Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118475 Feb 20, 2013
So how many times have I answered your question now? Three times?

Your turn, how old is the Solar System? If you are a YEC you would actually believe that the Earth is older by a day or two than the Solar System.

And that is one serious joke.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118476 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your explanation is founded on raw speculation. You imagine that "neutral" mutations will often benefit the species. You are abandoning common sense. How can coded information with language type functionality possibly improve by random mistakes in replication. A monkey can never type a Shakespearean play.
No, not on "raw speculation". We can measure how many mutations there are per generation. They number between 75 and 150 per generation depending upon how they are measured. Most of these are benign. We can tell because THEY DO NO DAMAGE, the very definition of benign. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in the field and in the fossil record. We can also see it in DNA through nested hierarchies that creationists can't explain, but fit the theory of evolution perfectly.

You are biasing yourself when you call them random "mistakes". In fact the logical error you are making is that of "begging the question". You are assuming that the existing genome is perfect, it isn't. So changes in it are not "mistakes". If you can prove creation, or more properly find evidence for creation, then you can claim there are mistakes. Until then you have nothing.

And monkey's have typed almost all of Shakespeare's work. Of course it was supposed to be an infinite number of monkeys. It has been done with computer simulation and applying a version of natural selection, just like in evolution.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118477 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you read? I answered you.
Once again, do you think that all erosion leads to rough surfaces? Oh wait, you ARE an idiot.
Not all erosion causes rough surfaces.
Why no erosion

Why a paraconformity...let's say...let's barter...it's all equivocal anyway....for 6 million years?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118478 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why no erosion
Why a paraconformity...let's say...let's barter...it's all equivocal anyway....for 6 million years?
There is erosion there. That does not mean it is visible to idiots. In fact it seems to be invisible to idiots since I quoted a description of the erosion that can be found there.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118479 Feb 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because in the circumstances, the recoveries can only be due to beneficial mutations. There is no other source of recovery possible.
You cannot talk about a slow march to meltdown when the 80 generation recovery was obviously a slow march back from meltdown, caused by the reintroduction of natural selection, and Sanford claimed this CANNOT HAPPEN.
<quoted text>
Correct. They are still there. But new beneficial mutations over the whole genome compensate - actually over compensate until the the point of long term equilibrium fitness is reached. Not "perfection", but the point where new deleterious mutations are balanced by new beneficial mutations + natural selection. This can be analysed as a Markov chain. There is nothing mysterious about such equilibria.
<quoted text>
As will new beneficial mutations, giving the organism an equilibrium fitness level that is viable but below "perfect". The observations of the experiment are perfectly in accord with this view, not with your "inevitable genetic entropy" nonsense.
Your nonsense reaches a new high when you claim that the underlying meltdown is continuing even when a population gets increasingly fit over 80 generations until it reaches the ancestral (read: equilibrium level) fitness.
Sanford is falsified. You just cannot bear to face the conclusion that is right in front of you.
Why did two of the lines die out?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118480 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did two of the lines die out?
What two lines?

And I am still waiting for your answer on how old the Solar System is.

I know you don't like the answer given on the sandstone, but I cannot alter facts to fit a tard's prejudice.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#118481 Feb 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Actually, it was a creationist/ID proponent who said there was no theory to debunk.
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
Phillip Johnson
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johns...
By the way, see what I just did there? I said something, then I BACKED IT UP WITH EVIDENCE. Perhaps you could try doing the same, or shutting the fuck up until you can?
It might come as a humiliating surprise to you... But there is not viable theory of abiogenesis in existence. Therefore, abiogenesis is religion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118482 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why no erosion
Why a paraconformity...let's say...let's barter...it's all equivocal anyway....for 6 million years?
And one more point, it only has to be flat at the end of that 6 million year period. Who knows what it was like in between. But since both environments seemed to be very low elevation that odds are that it was fairly low elevation for that entire period of time. Low elevation areas very often are very flat.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#118483 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not on "raw speculation". We can measure how many mutations there are per generation. They number between 75 and 150 per generation depending upon how they are measured. Most of these are benign. We can tell because THEY DO NO DAMAGE, the very definition of benign. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in the field and in the fossil record. We can also see it in DNA through nested hierarchies that creationists can't explain, but fit the theory of evolution perfectly.
You are biasing yourself when you call them random "mistakes". In fact the logical error you are making is that of "begging the question". You are assuming that the existing genome is perfect, it isn't. So changes in it are not "mistakes". If you can prove creation, or more properly find evidence for creation, then you can claim there are mistakes. Until then you have nothing.
And monkey's have typed almost all of Shakespeare's work. Of course it was supposed to be an infinite number of monkeys. It has been done with computer simulation and applying a version of natural selection, just like in evolution.
How do you know that "neutral mutations" are "neutral"? What is your method of measurement?

As far as the revised infinite monkey theorum. Any force that could remove incorrect keystrokes would have to have knowledge of the English language, as well as an end goal to write a play. You're suggesting that natural selection is an intelligent force, ie, God.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118484 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It might come as a humiliating surprise to you... But there is not viable theory of abiogenesis in existence. Therefore, abiogenesis is religion.
But there are hypotheses. It is a work in progress. Creationism and Intelligent design are not even at the hypothetical stage today.

