Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,193

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." Full Story
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..........

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120544 Feb 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

Please do not bring Islam into this...
This is no place for rabid irrationality and rage...
Now that is rich. Luckily I unplug all of my irony meters, put them in a dark box in the garage, and lock the door. Otherwise there would be explosions for sure.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120545 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is rich. Luckily I unplug all of my irony meters, put them in a dark box in the garage, and lock the door.........
Precisely where your brain usually resides as well...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120546 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And of course feathers are preserved rarely. They are similar to skin. Skin impressions are very rare and so are feathers, far more dinosaurs probably had feathers than we have records of.
Have the "feathers" been checked under a scanning electron microscope of low image size?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120547 Feb 28, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
HELLO
HELLO
Sorry,not sure you can hear me with all the echos coming from the walls of the hole you have just dug yourself into.
Ok you have qualified your statement slightly with the drugs caveat (which suggests you were bending the 'facts' initially)
So do you now want to provide evidence that NO female prostitutes that are drug free have ever contracted HIV/AIDS.
I apologize to others for laboring this point - but as I mentioned goes towards your credibility.
I did tell you it was the prostitute paradox...

But you went..."nooooo...!"

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120548 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Have the "feathers" been checked under a scanning electron microscope of low image size?
I don't know. Nor do I have any idea why they would since they are visible to the naked eye.

Do you know what a feather looks like?

I do.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#120549 Feb 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, cephalopod eyes are superior to vertebrate eyes in that they don't have a blind spot created by attachment of the optic nerve to the front of the retina. Their optic nerve attaches to the back side of the retina, just like an intelligent designer would have done for vertebrates, if there had been one.
Is that why we say someone has eyes like an octopus? instead of like an eagle?

How about some real challenges that have not been done to death and refuted ages ago?

Our inverted retina is great design...

How would you arrange for heat dissipation and gas exchange?

The choroid can't go in front of the retina......its opague!

It contains the red blood cells...in the blood vessels carrying the blood supply for the retina's very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE).

This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati has said:

"The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity!

More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons.

Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1,000 to one.

His Ph.D. thesis and published papers in secular journals largely involve a technique called Raman spectroscopy, which analyzes extremely weak scattering at a slightly different frequency from that of the incident laser radiation.

The major equipment hazard for Raman spectroscopists is scanning at the incident frequency—the still weak Rayleigh scattering at the same frequency would blow the photomultiplier (the newer ones have an automatic shut-off).

He managed to safely scan the Rayleigh line (for calibration) only by using filters to attenuate the intensity of light entering the photomultiplier by a factor of 10-7 to 10-8. But having to take such an extreme safety precaution made him envious and admiring of the way the eye is so brilliantly designed to cope with a far wider range of intensities.

Dr John Stevens, an associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering, pointed out that it would take ‘a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second.’

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chap...

http://creation.com/is-our-inverted-retina-re...

http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwin...

http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-...

__________

"Cephalopods don’t see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It’s more like ‘a compound eye with a single lens."

AND, Cephalopods are likely colour blind

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120551 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're confusing "AIDS" with HIV positivity. That's why the water is so muddy. Magic Johnson is HIV positive. He does not have AIDS. I am not a conspiracy theorist... But I don't naively swallow everything that is popular, particularly if political ramifications are involved, such as with AIDS.
When AIDS was first announced to be a viral illness, it was announced through a press conference... Not after peer-reviewed articles. The medical community was "told" that it was a viral illness when controversy was still very active. Thereafter, the mainstream capitulated to political pressure. Peter Duesberg, a renowned virologist at Berkeley, discontinued receiving research grants because he questioned the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Today, most physicians accept that HIV causes AIDS because that is what they've been taught. But when you actually question them about it, they acknowledge many inconsistencies with the current dogma. I know a hospitalist who told me he's quit HIV testing in teenagers with STD's because he thinks it's a waste of money.
Dr. Peter Duesberg is credited with mapping the retroviral genome. He is a real scientist. A real scientist questions conventional dogma, even if those views are not popular. You consistently accuse anyone who doesn't go with the flow as being anti-science. You have it backwards.

