Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180366 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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#121523 Mar 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is,---the evolutionary fairy did it. Hypocrite!
Incorrect! Evolution is a very useable answer. It is being used to advance modern medicine every day.

Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121524 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Regarding DNA complexity and the C-Value Paradox. Is there not short poems of great complexity and very long passages at a low level? Or short music compositions that are undeniably complex vs. longer ones with simple repeated patterns? Perhaps this is sometimes the case with C-Value. If as we believe all kinds were created in the beginning, it would be reasonable to accept that each were designed with a unique genome and C-value for their designed purpose.
However, the theory of evolution does not allow for a earlier ancestors to have a higher C-values than the later species on the same branch. That is why it is called a paradox. This is major contradition.
Suppose the later dna is more efficient, then a smaller genome will do.
Also there's no reason why accumulated junk dna can't be dumped.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#121525 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you're going to claim that this experiment proves that mutations can create complexity, you need to define complexity.
I don't know if those 11 mutations increased or decreased the complexity of the enzyme (it could be either depending on how you measure complexity) what they did do was adapt the enzyme to it's new environment, thus proving mutations can be beneficial.
One way or another

United States

#121526 Mar 5, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect! Evolution is a very useable answer. It is being used to advance modern medicine every day.
Evolution is a fact. Deal with it!
Show us one good thing evolution has provided to medicine. Snicker!

Ya got nothin.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#121527 Mar 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution )
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-def... )
Evolution changes in population allele frequencies over time. The population is the smallest unit which can evolve.( http://biology.unm.edu/ccouncil/Biology_203/S... )
After studying this material you should be able to:
1.describe biological evolution in terms of change in allele frequency in a population.( http://www.life.illinois.edu/bio100/lectures/... )
I. What is Evolution?
Change in genetic composition of a population over time
What is evolution in Genetic terms?
Changes in proportions of alleles present in a population for a particular trait across generations
II. Where does variation come from?
Two processes, mutation and sexual recombination, produce the variation in gene pools that contributes to differences among individuals
Mutation
Mutations are changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA
Mutations cause new genes and alleles to arise
( http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/Bio-home/l... )
Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.... Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of extended microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into the evolution process. Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution )
It appears that science and reality disagree with you.
"Science" is not defined by a collections of quotes from atheist stooges.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#121528 Mar 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody has said they're impossible. What we HAVE said is that none have been demonstrated. Find one, and you'll be the first and only. Won't that be neat?
Give me a scientific explanation as to how the weaponry on the mantis shrimp evolved by mutations and natural selection.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121530 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"Science" is not defined by a collections of quotes from atheist stooges.
Come one HTS, enough with the dishonesty.

A true Christian would not be afraid to learn what science is or how it works. Why do you insist on hiding behind ignorance? Is it because you are afraid to learn how science is done and what scientific evidence is?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121531 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Give me a scientific explanation as to how the weaponry on the mantis shrimp evolved by mutations and natural selection.
Look at how HTS always demands something that he has demonstrated that he can not understand.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#121532 Mar 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said that? I will say categorically that a flowering plant will not have a mammal as a descendant.
<quoted text>
But evolution along with genetics does (baring the small amount of cross-species genetic transfer).
<quoted text>
The same principle that say that all the air in a room won't spontaneously move to a corner and stay there until everyone in the room suffocates. Seriously. Backwards evolution, while technically possible, has such a low probability that it is comparable to the air collecting in the corner of a room.
You say that a flowering plant cannot have a mammal as a descendent, but that a microbe can. I don't follow you your logic.

If you want to talk about probability, then how do you explain convergence?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121533 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying that microbe to whales does not violate nested hierarchies? Am I therefore to conclude that microbes and whales are within the same nested hierarchy?
Nested hierarchies, by the way, are not absolute. How do you explain monotremes? How did evolution produce them?
The reason you believe that nested hierarchies cannot be violated can be reduced to matters of probability. Yet you believe that anything is possible if given enough time, so that argument fails at the onset.
I read Origin of Species, and Darwin seemed to rationalize the observation of nested hierarchies into his paradigm of evolution. Certainly evolution does not "predict" nested hierarchies.
Tell me specifically what principle of Darwinism prevents a turnip from evolving into a dolphin.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm47k6QfdX1qjp...

That's why.

You had four years medical training, right?

Right.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121534 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that a flowering plant cannot have a mammal as a descendent, but that a microbe can. I don't follow you your logic.
If you want to talk about probability, then how do you explain convergence?
HTS, how many times have I linked the idea of clades?

Think of a tree with all sorts of branches splitting off from it.

Branches do not naturally grow back into other branches.

One more time, please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121535 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You most certainly did make that claim. YOu argued that redudant DNA constituted increased genetic information. Yet you constantly argue that redundant DNA is junk. It's obvious that you're not interested in truth, but in trying to win an argument. You're busted.
Actually no, redundant DNA is not new information. And it is not a claim I have made. If DNA is redundant it would be anything BUT new information. New information is the appearance of DNA which was not there in a previous generation, whether it be a simple change or addition of bases.

Forget biology bucko, you need some basic reading comprehension.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121536 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution has a huge problem with producing complexity. Are you willing to debate the impossibility of an irreducibly complex system?
Sure, just as soon as you can falsify every single potential pathway. I'd imagine that'd be quite the task on organisms with, for example, 3 billion DNA bases.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121537 Mar 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Naah, I'm simply pointing out that you're too stupid to argue the subject at hand, so like the simple biotch that you are, you change the subject.:-)
Jimbo, aren't you the nonce who starts ranting about weird gravity BS every time you get your azz handed to you on biology?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121538 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"Science" is not defined by a collections of quotes from atheist stooges.
Which atheists were those? Are the scientists who are Christians also atheists?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121539 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>"Science" is not defined by a collections of quotes from atheist stooges.
Yet in't it interesting how nothing in his post made a single mention about theology?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121540 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that a flowering plant cannot have a mammal as a descendent, but that a microbe can. I don't follow you your logic.
No. You don't.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#121541 Mar 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
HTS, how many times have I linked the idea of clades?
Think of a tree with all sorts of branches splitting off from it.
Branches do not naturally grow back into other branches.
One more time, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade
That's just ATHEISTIC BULLSHITT!!!

>:-(

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121542 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Give me a scientific explanation as to how the weaponry on the mantis shrimp evolved by mutations and natural selection.
Are you saying that ignorance of how something came to be makes it irreducibly complex?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121543 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You say that a flowering plant cannot have a mammal as a descendent, but that a microbe can. I don't follow you your logic.
If you want to talk about probability, then how do you explain convergence?
Eukaryotes and prokaryotes split long before flowering plants came to be, which means no mammal could ever have been a descendent of any flowering plant ever. And, that disregards the fact that flowering plants didn't come to be until AFTER animals came to be.

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
What's your religion? 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 29
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr was auch immer 165,408
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr 15th Dalai Lama 85,552
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 4 hr 15th Dalai Lama 4,869
God hates Tennessee 20 hr MakinProgress 5
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Jan 15 was auch immer 8
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
More from around the web