Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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

#121186 Mar 3, 2013
I found this on a quaint old site:

“For example, human and tuna(very distant relatives in evolutionary terms) have 20 differences, while close relatives like humans and horses already have 12 differences.

Same site"

"Here are a few more funny relationships:

"Rattlesnake cytochrome c is closer to human (14 differences) than to rhesus monkey (15), dog (21), penguin (30), or even a fellow reptile, the snapping turtle (22)!

"Human beings are closer to the peking duck (11) than to a fellow mammal, the horse (12).

"Tomatoes and sunflowers appear closer to human than to other mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish, insect, or yeast.

"Mammals are said to have evolved from reptiles; these came from amphibians, and they arose from fish.

"By cytochrome c comparison, however, the dog as one extreme example is closer to carp (a fish) than to rattlesnake (reptile) or bullfrog (amphibian).

"The data show that in closely related organisms, the corresponding place in the chain may be occupied by amino acids which differ greatly in size, acidity, and electrical properties.

"Some of the differences, moreover, would have required multiple mutations in the same codon to evolve one from the other - in the face of the laws of probability." (Citation: Coppedge (1973))”

__________

As the king said in the “King and I”, it is a “Puzzlement.”

Unless you are a creationist...

Jump ship, Chimney

"Despite these corrections, the rattlesnake cytochrome c sequence still more closely resembles human cytochrome c than it does that of any other protein we know."

R P Ambler, M Daniel, Rattlesnake cytochrome c. A re-appraisal of the reported amino acid sequence. Biochem J. 1991 March 15; 274(Pt 3): 825–831. PMCID: PMC1149985
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#121187 Mar 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can only offer the thinnest pretense at taking anyone seriously who actually believes in a literal creation and Fall in the last 10,000 years...who can seriously believe that armoured fish with double jointed jaws (extinct 300 mya) or Allosaurs used their obviously carnivorous dentitions to eat lettuce leaves, who can ignore the fact that grasses, mammals, and birds do not exist until the later stages of the fossil record, who can ignore the evidence of light travelling over billions of years, or sedimentation requiring millions, or rates of radioactive decay accelerating by a factor of 700,000x, or....
nope. you don't even register.
Incredulity?

In the Taronga Zoo Sydney, the bear exhibit in Australia, 1999, a sign read:

‘Although all bears have teeth designed for eating meat, their diet consists mainly of plants.’

But maybe their teeth are designed perfectly well for what they do—eat plants—while in this fallen world they are also good for eating animals sometimes.

And this skull is of an animal classified as a ‘carnivore’ because of its teeth—yet it’s a fruit bat!

http://creation.com/images/fp_articles/2004/r...

No one knows what Allosaurs ate
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#121188 Mar 3, 2013
Rich full life beckons.....

Some reading in the meantime......
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

And...

http://creation.com/james-s-allan-genetics-in...

Adios

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121189 Mar 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it lactose intolerance? And could that be the normal state? Adults certainly don't need milk any longer.

Yes, lactose tolerance is the mutation. Intolerance is the natural state.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121190 Mar 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can only offer the thinnest pretense at taking anyone seriously who actually believes in a literal creation and Fall in the last 10,000 years...who can seriously believe that armoured fish with double jointed jaws (extinct 300 mya) or Allosaurs used their obviously carnivorous dentitions to eat lettuce leaves, who can ignore the fact that grasses, mammals, and birds do not exist until the later stages of the fossil record, who can ignore the evidence of light travelling over billions of years, or sedimentation requiring millions, or rates of radioactive decay accelerating by a factor of 700,000x, or....
nope. you don't even register.
I feel the same about evolutionists as you have more and much worse problems to solve than we.

Working backwards, accelerated decay; we have some possible solutions that seem reasonable. Sedimentation requiring millions; Solved! Distant starlight/time problem; solved! Geologic column issues; Solved! Carnivorous looking teeth/jaws; Solved!

Now back to all your problems.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121191 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
After the Fall

When did this fall occur then? There is evidence of humans eating meet throughout human, prehuman, and protohuman history.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Unless you are "normal" and can't digest milk sugars as an adult due to a normal switching off the gene for lactase...
Lactase persistence, as its called, gradually diminishes with age anyway..
But supposing you have lactase persistence, but the person with whom you hope to meld alleles does not?


Actually, Purdue researchers have shown a link between consumpt and intolerance. People with mild to moderate intolerance who continue to ingest dairy became less lactose insensitive.