100% of AIDS patients are HIV positive.

"Duesberg's HIV/AIDS claims have been rejected as incorrect and disproven by the scientific community.[6][7][8] Reviews of his opinions in Nature[9] and Science[10] asserted that they were unpersuasive and based on selective reading of the literature, and that although Duesberg had a right to a dissenting opinion, his failure to fairly review evidence that HIV causes AIDS meant that his opinion lacked credibility."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg

^ a b c Kalichman, Seth C.(2009). Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy. Berlin: Springer. pp. 25–56. ISBN 0-387-79475-1.

^ a b Schechter M, Craib K, Gelmon K, Montaner J, Le T, O'Shaughnessy M (1993). "HIV-1 and the aetiology of AIDS". Lancet 341 (8846): 658–9. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)90421 -C. PMID 8095571.

^ Weiss RA, Jaffe HW (June 1990). "Duesberg, HIV and AIDS". Nature 345 (6277): 659–60. Bibcode 1990Natur.345..659W. doi:10.1038/345659a0. PMID 2163025.

^ a b c d Goertzel, T.(2010). "Conspiracy theories in science". EMBO Reports 11 (7): 493–499. doi:10.1038/embor.2010.84. PMC 2897118. PMID 20539311. edit

^ a b c d Cohen, J (1994). "The Duesberg phenomenon". Science 266 (5191): 1642–4. Bibcode 1994Sci...266.1642C. doi:10.1126/science.7992043. PMID 7992043. edit See also The Controversy over HIV and AIDS, the full set of articles by Cohen.

^ a b Maddox, J.(1993). "Has Duesberg a right of reply?". Nature 363 (6425): 109–199. Bibcode 1993Natur.363..109M. doi:10.1038/363109a0. PMID 8483492. edit


HIV/AIDS expert Max Essex, who suggests that,

"...history will judge Duesberg as either "a nut who is just a tease to the scientific community" or an "enabler to mass murder" for the deaths of many AIDS patients in Africa."

I vote culpable in the deaths of millions.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#120552 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice dodging, Christine. The papers do not document any ages. Ages are simply stated. If you want to begin a scientific discussion, then let's validate some facts and dispense with the pontification.
How do you know? You have not read them you are just ranting and putting forward unfounded rejection and denial based on deliberate ignorance and creationist incredulity because such tests disprove your faith which is built on nothing other than you don’t understand it must have been goddidit by magic.

As indicated, some of those documents are simply museum literature based on scientific investigation and were included because I considered the children’s section was more or less the level you could comprehend. Other documents are peer reviewed and reference the type of testing used, times, dates, places, artefacts measured, equipment used and it’s calibration certificate information, those present, those doing the tests and their qualification, the acknowledged accuracy of that testing, those verifying the tests and their qualification etc, etc. In other words correct scientific testing using correct scientific procedural methods.

The documentation is laid out in such a way so that any other interested party can repeat those same experiments, test and procedures so that peer review can be accurate and if required offer criticism or methods and offer alternatives

In other they are falsifiable, as true scientific work must be.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120553 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why we say someone has eyes like an octopus? instead of like an eagle?

We should.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> How about some real challenges that have not been done to death and refuted ages ago?

Yawn, I bet you have nothing that is either new or valid
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Our inverted retina is great design...

It has a number of problems. If it was so great why did god need to experiment with it and get it wrong in so many creatures. Apparently design sucks.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> How would you arrange for heat dissipation and gas exchange?

Evolution takes care of these things, in time.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> The choroid can't go in front of the retina......its opague!

Apparently a straw-man, but it could be you really don't know how the eyes of other creatures work.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> It contains the red blood cells...in the blood vessels carrying the blood supply for the retina's very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE).

.......so.......
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat.

Apparently not.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Dr Jonathan Sarfati has said:

End of discussion. You just lost.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#120554 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
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!
..........Two lines died..........
Yep, it's it right here on page 172, Genetic Entropy:

"Since this paper, Dr. Kondrashov has indicated to me by way of personal communication that 100 was just a lower estimate and that 300 is his upper estimate. He also indicated to me that he now believes up to 30% of the mutations may be deleterious. This means that, from his persepective, "U" (deleterious mutations per generation) would be 30-90. This is 100 fold higher than would have previously been considered possible. In the end, he dismisses the entire problem with "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection".

