Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#120252 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

And now, of course, we have experimental proof that populations can recover from genetic entropy, which once and for all puts his failed hypothesis to rest.
If you can direct me to such proof, I will carefully read it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120253 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have no such proof. You cannot even define what a neutral mutation is.
Sure we can. Just because you fail at your definitions do not mean that we will fail at ours.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120254 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your uncontrolled ranting is pointless.
Uncontrolled ranting? From a creatard yet?

Seriously How's That for Stupid, quit your current job and see how you do in the world of standup comedy. You will make a fortune.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120255 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can direct me to such proof, I will carefully read it.
Possible, but you would not understand it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120256 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can direct me to such proof, I will carefully read it.
We went through this just last week...

RAPID FITNESS RECOVERY IN MUTATIONALLY DEGRADED LINES OF
CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
SUZANNE ESTES
AND MICHAEL LYNCH

Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97
http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120257 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have no such proof. You cannot even define what a neutral mutation is.
A neutral mutation is one that has no discernible effect on fitness.

Even more precisely, there are types of mutations that we know automatically are neutral, such as those that change bases in a way that do not alter the instructions for protein sequencing in any way. This is because some different base combinations can give rise to the same amino acid instruction.

Thats for starters.

We also know that large portions on proteins have extremely low or non-specificity. Changing the amino acid bases in those portions of the protein has no effect.

On the non-coding portion of DNA (98.5% of it), there are large chunks of essentially useless or non-active areas where mutations will have no effect. I know you THINK the "junk DNA paradigm" is dead, but that is simply false and taken from a misinterpretation of the ENCODE results.

That is just a primer...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#120258 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it offered a hypothesis which if confirmed would provide such proof.
The logical errors, quote mined sources, and downright bad arguments and lies used by Sanford have been hacked to death for years on this site. So he failed. Too bad you are such a latecomer that you expect us to go through all that again.
And now, of course, we have experimental proof that populations can recover from genetic entropy, which once and for all puts his failed hypothesis to rest.
Enough already with your wreckless, unfounded proclamations! And your Estes and Lynch article was worthless. I've been on this site since Genetic Entropy came out and there hasn't been one single thing refuted about it. Years of denial and trash talking by a bunch of rogue pro-darwin bloggers does not add up to anything but nonsense. I've got the book right here if anyone dares challenge any part of it. Not from the secular scientific community and certainly not from the amateur darwin fanatic blogging community.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#120259 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We went through this just last week...
RAPID FITNESS RECOVERY IN MUTATIONALLY DEGRADED LINES OF
CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
SUZANNE ESTES
AND MICHAEL LYNCH
Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97
http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...
Doesn't even address Sanford and even worse, they assume "beneficial" mutations without any evidence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120260 Feb 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Such as...?
Firstly, he started with the unnecessary and obviously false assumption that there was "A" perfect genome and that any mutations departing from it will be neutral or deleterious at best. He quote mined Kimura's work, where Kimura had LEFT OUT beneficial mutation effects in order to demonstrate the effects of Drift, because leaving them in created too much evolution too fast as he himself explained.

Sanford also mischaracterised the DNA as a blueprint style instruction set...whereas its more of a recipe. That is a non-trivial distinction because duplication of instructions in a recipe is undoubtedly an addition of information. He tried to pass of gene duplication with the same argument he used on point mutations (some appendix...its 2 years since I read his book)....and failed utterly on that one.

He ignored the fact that even if you start with a "perfect" genome, then as imperfection increases, SO DOES THE LIKELIHOOD that new mutations will be beneficial. Its a Markov Chain leading to an equilibrium below perfection (which never existed) but above meltdown.

He ignored the fact that there cannot be ONE perfect genome because (a) whats beneficial in one environment may be harmful in another - think light and dark skin...and (b) a great deal of variation in the population's genome is beneficial in itself in halting the spread of diseases which are constantly adapting to the host gnome they find. Thus change (even drift)is beneficial if for no other reason.

He ignored research already in existence showing that a sufficient proportion of mutations are beneficial to overcome loss of fitness.

He falsely used concerns raised by biologists about RECENT losses of fitness in the human genome due to suspension of natural selection and lowered birthrates, as if these arguments applied universally which was never the case.

He mis-employed Muller's Ratchet which was only ever a problem for non-sexually reproducing species, as if it applied to all species.

He discussed the original Haldane's Dilemma without ever referring to its solutions...except for the misappropriation of Kimura's work which was one such solution.