There is a natural tendency to ingest less dairy products as we get older. I had lactose intolerance, but I have built up to where I can consume most dairy products without fear.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
But evolution it ain't

But evolution it is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121192 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Oogah boogah
Sour grapes, old chap?
Jono was published in Nature at age 22 yrs


So. He gave up science to be on the creationist dole.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121193 Mar 3, 2013
"Accelerated nuclear decay is not a theory of desperation as some critics claim, since there are both Biblical and scientific support for it. Furthermore, accelerated nuclear decay explains a lot more than reconciling detected amounts of nuclear decay with a young Earth; in fact, it provides a mechanism for triggering the Flood and more. One sign of a good theory is that it explains more than what it is intended to."

http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121194 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I beg you.....
PULEESE DON’T LET HER!!!!!!!!

God forbid you should have to see the actual evidence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121195 Mar 3, 2013
You like to mock what you don't understand. Would understanding it not be better?

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And coelacanth is evidence for evolution?

Yes, absolutely

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
As are bats?

Yes. We have a new transitional bat fossil (Onychonycteris)
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Bacteria?

Yes.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>Wollemi pine?

yes.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Crickets?

Sure
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Horse shoe crabs?

Absolutely!
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Starfish?

Um.... I have no idea. Starfish tend to decay before they are fossilized and are not well represented in the fossil record.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> All these creatures have fossils from “”ancient”” layers
And are indistinguishable from their “”modern”” versions


This is not correct. all these creature ARE distinguishable from their modern versions. There are no examples of fully modern forms of anything more than about 10 million years old.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Hence evolutionist must invoke “stasis” Its a laugh.

Why is statis a laugh? Distressed life forms tend to evolve faster as shown by the fossil record. Populations that are in stable environments tend to remain more stable. This is what the fossil record shows. The most brisk period of evolution in the last 100 million years was at the K-T boundary.


You like to mock what you don't understand. Would understanding it not be better?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121196 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did Denton “realise his own mistake”?
He has written pages and pages validating his equidistant hypothesis

He still believes in initial design but does accept evolution now, from the point of abiogenesis on.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Indeed, all the recent molecular clock research tends to SUPPORT his claims.

Molecular clocks would not work AT ALL if evolution were not true.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> “According to him, there are neither structural nor biochemical transitional entities that could link groups together in terms of descent from a common ancestor but rather, they are equidistant from one another.”
Consistent with creation.

That is the basis for his "retraction". Equidistant supports continous evolution (as supported by molecular clocking).


Huang S. The Genetic Equidistance Result of Molecular Evolution is Independent of Mutation Rates. J Comput Sci Syst Biol. 2008 Dec 26;1:92-102. PubMed PMID: 21976921; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3184610.

“The study here establishes the fact that the equidistance result is extremely robust and universal that is independent of variation in mutation rates. The equidistance result shows the outcome of evolution but does not directly reveal any information about the actual mutation process in the past history of life on Earth. New ideas are needed to explain the equidistance result that must grant different mutation rates to different species and must be independently testable.”

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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121197 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You can’t construct a phylogenetic tree with something that is exactly as different as is everything else
Please do not buy into evo-babble such as ...”well, WE knew that was going to happen...”
Evotards “knew” no such thing
“The genetic equidistance result is arguably the most remarkable result of molecular evolution since it was completely unexpected from classical Neo-Darwinian evolution theory.”
Sorry, bud, but its not remarkable.

Today's Reptiles, Amphibia, and Yeasts would be progressively more like bacteria than Mammals ONLY if:

1. They split off from bacteria at separate times. We know that the transition to eukaryotes was a oncer, so not possible.

2. The molecular clock mysteriously STOPPED in amphibia, then in reptiles, then in mammals.

And yes, it is precisely a PREDICTION of evolution that assuming the molecular clock is reasonably constant, ALL equidistant descendants from a common ancestor should have the SAME amount of difference from it.

And you can build a cladistic tree: just because all of them are equidistant from bacteria, does not make them equidistant from each other.

PS in case you did not know it, the molecular clock is only applicable to areas of neutral drift in orgnanisms, not in the highly selected (specified) parts of the genome. only under conditions of drift would you expect similar mutation fixing rates to occur (absence of natural selection on those regions - eg pseudogenes, ERVs, and the non-functional portions of ubiquitous proteins, parts of mtDNA).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121198 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes....
Special pleading
Evo-tards have to be great at it...

Scientifically it would be subject to the same classification system as is used for everything else. The morphological differences would be evidence for ongoing evolution.

No that any of this matters as it is hypothetical.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#121199 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
As a clever engineer has said:
“If fish evolved into amphibians, there must have been some creatures that were intermediate between fish and amphibians.


