Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179628 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118533 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity and science go back a long way...
Evo-tardism has contributed NOTHING to the world
Just like Islam and science, which go back EVEN FARTHER, and both have been retarded scientifically by the same thing.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118534 Feb 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Remind us what's so "intelligently designed" about the laryngeal nerve. Who would EVER consider it "intelligent" to run 15 FEET of nerve to connect the brain to something that's literally about 3 INCHES away? Under what circumstances would that EVER be considered "intelligent?"
The so-called "imperfections of nature" argument dates back to Darwin, and is not scientific because it requires religious assumptions as to the nature of an intelligent creator. Show me the DNA coding for the recurrent laryngeal nerve that you would consider superior to what exists.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118535 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Population geneticists are well aware that when you suspend natural selection, deterioration may occur. This is not the issue. The issue is whether fitness can recover when natural selection is reintroduced. It can. Sanford is falsified.
Simply stating your opinion doesn't falsify what Sanford claims. Prove that natural selection can rid the human genome of 100+ mutations per generation. Logically demonstrates how natural selection can distinguish a few neutral mutations out of six billion nucleotides.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#118536 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're simply parroting what you've heard. A few years ago, 98% of the human genome was declared to be non-functional. That figure is now at 20% and is shrinking every week. Please explain to me the criteria for the designation "non-functional".
Yes I am "parroting" the known fact that 70% of the cyt-c protein can be altered almost limitlessly without it affecting function. That human cyt-c can be inserted into yeast and carry out its function just fine there.

That cyt-c conforms to the same nested hierarchy of variation across the living kingdoms that we also see duplicated in the fossil record independently.

Want a cracker?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#118537 Feb 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No. The neutral and beneficial mutations remain, but the harmful mutations are eliminated in the process of natural selection. That's what natural selection is all about. In the larger world it's the same thing as the slow rabbits are less likely to reproduce than the fast rabbits.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118538 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity and science go back a long way...
Evo-tardism has contributed NOTHING to the world
Interesting, you just stated christianity has offered nothing to the world.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118539 Feb 21, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
This would be a LIE!
Why do you "fundamentalist xristian cerationists" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion? I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.
You "stating a scientific fact" is massively ironic.
Otzi the Iceman's genome was sequenced a number of years ago. If his genome was significantly different from ours it would have made headlines around the world. It didn't. As a matter of scientific fact, Otzi had Lyme's disease, lactose intolerance and a predispositon for cardiovascular disease. And given the scientific fact that at 5300 years old, he may actually have been one of your bronze age FAIRY TALES fictional characters Adam and Eve's children, his genome should be VASTLY superior to ours. It ain't. Imagine that.
What a load of BS. If you think that man's genome has been measurably improving over 5300 years... prove it. Lyme disease, lactose intolerance, and cardiovascular disease exist today as well as in the past. You have proven nothing.
SA Kiteman

