Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120524 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt if you could teach one. You clearly are lacking in intelligence. In Rusty's world ice does not float. Force does not equal mass times acceleration. All sorts of insanity occurs there.
The only thing that matters is that I believe in God...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120525 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HTS, at least 35 dinosaurs have been found to have feathers. Some feathers have even been preserved om amber. If there was only one case you might have a point. But not at least thirtyfive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosa...
Do you have a high resolution photo?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120526 Feb 27, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
The myostatin gene was mutated, it is now a new myostatin gene that produces a faster and or more muscular dog. That is genetic information the other dogs don't have. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!!
That is horizontal microevolution and is a non-issue. No one disputes microevolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120527 Feb 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that matters is that I believe in God...
Uh huh, you believe in an invisible friend. Well now ain't that impressive. Too bad your god does not believe in you.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120528 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt if you could teach one. You clearly are lacking in intelligence. In Rusty's world ice does not float. Force does not equal mass times acceleration. All sorts of insanity occurs there.
SZ, Russell is obviously very intelligent. According to you, anyone who doesn't share your ridiculous religion of atheism is ignorant... And that must include Einstein, Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, and many others.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120529 Feb 27, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, our relatively poor eyesight is such a blessing <eyeroll>!
I see you are yet again introducing theology into what you consider to be science.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#120530 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Nano.
Long time no read.
Niceties aside, why it that a hoot?
Note that I did not give wicca practitioners a bump in credibility; I was simply differentiating wicca from "witchcraft". The former is a religious system and the later is a rather literal belief in spells, demons, etc.
So belief in the supernatural is acceptable just as long as it's not in the Abrahamic god? Where the fuck do you think the so-called "power" to practice/cast spells is supposed to come from if not a supernatural entity? Wicca, by it's very nature...relying on belief in a "boon" granting entity, is not really any different than any other religion where a god is expected to show favor to it's followers.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#120531 Feb 27, 2013
"its" :p

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120532 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, Russell is obviously very intelligent. According to you, anyone who doesn't share your ridiculous religion of atheism is ignorant... And that must include Einstein, Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, and many others.
No, Rusty is an idiot because he argues like an idiot. He might be intelligent but his faith has made a fool out of him.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120533 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have a high resolution photo?
Not right now. I will look since you obviously can't.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120534 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Cephalopod eyes only look quite similar to human eyes. That is because the job they do is quite similar. Genetically they are very and even their interior structure quite different from ours.
Add convergent evolution to the science that HTS does not understand.
The attachment of a label doesn't remove barriers to evolution. Convergence is completely inconsistent with the random outcomes that you keep saying direct evolutionary processes...unless you believe in miracles.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120535 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The attachment of a label doesn't remove barriers to evolution. Convergence is completely inconsistent with the random outcomes that you keep saying direct evolutionary processes...unless you believe in miracles.
How many times do you have to be told that convergent evolution only means the outside looks similar to other species. The DNA will still be massively different. Convergent evolution is not the creatard's friend.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120536 Feb 27, 2013
One more time HTS, cephalopod eye and human eyes only look similar. They work very differently. The DNA is totally different. The similar task of seeing cause a similar result. It does not result in similar DNA. All eyes will have some similarities since they are dong the same job. Convergent evolution does not negate the billions of pathway restriction of reversing evolution, if anything it confirms it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120537 Feb 27, 2013
Here is a link to an excellent non-avian dinosaur with clear feather impressions:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120538 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
One more time HTS, cephalopod eye and human eyes only look similar. They work very differently. The DNA is totally different. The similar task of seeing cause a similar result. It does not result in similar DNA. All eyes will have some similarities since they are dong the same job. Convergent evolution does not negate the billions of pathway restriction of reversing evolution, if anything it confirms it.
That presents an equally great barrier for evolution. It indicates that only certain specific phenotypes could evolve. It still contradicts your statements that it can take any course. Wen man evolved, it had to develop a lens, cornea, etc. It didn't have infinitely great numbers of choices. Therefore, specific mutations (yes, different than celalopods) had to appear to achieve that specific phenotype.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120539 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>That presents an equally great barrier for evolution. It indicates that only certain specific phenotypes could evolve. It still contradicts your statements that it can take any course. Wen man evolved, it had to develop a lens, cornea, etc. It didn't have infinitely great numbers of choices. Therefore, specific mutations (yes, different than celalopods) had to appear to achieve that specific phenotype.
Well obviously I meant any path within reason. And mammals had eyes long before men evolved, in fact before mammals evolved our clade had eyes, that goes wayyyyyyyy back.

