Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178616 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121681 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is rather presumptious of you to call Dr. C. Everett Koop a lunatic. Your lack of respect is appalling!
Clearly his religious views were lunatic.

Where he has done good, he deserves respect, and I gave it.
One way or another

United States

#121682 Mar 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tack strips. Spin causes gravity. Running while counting. Yes, you've really enlightened humanity during your tenure here.
Too bad no one was able to refute them.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121683 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dreamy ruminations and random imaginings are not evidence. You've got a (new) major problem with this C-Value Paradox. Sanford is the real deal and nothing you've said can change that.
Hilarious.

Straw man argument at its worst.

So perhaps now you can explain WHY your so called C-paradox should be a problem for evolution anyway, because as far as anyone who understands evolution is concerned, its not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121684 Mar 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't like religion or preachers, priests and rabbi's. I think most, if not all have sold themselves for money, but a moron like you always plays follow the head moron, because you have nothing of your own. No wonder you're pleased, an idiot like you has nothing else.
Lets face it. You do not like anyone.
One way or another

United States

#121685 Mar 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No headache.
Increasing genome size is easy - gene duplications etc. Some organisms have undergone whole chromosome duplications in modern times (e.g. wheat).
Decreasing genome size is also easy. When functions become redundant, why shouldn't the genome shrink? I can think of two immediate examples. One is parasitism, where we have seen whole organisms' function reduced to a minimum as they evolved into gut parasites etc.
The other is an interesting one I came across many years ago. Cold blooded creatures whose internal temperature can vary markedly often have to have multiple enzymes to perform the same function at different temperatures. After the internal homeostasis of constant temperature is achieved by warm bloodedness, this complexity requirement immediately falls.
Perhaps this is what enables greater complexity in OTHER directions, leading to the more complex physiology of mammals and birds by comparison with reptiles and amphibians.
In addition it is well known that the complexity of particular genes is higher in mammals etc than in worms. Thus its not just a case of number of genes but the amount of information coded per gene.
Nice try but you are not going to get far with this one.
Finally, it was determined back in the 1970s that there was a probable limit on the number of possible genes based on LEGITIMATE studies of the interplay between order and genetic entropy...yes, well preceding your phony friend Sanford. That research suggested a ceiling of around 30,000 genes...a puzzle at the time because it was assumed the human complement was far larger. But as it turned out, these predictions were correct.
All that BS and not one shred of evidence in your post. Ha! Normal for a deceitful little biotch like you chimney.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#121686 Mar 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, when humans do it, its called "artificial selection".
When nature does it, its called "natural selection".
The human version leads to more rapid visible results because its generally done with a goal in mind. But either way, the existence of variation and the non-random selection of some variations over others leads to change.
And NEVER resulting in innovation

Natural selection is restricted and has limitations based on the genome

These so-called variations produced by natural selection are not evolution...

The smallest flowering plant genome is only about 0.1 picograms ---flowering plant range 0.10–127.0 pg----

Whereas the largest alga is 19.6 picograms -----algal range 0.01–19.6 pg

Clearly, flowering plants are much more complex than algae
....so there is more to complexity than a simple comparison of genome sizes.

Genome size has been linked to cell size eg amoeba vs RBC and to protein requirements

As described by Dr Batten here:

"Protozoa (for example amoebae) range from tiny to huge in their nuclear DNA amounts, some of them greatly exceeding the human number of base pairs.2 It is not really understood why this is so. It could have something to do with cell size, where organisms with large cells have a form of endoreduplication, where the DNA multiplies up to be able to provide enough mRNA transcripts to supply the large cell’s protein requirements. Specialized, enlarged plant cells do this (I have measured the relative amounts of DNA in the nuclei of such cells using microfluorimetry). Actual genome decoding does not suggest that protozoan genomes are large in terms of numbers of different genes, although at present the largest amoeba genomes have not been sequenced. Typical sequenced genomes of protozoans seem to be of the order of about 25 million base pairs.3 I expect that the large protozoan genomes, when they are sequenced, will reveal large-scale duplication of genes, such that that total number of different genes will be of the same order as other protozoans. In support of this, Amoeba dubia, the one with the largest reported amount of DNA, is the largest sized amoeba cell known, being visible to the naked eye—up to a millimetre in length. This compares with 0.009 mm diameter for a human red blood cell. Considering that the volume of a cell scales with greater than the square of the radius, the volume of Amoeba dubia cells is huge (~10,000x) compared to human cells. This almost certainly has something to do with the huge amount of DNA it contains."

http://creation.com/dawkins-and-the-origin-of...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121687 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
No I didn’t expect it would
Nothing is a problem for evo-god
Even if data totally dismantle evolutionary wishful thinking……..Evo-god stands
When molecular clocks demolish the pretence of evolution in the fossil record…….no problem for evo-god
Yet that is not what your quotes claimed. That's the point. What was said in your quotes is no problem for evolution.