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#120555 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know that evolution did anything... You assume evolutiondidit. What do you always give evolution the default position? Because your RELIGION requires it.
Yes we do because of observation, measurement, logic, science, medicine etc in :-

The universal genetic code.
The fossil record.
Genetic commonalties.
Common traits in embryos.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
Teeth
Toxin resistance in snakes
Lactose acceptance in humans
Lizards and other animals including
Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus)
And various species of Galapagos finches

Are just a few measures that evolution can be proven

As for my religion, weeellll, I am certainly a more content person spiritually knowing that I prefer to follow fact backed up with evidence rather than goddidt fictions backed up by bronze age ignorance and guesswork.
One way or another

United States

#120556 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Early feathers would not have been suitable for flying.
Ignorant putz.
Ah, the moron pretends not to understand what HTS says.

That's normal for you dog sh* t.
One way or another

United States

#120557 Feb 28, 2013
What HTS said

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. If you say that feathers started out as heat regulators before flight, the ony logical conclusion is an end goal. Otherwise they would not have been pre-adapted for flight.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120558 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>A dog and a cat supposedly evolved from a common ancestor. A dog could be bred to that common ancestor, and then bred to a cat. You think a cat evolved from a microbe. Are you suggesting that it would be easier to take a microbe and breed it into a cat, or would you rather start with a dog? There is significant DNA homology between a dog and a cat... far more than between a cat and a microbe.
Have you been watching "Altered States"?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120559 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Ah,... a good laugh refreshes me.
As if we could breed backwards and forwards with full intention without being able to control even for mutations.
Is this really your understanding of evolution. If it is then I really don't know where to start with you.
Unlearning is about as hard as unevolving.
And this from a guy who claims to be a physician and who criticizes ToE without even a high school understanding of it. Laughable.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120560 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Hmm, let's look at the evolutionary changes HST wants done in an analog. Now each evolutionary change is literally a one out of a billion chance of occurring. Actually one of three billion. We don't know the genetics of the common ancestor, though we could derive what many of them were. If a cat and a dog shared a gene the odds are almost certain that the common ancestor had that gene. So this is not a totally blind expedition. And let's say there are only 10,000 difference between a dog and a cat. So somehow with guided evolution we have to steer backwards through 10,000 changes each at an odds of one in a billion of occurring.
Do you start to see the problem with even guided evolution for an existing goal? Evolution works by "good enough". If a change is good enough for a species to keep breeding it lives on. If it does not evolve to meet changes in the environment it dies out. If there are no changes in environment there is no pressure to evolve and the existing species stabilizes around the existing alleles.
I think it impossible. To UN-evolve, one would have to have to be able to determine what the previous genetics were - as you correctly point out.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#120561 Feb 28, 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?
Since when has finding a solution that works been a blow to Darwinism?

That fact that there are similar solutions to similar problems demonstrates how easy evolution is.

Coincidentally just a couple of weeks ago I was watching a program hosted by Professor Brian Cox that focussed some time on the evolution of the eye

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qm913
http://weirderthanyouthink.wordpress.com/2013...
http://inagist.com/all/298185535745294336/ The great David Attenborough thinks the evolution of the eye is a key piece of evidence for Darwin's theories
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations/Visua...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120562 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>if infinite numbers of pathways to evolution, there would be no convergence such as similar complex image-forming eyes in humans and cephalopods. Your innumerable pathways are imaginary and your intuitions are not borne out be scientific evidence.
Sight is a survival advantage. It is no surprise that it developed multiple times. See PAX6 gene.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min The Dude 14,497
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min dirtclod 141,752
Science News (Sep '13) 3 hr Ricky F 2,961
Darwin on the rocks 4 hr The Dude 827
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 4 hr ChristineM 780
The conditions necessary for homo sapiens to sp... 14 hr NoahLovesU 5
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Sun -TheExam- 13,957
More from around the web