance from the Earth to the sun.
And this has supposedly occurred over millions of years via a series of most fortunate accidents??
Tell me again about people who are delusional
__________
See this in regards to a scientist who thought evolution was a great weapon against the God of Christianity:
http://creation.com/matti-leisola-interview
Hilarious that you think Richard Wolfenden would support your nonsense.

Creation.com - even funnier!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118361 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution emphatically denies any intelligent force. Ernst Mayr:
“Darwinism REJECTS ALL SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.”
*(“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83,(July 2000),[emphasis added]
It rejects them. It does not rule them out. I don't expect you to understand the difference.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118362 Feb 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious that you think Richard Wolfenden would support your nonsense.
Creation.com - even funnier!
Don't be a putz

Where has it been suggested that Wolfenden "supports my claims"?

Read!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118363 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's my sweetener?
You said you were going to answer the question, then you didn't do it. And, you now declare that you refuse to do so. Great. So, you're an unrepentant liar. Good for you.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#118364 Feb 20, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Great, warping more minds. Isn't child abuse illegal in some states?
Reading his posts, I can't help but think of the guy from the 2010 Texas School Board, the creationist Dentist/Sunday School Teacher telling his third grade charges that there was more than enough room on the Ark for all the world's animals. So much room that the lower deck could be reserved just for keeping all the poop.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#118365 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be a putz
Where has it been suggested that Wolfenden "supports my claims"?
Read!
I did. You apparently didn't understand the point he was making.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118366 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, a mutation is not a mistake. That is only true if creationism is true and that is far from proven. In fact all of the evidence is against it. A mutation is a change, good bad or neutral it is a change.
And here is an example of a beneficial mutation:
The mutation that can give people sickle cell anemia is a beneficial mutation.
Experts in the field of sickle cell disease do not agree with you

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#118367 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A mistake is a non-identical copy. You seem to think that a non-identical copy could be superior to the original.
A non-identical copy could be less functional, more functional or neutral. Superior or inferior is subjective, depending on how an error allows for reproductive ability.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118368 Feb 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You said you were going to answer the question, then you didn't do it. And, you now declare that you refuse to do so. Great. So, you're an unrepentant liar. Good for you.
I BEG YOUR PARDON!

How about your claim that there were NO biology text books featuring Haeckel's drawings? In the last 10 or 20 years??

And listen Rumpelstiltskin....

....I have refused nothing.....

I am NOT the one that has referred to women's smaller brains as being more/less evolved EITHER
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118369 Feb 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I did. You apparently didn't understand the point he was making.
What was his point?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118370 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Oh Really? What observation in science lead him to believe in God?

Newton was raised Christian. He did (as I do) deny the trinity.

Any comprehensive reference on Newton mentions these things.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118371 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You must first define "supernatural". It's a very misleading and ambiguous term. I will answer you question as soon as you clarify what you mean.

I am afraid that is up to those who believe in supernatural to define.

Otherwise it is like creotards defining evolution.

Oh, sorry. I forgot.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118372 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>There you go muddying the water again. I have never suggested that a personal God can be objectively evaluated through science. Whatever sort of God Einstein concluded existed is irrelevant. The point is that Einstein said that science lead him to believe in a God....and you say that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be evaluated by science.

Correct. And completely congruent with what Einstein stated.

What is tripping you up?

I think you are confusing personal beliefs (about science and god) with actual science.

Einstein never said (and I dare postulate that he would never say) that science PROVED god or even provided material support for God.

If that is where your confusion is then there is your answer. If something else has you waylaid then please illuminate me.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118373 Feb 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists do, but evolutionists don't - they start with the dogma and go from there.

Evolution begins with the observation that evolution occurs.

Evolution is science. Biologists are scientists.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You said, "Fitness in a genetically degraded population recovered when natural selection was reintroduced, something which NDE says is possible but which Sanford categorically claims is NOT possible."

That is correct.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now Chimney, I just quoted the author's statement regarding evolution:
“A common assumption in evolutionary theory is that these mutations are not only irreversible at the molecular level, but have essentially irreversible consequences for population fitness.”
This is quoted directly from the article you provided which you say refutes Sanford.

I hope you understand why that common assumption is made, but I know better.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now the article shows this isn't necessarily true. So it refutes the "common assumption" cited in your article.

Not exactly. It would be better to say that it is statistically very improbable.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Now sure, genetic entropy eventually destroys the genome but this in the long run. Sanford does not claim that once fitness is lost there is no way to recover it. That is simply not true.

This is false. If recovery is possible then this is yet another falsification of Sanford.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> You can't show me where Sanford says t

The rest of this post is about Sanford, who has already been refuted.

I would rather discuss flat earth theory if we are going to take refuted science and pretend they have not been refuted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118374 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, in your arrogant mind, Newton was a moron... and you imagine that scientists today, who are much brighter than Newton, are not subject to such deceptions.

Why do you deliberately distort what other people write?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118375 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've never restricted my arguments to a personal God. ToE, however, denies the necessity of any intelligent force in the creation of species.

This is false. It has been demonstrated to be false. Why do you keep repeating it? Do you hope if you say it enough it will become true?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118376 Feb 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No...Fitness recovers, DUH! Sanford NOT AFFECTED.:D

Yep, he is still long since refuted.

How pathetic he is too. Refuted in print BEFORE his book hit the shelves.

An ACTUAL scientific theory would never fall that fast.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118377 Feb 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. There is no evidence of beneficial mutations. I suppose if the evolutionist, due to his worldview - assumes that the whole genome is mutations, I can see how they would make this error. But we do not believe that. A mutation is an error made during replication. You have to show the nucleotide sequence change before and after and what function/control/protein it codes for and what specific trait has been changed.

How can you repeat the same old lie day after day? What drives a compulsive liar? Usually it is drugs or alcohol.

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) 1 min DanFromSmithville 33,785
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min bohart 199,133
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 15 min ChristineM 151,274
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr ChristineM 14,797
My Story Part 1 3 hr JanusBifrons 1
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 8 hr FREE SERVANT 26
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web