Too many of their hypotheses have been busted and it tends to make scientists a bit leery of producing new hypotheses when they have had so many defeats.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#118485 Feb 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy.
The universe is the result of a fart from the cosmic sheep. When it farts, it releases universes. There is no other explanation that makes sense to me, a mere layperson uneducated in the ways of science, so it must be correct.
This is the level of sophistication of creationism/ID. Some thing, for which there is no evidence, made everything. The way we know that is because we don't have a complete understanding of everything, and if things look like they could have been designed, that means they must have been designed. And, because absolutely anything could potentially have been designed, everything must have been designed. My complete lack of critical thinking skills and ignorance regarding science lead me to think this is the only possible explanation for how the universe came to be, so it must be correct.
We don't have to debunk your claims; you have to prove them correct. That means EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE OR GTFO.
Your level of sophistication is "nothing plus no intelligence plus billions of years equals everything".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118486 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that "neutral mutations" are "neutral"? What is your method of measurement?
As far as the revised infinite monkey theorum. Any force that could remove incorrect keystrokes would have to have knowledge of the English language, as well as an end goal to write a play. You're suggesting that natural selection is an intelligent force, ie, God.
We know since we don't observe them doing any harm.

As far as evolution goes it is easy to tell if a mutation is beneficial, harmful, or benign. And remember evolution's standards of what is beneficial may not be the same as yours. As far as evolution is concerned a beneficial mutation is one that raises a species odds of reproducing and spreading passing on their genes. So evolution does not care if it makes an intelligent being, or a fast being or a slow and stupid being. The genes must be passed on somehow or other. That is all.

I know that it is a bit disheartening to hear that evolution treats life that way, but that is the world we live in. Life ain't "fair".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118487 Feb 20, 2013
For the monkeys the selection process is not natural selection. We are not evolving Shakespeare. We are using a related but very different form of selection, "Shakespeare selection".

The problem with the original infinite monkeys example is that it is a very poor analogy of evolution since there is no selection of any kind.

By using Shakespeare selection the random process turns up his works rather rapidly. Natural selection in the real world is somewhere in between artificial selection, like we have done with all sorts of domestic animals, and no selection at all. Which we never see anywhere.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#118488 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It might come as a humiliating surprise to you... But there is not viable theory of abiogenesis in existence. Therefore, abiogenesis is religion.
Lack of a full-blown theory (what does that word mean in science?) does not make it religion. There are hypotheses, and they are being investigated and tested. ID/creationism doesn't have any hypotheses, nor any means of falsification (as it is merely an argument from ignorance), and thus there is no research into the hypotheses that don't exist, which means there is no theory forthcoming. So, abiogenesis: science. ID/creationism: not science.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#118489 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know that "neutral mutations" are "neutral"? What is your method of measurement?
As far as the revised infinite monkey theorum. Any force that could remove incorrect keystrokes would have to have knowledge of the English language, as well as an end goal to write a play. You're suggesting that natural selection is an intelligent force, ie, God.
Wow, you're stupid.

Death versus reproduction resulting in viable offspring is the selection. How those selections manifest depends upon the environment in which the orgnism lives. Are broad leaves a beneficial mutation for maple trees? What if that tree were located in desert? Would they be beneficial?

Is lactose tolerance beneficial? Or, is it harmful? Or, is it neutral?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#118490 Feb 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your level of sophistication is "nothing plus no intelligence plus billions of years equals everything".
Please show where I have ever said that, or words to that effect. You dl realize that "we don't know, but we're working on it" is a better answer than just making shit up to fill in the gaps as an argument from ignorance, right?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118491 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What two lines?
And I am still waiting for your answer on how old the Solar System is.
I know you don't like the answer given on the sandstone, but I cannot alter facts to fit a tard's prejudice.
Estes et all

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118492 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Estes et all
Not enough information.

And it is nice to see that Rusty is afraid to answer my questions.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118493 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is erosion there. That does not mean it is visible to idiots. In fact it seems to be invisible to idiots since I quoted a description of the erosion that can be found there.
A knife edge straight line for miles....

This excerpt is from an evo-web site:

"Hermit Shale - This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. Many of these blocks end up in the side drainages and down on the Tonto Platform. The color of this layer is a deep, rust-colored red. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians."

This is the part I am referring to---->

"This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. "

Easily eroded...

So, in 6 million years.....where's the erosion?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118494 Feb 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
A knife edge straight line for miles....
This excerpt is from an evo-web site:
"Hermit Shale - This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. Many of these blocks end up in the side drainages and down on the Tonto Platform. The color of this layer is a deep, rust-colored red. Fossils to be found in this layer consist of ferns, conifers and other plants, as well as some fossilized tracks of reptiles and amphibians."
This is the part I am referring to---->
"This layer averages about 265 million years old and is composed of soft, easily eroded shales which have formed a slope. As the shales erode they undermine the layers sandstone and limestone layers above which causes huge blocks to fall off and into the lower reaches of the Canyon. "
Easily eroded...
So, in 6 million years.....where's the erosion?
Really?!?! Are you kidding me? You really are this stupid!

Yes, it is easily eroded now, it is at a much higher elevation.

At low elevations, say sea level for example, three can be little to no erosion for a long long long long time.

The Grand Canyon plateau shows massive evidence of uplift. It was not always at the elevation it is at now. The shale and sandstone were deposited in a shallow sea. There is very little erosion ins a shallow sea.

Your question is like asking why a ball does not roll off of a flat floor.

They lied when they said there was no such thing as a dumb question.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 min Genesis Enigma 159,380
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 22 min yehoshooah adam 2,046
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min IB DaMann 58,601
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 50 min Regolith Based Li... 27,475
News Intelligent Design Education Day 17 hr Subduction Zone 8
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 hr Regolith Based Li... 219,629
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 23 Sentinel 1,758
More from around the web