Sorry if that frustrates you to the point of lashing out. But that is the way it is.
When the fossil record is shown clearly to be devoid of any evidence of evolution
Let us know when it is. Up until now 99% of the worlds biologists and paleontologists seem to think otherwise, with good reason.
When reptiles are shown to have more closely related Cytochrome c to humans than to other reptiles…….evo-god just smirks and wanders off
Did I miss that?
When supposedly quiescent regions of the genome, eg LINE are used for analysis….and bats are found to be homologous to horses
Bats and horses are mammals. What is the problem?

You are losing your cool Russell. Careful now, you might learn something by mistake.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#121688 Mar 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious.
Straw man argument at its worst.
So perhaps now you can explain WHY your so called C-paradox should be a problem for evolution anyway, because as far as anyone who understands evolution is concerned, its not.
Who understands evolution?

Certainly not evolutionists

They believe "change" is evolution and refer to this as variation in allelic expression over generations

ITS A CROCK

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121689 Mar 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
All that BS and not one shred of evidence in your post. Ha! Normal for a deceitful little biotch like you chimney.
Urban Cowboy asked for an answer to his non-problem, and I gave it.

Do you love your mummy?

Run along now.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121691 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And NEVER resulting in innovation
Except when it does. For example, the progression in the fossil record showing the gradual development of the 3-boned middle ear in therapsids.

Oh, wait, I know the TRUE answer, creation style.

Actually, the "stages" of reptile to mammal-like reptile (MLR) to true mammal are an illusion. They were all created at the same time together in the Garden of Eden.

They just happened to leave no trace of their existence until long after the early amphibian and reptiles, and then when they DID leave a trace, it just HAPPENED to the in an order where the most reptilian jaw structured MLR's were fossilised in deeper strata, slightly more MLRs were fossilised a bit later, and so on.

Its just one giant coincidence that we see this pattern, not only here but wherever we look. And you wonder why we think you are bonkers.
The smallest flowering plant genome is only about 0.1 picograms ---flowering plant range 0.10–127.0 pg----
Whereas the largest alga is 19.6 picograms -----algal range 0.01–19.6 pg
Clearly, flowering plants are much more complex than algae
....so there is more to complexity than a simple comparison of genome sizes.
Genome size has been linked to cell size eg amoeba vs RBC and to protein requirements
As described by Dr Batten here:
"Protozoa (for example amoebae) range from tiny to huge in their nuclear DNA amounts, some of them greatly exceeding the human number of base pairs.2 It is not really understood why this is so. It could have something to do with cell size, where organisms with large cells have a form of endoreduplication, where the DNA multiplies up to be able to provide enough mRNA transcripts to supply the large cell’s protein requirements. Specialized, enlarged plant cells do this (I have measured the relative amounts of DNA in the nuclei of such cells using microfluorimetry). Actual genome decoding does not suggest that protozoan genomes are large in terms of numbers of different genes, although at present the largest amoeba genomes have not been sequenced. Typical sequenced genomes of protozoans seem to be of the order of about 25 million base pairs.3 I expect that the large protozoan genomes, when they are sequenced, will reveal large-scale duplication of genes, such that that total number of different genes will be of the same order as other protozoans. In support of this, Amoeba dubia, the one with the largest reported amount of DNA, is the largest sized amoeba cell known, being visible to the naked eye—up to a millimetre in length. This compares with 0.009 mm diameter for a human red blood cell. Considering that the volume of a cell scales with greater than the square of the radius, the volume of Amoeba dubia cells is huge (~10,000x) compared to human cells. This almost certainly has something to do with the huge amount of DNA it contains."
http://creation.com/dawkins-and-the-origin-of...
Again, that is an interesting quote but it does not in itself favour creation over evolution or vice versa.