He never examined WHAT proportion of the genome is so highly specified that any changes are likely to be damaging...which is a critical part of his case. There might be 75 new point mutations per generation, but nobody knows what proportion of these has any effect at all. Sanford merely assumed that enough did in the worng places to make the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations rapid enough so that natural selection cannot clean them up.

As an example, there are potentially 10^93 viable combinations for cytochrome-c ALONE, a small 100 base protein. Its idiotic to suggest that one of these is perfect and the rest are not. And if one is better, its highly unlikely that life anywhere is employing IT, nor does it need to be.

Research has shown that up to 10% of randomly generated polypeptide chains has some catalytic effect. So its actually quite easy to see change as not "starting perfect and working its way to meltdown", but the opposite. A weakly operating protein mutating its way to an equilibrium point far more powerful than the original, but never reaching perfection because when it gets close, THEN something like Sanford's argument actually works.

Interestingly, Sanford's hypothesis CAN be used to explain why bombarding seeds with massive radiation will not result in beneficial strains emerging...at least he did that. However, under normal background levels of mutational rate, it appears that life gets on just fine.

And that is just what I can remember. There are other instances of his errors, both accidental and one has to say, deliberate.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120261 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't even address Sanford and even worse, they assume "beneficial" mutations without any evidence.
Sorry but your shallow and ineffectual argument was already refuted. As there is no other mechanism for recovery in an isolated, genetically degraded population, than the improvement of the genome, obviously some mutations were beneficial.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#120262 Feb 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Read your Bible
It does not have any substantial answers, it still leaves how, when, and why completely unanswered. You assume one has not read it just because they disagree with you, yet in doing so you demonstrate that you have not, in fact, read the book you are purporting as having the answers. All it says is "god dun it."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120263 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't even address Sanford and even worse, they assume "beneficial" mutations without any evidence.
It does not address Sanford directly. Why should it? The man was out of his depths when he wrote his joke "Genetic Entropy". It does address Sanford's claims and busts them. And the corrections did come out at least partially by beneficial mutations. All of that is in the abstract. The details are in the article.

So what details did they get wrong?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120264 Feb 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough already with your wreckless, unfounded proclamations! And your Estes and Lynch article was worthless. I've been on this site since Genetic Entropy came out and there hasn't been one single thing refuted about it. Years of denial and trash talking by a bunch of rogue pro-darwin bloggers does not add up to anything but nonsense. I've got the book right here if anyone dares challenge any part of it. Not from the secular scientific community and certainly not from the amateur darwin fanatic blogging community.
Yeah right.

Just like you think the moon recession, polystrate fossil, comets, ID, Grand canyon = Mt St Helens, the nested hierarchy does't matter, and any other idiotic argument for YEC has never been refuted. And when all else fails, you either cry persecution or whimper something about "world views".

Like Russell, you will buy any superficial argument you think will be fodder against evolution while you are too afraid to even look up the links offered that refute it.

Sorry to sound nasty but this is all you have. Cardboard cutouts, straw men, quote mines, logical fallacies...

And like Sanford, you have contempt for human understanding and think its OK to ignore the truth so long as doing so leads people to (your version of) God.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120265 Feb 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
NO, it doesn't. Sanford's book was an abject failure. He started with an incorrect assumption and from there it got worse.
The major flaw in evolutionary biology-->

Evolutionary assumptions and extrapolations are tacked on the end of regular science....its plain despicable!

Dr Sanford has not been discredited...

...except by wishful thinking by evo-tards

Kondrashov and others have moved on at a rate of knots from there ...building on the premise of "irreversibility"... in the genome
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
He is a joke in the academic world because of that book.
There was no need to debunk it, since it never made its point in the first place.
So the challenge still stands for our creatard friends.
Find some real science done by a creationist science using creationism.
After you provide real evidence for evolution
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120266 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We went through this just last week...
RAPID FITNESS RECOVERY IN MUTATIONALLY DEGRADED LINES OF
CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
SUZANNE ESTES
AND MICHAEL LYNCH
Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97
http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...
Until a truly degraded MONOCLONAL line was used as in 2011

Why do you ignore this?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120267 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Red Herring.
Funny how every study you cited suggests a SLOWER molecular clock than was previously assumed. Slower, but not out of the ballpark.
Not only that, none of it refutes the arguments I made in my post. You could halve the speed of the molecular clock, or double it, and it would still show the nested hierarchy of variation.
You still cannot explain that pattern of variation in cyt-c, but evolution DOES!
Honestly Chimney!

Life consists of conserved core processes and modular regulatory circuits.

There is nothing unusual in cyt c, a component of the ETC in mitochondria that is highly conserved !