And we have.
Russell wrote:
If we found those intermediate creatures alive today, biologists would have trouble deciding if they are fish or amphibians. If we found fossils of them, paleontologists would argue whether those fossils should be classified as fish or amphibians.

Indeed, the transitional species we have is slightly more fishlike than amphibian like, so this is not an issue.

Russell wrote:
If we took Cytochrome C from them, it would be difficult to tell if that protein came from a fish or an amphibian.


Why would it?

Russell wrote:
It is easy to tell living fish from living amphibians.
It is easy to tell fossil fish from fossil amphibians.
It is easy to tell Cytochrome C from fish from Cytochrome C from amphibians.


Duh. There are no transitionals alive today. If such were found it would be extrordinary.

Russell wrote:
If evolution were true, one would expect the cytochrome C to blend as smoothly as a rainbow from one biological classification (phylum, family, order, or class) to another.
But, it doesn’t.

?????? This is just stupidity and indicates lack of understanding.

Now, what is wrong with this last argument? It is REAL obvious. See my comments above for hints.
One way or another

United States

#121200 Mar 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.11...
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
Baadsgaard, H.; Lerbekmo, J.F.; Wijbrans, J.R., 1993. Multimethod radiometric age for a bentonite near the top of the Baculites reesidei Zone of southwestern Saskatchewan (Campanian-Maastrichtian stage boundary?). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.30, p.769-775.
Baadsgaard, H. and Lerbekmo, J.F., 1988. A radiometric age for the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary based on K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb ages of bentonites from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Montana. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.25, p.1088-1097.
<quoted text>
You ignorance is understandable. Your foolishness for asserting something without checking is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating
http://library.thinkquest.org/C006607F/defult...
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ben...
<quoted text>
I would expect a child of 10 to maybe believe this, but it is just too easy to check the facts.
As I already demonstrated that absolute dating exists and that there are studies cross correlating radiometric dating methods I can move on to the dating of fossils.
You are making the common creationist error about index fossils. Radiometric dating show that the fossil record is so accurate that fossils can be used as a quick and dirty (but not final) dating method in field work. So fossils are used BECAUSE they are proven accurate, not because of some imagined circular reasoning.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ben...
<quoted text>
As demonstrated above, you are still wrong.
Another post of yours filled with antiscience assertions that you cannot support but that I can easily refute.
BTW, how comes you don't reply to posts that I refute you, chapter and verse?
I mean a reply with evidence, or data, or even reasoned argumentation? Blanket assertions are not really a RESPONSE, after all.
Morons like you believe whatever you're told, because that's what and how the government schools teach.

Now class, write down what's on the chalk board.
Now class, do the homework and we'll have a test on it tomorrow.
Now class, do as I say or you'll be sent to the principles office.
Now class, follow all of our rules or be punished.

Don't hurt each other or bully each other children, leave that up to us.

Now class, you should all try to be like Kelly, she's smart and good,-- which means the rest of you aren't.
Don't you children just love Kelly?

Now that you children have finished your indoctrination, go out there in the world and let your bosses and authority figures get you to do and say what they want, just like in school and remember, if you get out of line, you will be punished.

You Evo morons never questioned your minds imprisonment. Monkey see monkey do.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121201 Mar 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Accelerated nuclear decay is not a theory of desperation as some critics claim, since there are both Biblical and scientific support for it. Furthermore, accelerated nuclear decay explains a lot more than reconciling detected amounts of nuclear decay with a young Earth; in fact, it provides a mechanism for triggering the Flood and more. One sign of a good theory is that it explains more than what it is intended to."
http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay
"The "dating" equations in Humphreys et al.(2003a) are clearly based on many questionable assumptions (including: isotropic helium diffusion in minerals, constant subsurface temperatures over time, ignoring the possibility of extraneous helium, etc.). The vast majority of Humphreys et al.'s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these "dating" equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate. Using the best available chemical data on the Fenton Hill zircons from Gentry et al.(1982b) and Zartman (1979), the equations in Humphreys et al.(2003a) provide ridiculous "dates" that range from hundreds to millions of years old (average: 90,000 ± 500,000 years old [one significant digit and two unbiased standard deviations] and not 6,000 ± 2,000 years as claim by Humphreys et al., 2004). There are also serious ethical questions about how Dr. Humphreys handled data from Magomedov (1970) and other documents. Contrary to Humphreys (2005a), his mistakes are not petty or peripheral, but completely discredit the reliability of his work. To correct his mistakes, Dr. Humphreys needs to perform spot analyses for 3He, 4He, lead, thorium and uranium on numerous zircons from all of his and R. V. Gentry's samples so that realistic Q/Q0 values may be obtained. Finally, Loechelt (2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2009a; 2009b) shows that multi-domain helium diffusion models, which are far more realistic than the "creationist" and "uniformitarian" models presented by Humphreys et al.(2003a), are actually consistent with a date of about 1.5 billion years for the Fenton Hill zircons."