Arlington, VA

#118540 Feb 21, 2013
Folks,
Neutral, beneficial, harmful... they all depend on ecological context. What is harmful one day may be beneficial another. What is harmful one PLACE may be beneficial in another. Case in point, sickle cell anemia. In areas with no malaria, harmful. In areas WITH malaria, beneficial.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118541 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I am "parroting" the known fact that 70% of the cyt-c protein can be altered almost limitlessly without it affecting function. That human cyt-c can be inserted into yeast and carry out its function just fine there.
That cyt-c conforms to the same nested hierarchy of variation across the living kingdoms that we also see duplicated in the fossil record independently.
Want a cracker?
The recycled "imperfections of nature" argument has been soundly debunked. Why do you keep bringing it up when it is nothing more than an extension of the religion of atheism?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118542 Feb 21, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The neutral and beneficial mutations remain, but the harmful mutations are eliminated in the process of natural selection. That's what natural selection is all about. In the larger world it's the same thing as the slow rabbits are less likely to reproduce than the fast rabbits.
Storytelling is not science.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#118543 Feb 21, 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.
Yes. ANY conclusion that claims to understand the origin of life is not supported by science. And your belief in magic poofing is religion. The ToE does not address the origin of life, but it does address the evolution of life.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118544 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Population geneticists are well aware that when you suspend natural selection, deterioration may occur. This is not the issue. The issue is whether fitness can recover when natural selection is reintroduced. It can. Sanford is falsified.
You keep dodging the question. HOW does natural selection rid the human genome of mutations that supposedly are neutral? Simply stating that "Sanford is falsified" doesn't prove anything.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118545 Feb 21, 2013
SA Kiteman wrote:
Folks,
Neutral, beneficial, harmful... they all depend on ecological context. What is harmful one day may be beneficial another. What is harmful one PLACE may be beneficial in another. Case in point, sickle cell anemia. In areas with no malaria, harmful. In areas WITH malaria, beneficial.
Evo-babbling is not science. Sickle cell anemia is an irrelevant debunked example.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#118546 Feb 21, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. ANY conclusion that claims to understand the origin of life is not supported by science. And your belief in magic poofing is religion. The ToE does not address the origin of life, but it does address the evolution of life.
Abiogenesis is critical to Darwinism, and hiding your head in the sand doesn't erase the problem. Magic poofing of life from non-life is all that can be hypothesized at this point.
If ToE does not address the origin of life, then tell me precisely at what point life begins. Was the precursor to single cell life "non-life". At what point does the ToE arbitrarily stop looking for answers, and why? Can you logically, in your own words, explain to me WHY abiogenesis is not part of ToE?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118547 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Abiogenesis is critical to Darwinism,....
No, abiogenesis is critical to all notions of how life originated, even yours.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#118548 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of BS. If you think that man's genome has been measurably improving over 5300 years... prove it. Lyme disease, lactose intolerance, and cardiovascular disease exist today as well as in the past. You have proven nothing.
LYING again, I see. I never once said that the human genome is "measurably improving". What I said was that you were LYING about it degrading.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#118549 Feb 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
IN fact every point you make, I have already refuted. Simply repeating your errors wont help.
But regarding the first paragraph. NO. You actually have it arse-backwards, even according to Sanford. Natural selection will work more strongly when the population IS constrained by competition for resources, that is the whole Malthusian point. That is when the fittest will be the few that survive.
Sanford agrees that natural selection will slow the degradation compared to no selection. The only difference is that he thinks the bast case scenario is a slowed decline rather than an improvement.
IN this experiment we see improvement. You can cry that they attribute it to beneficial mutation, but the obvious fact is they do that because there is no other possible source of fitness improvement in the circumstances.
You haven't refuted anything. Now let's focus on your statement:

"You can cry that they attribute it to beneficial mutation, but the obvious fact is they do that because there is no other possible source of fitness improvement in the circumstances."

NO OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCE???? Chimney, whatever happened to "I don't know"? You refuse to give an opinion on things like the origin of the universe but with the reason for improved fitness, it must be "beneficial mutations"? Even when you have NO evidence? This is ridiculous.
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#118550 Feb 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science.
You would certainly know all about that, wouldn't you:

The first man was magically conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was magically conjured up out of a rib ripped out of the first man.

A talking snake.

Magic fruit that makes an eater really smart or immortal.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and warlocks.

Angels and demons.

Etc., etc., etc..
MIDutch

Sterling Heights, MI

#118551 Feb 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't refuted anything.
Oh, please. Your bronze age goat herder FAIRY TALE was debunked 150+ years ago. That's why pretty much everyone in the world laughs at you bronze age fairy tale cultists.

Heck, even most of your fellow Christians think you guys are insane.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#118552 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn...
You still have not suggested any explanation for the absence of erosion in this picture:
http://epod.typepad.com/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b...
Yes, that is Coconino sandstone and Hermit shale
The interface between the two layers represents MILLIONS OF YEARS ....40 million...
Where's the erosion between them?
Erosion occurs when the layer is at the surface. When other layeres accumulate on top of it, compression increases and erosion stops. You should not expect the entire layer to be eroded, because that would be something different than erosion.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min scientia potentia... 197,334
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 29 min Regolith Based Li... 31,277
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 59 min MIDutch 13,278
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 150,962
Evolution in action 1 hr MIDutch 1
News RANT: Is "global warming" today's version of th... Wed bearings 2
Another "gap" gets closed May 24 MIDutch 1
More from around the web