I am not aware that the chemiosmotic coupling hypothesis has been discredited?

As you may be aware the ETC --redox--is an essential component of ATP production in every cell involved in the production of H+ for the ATP-ase ..........by the coupling of the ETC to oxidative phosphorylation ....

How could any cell....possibly exist without this?

I am afraid your point in this regard is totally lost on me

And metabolism is NOT linked to Cyt c variation

Additionally...
There are faster molecular clocks as well, good buddy...

My point was nothing in this area of science is carved in granite

My previous posts on HLA-DRB 1 exon 2 vs HLA-DRB introns 1-4 was an attempt to highlight this...but seems to have fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes....

Especially SubDud's...

But he is just plain dumb
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120268 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right.
Just like you think the moon recession, polystrate fossil, comets, ID, Grand canyon = Mt St Helens, the nested hierarchy does't matter, and any other idiotic argument for YEC has never been refuted. And when all else fails, you either cry persecution or whimper something about "world views".
Like Russell, you will buy any superficial argument you think will be fodder against evolution while you are too afraid to even look up the links offered that refute it.
Sorry to sound nasty but this is all you have. Cardboard cutouts, straw men, quote mines, logical fallacies...
And like Sanford, you have contempt for human understanding and think its OK to ignore the truth so long as doing so leads people to (your version of) God.
Now you're being silly

World views do matter...

Just look around you

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120269 Feb 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not address Sanford directly. Why should it? The man was out of his depths when he wrote his joke "Genetic Entropy". It does address Sanford's claims and busts them. And the corrections did come out at least partially by beneficial mutations. All of that is in the abstract. The details are in the article.
So what details did they get wrong?
The more I consider Sanford, the more I realise he was NOT out of his depth. HE knew exactly what he was doing, and its right there in the preface to his book.

There are those who see in evolution: nihilism, loss of hope, societal breakdown, justification for brutality etc, as consequences of human nature being unable to cope with its ramifications, whether evolution is true or false.

Such people may put their desire to rescue society from this understanding AHEAD of truth, because they think like Jack Nicholson "You can't HANDLE the TRUTH!!!"

Sanford is therefore the arch-typical Liar for Jesus. He KNEW his book would never convince the experts, but he also knew he did not have to. He thought he was helping to preserve decent society against the onslaught of a knowledge too terrible to let loose.

Not the first scientist or philosopher to think this way. And the motivations of others like Urban Cowboy or Russell or HTC are often similar.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#120270 Feb 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right.
Just like you think the moon recession, polystrate fossil, comets, ID, Grand canyon = Mt St Helens, the nested hierarchy does't matter, and any other idiotic argument for YEC has never been refuted. And when all else fails, you either cry persecution or whimper something about "world views".
Like Russell, you will buy any superficial argument you think will be fodder against evolution while you are too afraid to even look up the links offered that refute it.
Sorry to sound nasty but this is all you have. Cardboard cutouts, straw men, quote mines, logical fallacies...
And like Sanford, you have contempt for human understanding and think its OK to ignore the truth so long as doing so leads people to (your version of) God.
Blah, blah, blah...more empty rhetoric and lies. Please stick to the subject.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#120271 Feb 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Honestly Chimney!
Life consists of conserved core processes and modular regulatory circuits.
There is nothing unusual in cyt c, a component of the ETC in mitochondria that is highly conserved !
I am not aware that the chemiosmotic coupling hypothesis has been discredited?
So what? The point is that a massive number of variations in cyt-c will do the job just as well. And only 30% of the cyt-c structure is highly conserved. The other 70% can be just about any base combination and this is WHY we see so much variation in it across the living kingdoms.

And, interestingly, the pattern of variation we see is a nested hierarchy consistent with evolutionary distance!
As you may be aware the ETC --redox--is an essential component of ATP production in every cell involved in the production of H+ for the ATP-ase ..........by the coupling of the ETC to oxidative phosphorylation ....
How could any cell....possibly exist without this?
You mean, any modern cell? In your infinite wisdom, are you asserting that no simpler antecedent process was possible in early life?
There are faster molecular clocks as well, good buddy...
My point being, faster or slower, the pattern is still a nested hierarchy and common ancestry explains this. Nothing else does.

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
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 11 min Davidjayjordan 21
Souls have weight .. 21 grams Experiment 15 min Davidjayjordan 19
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 3 hr THOUGHTS 1,875
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr candlesmell 95,413
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 hr 15th Dalai Lama 170,078
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 14 hr Dogen 116
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 14 hr Dogen 268