Let's forget about topics that you do not understand right now and get back to the topic of evidence. First you need to learn how to crawl, then walk, running is not for a while yet.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120540 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well obviously I meant any path within reason. And mammals had eyes long before men evolved, in fact before mammals evolved our clade had eyes, that goes wayyyyyyyy back.
Let's forget about topics that you do not understand right now and get back to the topic of evidence. First you need to learn how to crawl, then walk, running is not for a while yet.
I'm not letting you off the hook on this, SZ... The proposed evolution of similar outcomes in unrelated species is a serious blow to Darwinism... and it's not just isolated to vertebrate and cephalopod eyes. Supposedly pentadactylism evolved inteo deifferent lines independently. It means that specific pathways are followed. How do you reconcile this with probability considerations?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120541 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not letting you off the hook on this, SZ... The proposed evolution of similar outcomes in unrelated species is a serious blow to Darwinism... and it's not just isolated to vertebrate and cephalopod eyes. Supposedly pentadactylism evolved inteo deifferent lines independently. It means that specific pathways are followed. How do you reconcile this with probability considerations?
Why do you say this.

You are just grasping at straws and showing that you have no knowledge of evolution nor biology.

You are 100% wrong about specific pathways being followed. You know that you have no way to support this nonsense.

When you are ready to get serious again I will do more than point out that you are being an idiot, but right now, you are being an idiot.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120542 Feb 27, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
The myostatin gene was mutated, it is now a new myostatin gene that produces a faster and or more muscular dog. That is genetic information the other dogs don't have. Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!!
Don't jump up and down.....

One swallow does not make a summer, neither does one fine day; similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy.

----Aristotle
Greek critic, philosopher, physicist, & zoologist (384 BC - 322 BC)

This gene defect also occurs in humans, mice and cattle

The dystrophies are linked with muscle hypertrophy from mutation in MSTN gene

See:
Kornegay JN, et al;The paradox of muscle hypertrophy in muscular dystrophy. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am.
2012 Feb;23(1):149-72, xii. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2011.11.014. Review. PubMed PMID: 22239881.

Also see here in regards to whippets:

"Having these mutations do however have their negative effects,‘bully whippets’ which double-muscled whippets are otherwise referred to, have double the muscle mass yet the same sized heart and lungs possibly resulting in a shorter life span, they are also prone to shoulder and thigh cramping."

Breeders prefer the heterozygous dog since they run faster but the poor homozygous one....?

Probably cast out

These gene mutations are akin to sickle cell anaemia

Advantageous to the individual
Disadvantageous to the population

Evolution it ain't
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120543 Feb 27, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it odd, only fundamentalist Christians (and fundamentalist Muslims) are able to recognize this? Nobody else is competent at science but for them. What a strange phenomenon. What do you think explains this?
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it odd, only fundamentalist Christians (and fundamentalist Muslims) are able to recognize this? Nobody else is competent at science but for them. What a strange phenomenon. What do you think explains this?
Because men like darkness and reject light

Please do not bring Islam into this...
This is no place for rabid irrationality and rage...

The evidence is there
It is acknowledged by scientists constantly...

Just last night I was reading a 2013 paper listing the issues with molecular genetic clocks....

Can't be bothered referencing it here....

....unless asked ......very nicely

So the information is not only acknowledged and well known but new research techniques are developed in order to overcome the current problems

Nothing wrong with that except the evo-story telling that accompanies scientific findings

Kondrashov has said in a personal communication to Sanford, Pg 172 Genetic Entropy.....UC can verify this ...

That the mutation rate may be as high as 300 U!

Kondrashov accepts this as an issue...

But dismisses the entire problem with synergistic epistasis and truncation selection

Currently, the irreversibility and unidirectionality of genomic changes with mutations seen in recent research by Kondrashov and others mean that genomes CANT regain previous fitness

So my comment to Chimney is just 3 words:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..........Two lines died..........

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 11 min Subduction Zone 288
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 13 min King Carrot 917
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Into The Night 67,042
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 21 min Genesis Enigma 160,935
Stacking the Deck and Intellectual Integrity 1 hr MADRONE 26
One species or three 1 hr Timmee 282
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 28,571
More from around the web