Perhaps more interesting, you can explain why NO flowering plants or their pollens are found in the entire early fossil record, until The mid-late Jurassic. Nothing in the Permian, nothing in the Triassic, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician. Not one. Could they run faster than ferns?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121692 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Who understands evolution?
Certainly not evolutionists
They believe "change" is evolution and refer to this as variation in allelic expression over generations
ITS A CROCK
Well, I understand evolution.

I understand the logic of exponential reproduction with imperfect heredity in competition for finite resources, every part of which is an observable feature of the world.

I understand that genetic algorithms using exactly the same principles have been and are being employed by engineers today to improve designs of complex items.

I understand that evolution in general has proceeded by tiny change piled upon tiny change, and furthermore I understand that you can cross a continent in the same way, putting on footstep in front of the other.

I understand that every single attempt to debunk evolution has failed and that even when these failures are obvious, creationists cling desperately to any and every bad argument they can.

I understand that nothing in the myth of the 6-day creation 6000 years ago makes the slightest sense in terms of what we can observe today, so that even if I abandoned evolution, the chances of me accepting your malarkey are just about the square root of zero.

And finally, I understand that creationists in general are so motivated by their entrapment in a primitive Cult of fear and hope that they cannot think objectively about this subject, no matter how intelligent they might be in other respects.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121693 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
They believe "change" is evolution and refer to this as variation in allelic expression over generations
Not quite. Adaptive change is evolution. Non-adaptive change is just drift.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#121694 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Evolution is constrained, and highly derived forms such as turnips and giraffes can only move forward in an evolutionary sense if the incremental changes, generation over generation, are selectively beneficial to survival.
Turnip physiology is highly derived from a base of photosynthetic food production. Its a complex organism that has already followed a specific pathway and reversal of that pathway is not likely to be pro-survival.
Irreversibility....

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121695 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Most physicians I know think evolution is pseudoscience.
The physicians I know think goddidit is pseudobabble and have said that you cannot be a good physician if you do not understand how medicine works. Perhaps that helps to explain your continuing mental state

The Louis Finkelstein Institute recently conducted a survey of American medical doctors on their beliefs concerning evolution and intelligent design.

On the 3 possible response question
1 humans were created by God essentially as they are now
2 humans have evolved with God guiding the process
3 humans have evolved without God’s guidance.

22% of doctors selected option 1
15% of doctors selected option 2
63% of doctors selected option 3

I.e. 78% of doctors for those doctors surveyed believe in evolution

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121696 Mar 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Who understands evolution?
Certainly not evolutionists
They believe "change" is evolution and refer to this as variation in allelic expression over generations
ITS A CROCK
Well what do you believe “variation in allelic expression over generations” is? Magic, goddidt? It does not happen? If I rant long enough it will go away?

Just because you don’t want to understand does not make it a CROCK – it just means that you don’t want to understand (or are incapable of understanding)

Evolution is completely understood, hey even a lay person can understand it if they are not being deliberately blinded by the goddidit mantra

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121697 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious.
Straw man argument at its worst.
So perhaps now you can explain WHY your so called C-paradox should be a problem for evolution anyway, because as far as anyone who understands evolution is concerned, its not.
You seem to be regressing.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121698 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Urban Cowboy asked for an answer to his non-problem, and I gave it.
Do you love your mummy?
Run along now.
That wasn't an answer. You didn't even reply to the main post.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121699 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are going to tell me that the evolution of microbe to man can be explained entirely by changes in allelic frequency?
No, because microbes don't evolve into complex life forms.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121700 Mar 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
All that BS and not one shred of evidence in your post. Ha! Normal for a deceitful little biotch like you chimney.
It is not his fault you are uneducated.
HTS

Williston, ND

#121701 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been shown it.
e.g.
Progressive development of the 3-boned middle ear showing in the therapsid fossil sequences.
The nested hierarchy of variation in pseudogenes, ERV's, and ubiquitous proteins.
Tiktaalik. Miacids. Ambulocetus. Homo erectus.
30+ avian/dino species at the convergence point between these two types.
You simply ignore what you do not like.
tell me specifically why any of your "evidence" is not entirely consistent with intelligent deign.

You demolished any credibility of your "evidence" when you mentioned tiktaalik, ambulocetus, and homo erectus. There is no evidence that those fossils represent transitional species,

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) 26 min THE LONE WORKER 164,299
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min thetruth 19,061
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Tue Gillette 84
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Tue DanFromSmithville 141,352
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? May 24 UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 24 Chimney1 1,871
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) May 23 Swedenforever 159
More from around the web