Yes, the source here is Kevin R. Henke, writing in GASP...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircon...

Sorry, Urb, but the entire ediface of geology and physics not to mention biology and astronomy and cosmology and chemistry...is not about to be toppled by Humphreys making a few cracker assumptions about the necessary helium dispersion rate through zircon.

Isn't he one of the guys who also misrepresented Coe and Prevot's work on fluctuations in a single magnetic reversal event, trying to argue that it could explain the 300 widely dispersed reversals on the sea floor as a result of tectonic plate movement?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121202 Mar 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel the same about evolutionists as you have more and much worse problems to solve than we.
Working backwards, accelerated decay; we have some possible solutions that seem reasonable. Sedimentation requiring millions; Solved! Distant starlight/time problem; solved! Geologic column issues; Solved! Carnivorous looking teeth/jaws; Solved!
Now back to all your problems.
No, bud, you have not even begun to explain the sedimentation observed, in the types of rock observed, etc. You think that is one rapid example of sedimentation can be demonstrated, all can be explained. That is like claiming you can stir fry flour and sugar in a wok for 3 minutes and come up with a wedding cake.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121203 Mar 3, 2013
Russell wrote:
I found this on a quaint old site:
“For example, human and tuna(very distant relatives in evolutionary terms) have 20 differences, while close relatives like humans and horses already have 12 differences.
Same site"
"Here are a few more funny relationships:
"Rattlesnake cytochrome c is closer to human (14 differences) than to rhesus monkey (15), dog (21), penguin (30), or even a fellow reptile, the snapping turtle (22)!
"Human beings are closer to the peking duck (11) than to a fellow mammal, the horse (12).
"Tomatoes and sunflowers appear closer to human than to other mammal, reptile, amphibian, fish, insect, or yeast.
"Mammals are said to have evolved from reptiles; these came from amphibians, and they arose from fish.
"By cytochrome c comparison, however, the dog as one extreme example is closer to carp (a fish) than to rattlesnake (reptile) or bullfrog (amphibian).
"The data show that in closely related organisms, the corresponding place in the chain may be occupied by amino acids which differ greatly in size, acidity, and electrical properties.
"Some of the differences, moreover, would have required multiple mutations in the same codon to evolve one from the other - in the face of the laws of probability." (Citation: Coppedge (1973))”
__________
As the king said in the “King and I”, it is a “Puzzlement.”
Unless you are a creationist...
Jump ship, Chimney
"Despite these corrections, the rattlesnake cytochrome c sequence still more closely resembles human cytochrome c than it does that of any other protein we know."
R P Ambler, M Daniel, Rattlesnake cytochrome c. A re-appraisal of the reported amino acid sequence. Biochem J. 1991 March 15; 274(Pt 3): 825–831. PMCID: PMC1149985
It's not the number of differences that matter but which amino acids differ.
When comparing the actual amino acids the Phylogenetic tree makes more sense.

There are some anomalies but consider this, cytochrome c has 104 amino acids of which 37 are conserved leaving 67 which can vary.
There are only 20 amino acids in all living things.
So it's very possible for two separate species to have the same mutation and that can account for the few anomalies.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Bio...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121204 Mar 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel the same about evolutionists as you have more and much worse problems to solve than we.
Actually I don't think evolution has any major problems left to solve. All you can come up with is non-problems for evolution such as the origin of life, a failed attempt to misrepresent thermodynamics, and some garbled formulations of information theory.

You, of course, like Russell, are just another creationist who maintains his personal scam through the studious avoidance of reading the evidence against your claims.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121205 Mar 3, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Accelerated nuclear decay is not a theory of desperation as some critics claim, since there are both Biblical and scientific support for it. Furthermore, accelerated nuclear decay explains a lot more than reconciling detected amounts of nuclear decay with a young Earth; in fact, it provides a mechanism for triggering the Flood and more. One sign of a good theory is that it explains more than what it is intended to."
http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay
How would accelerated nuclear decay account for the sudden appearance and then disappearance of enough water to cover the mountains of the earth?

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) 39 min showmethemoney 171,807
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Paul Porter1 142,587
evolution is correct. prove me wrong 4 hr Paul Porter1 9
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 5 hr Paul Porter1 36
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr thetruth 20,593
News Intelligent design 17 hr Paul Porter1 3
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Thu Paul Porter1 266
More from around the web