Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Read more: www.scientificblogging.com 178,193

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." Read more
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,

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121702 Mar 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't an answer. You didn't even reply to the main post.
Of course I did. I explained that neither the growth nor the shrinkage of the genome would be any problem at all for evolution.

In other words, you have presented a straw man argument and nothing more. I answered what was necessary to answer and gave you some examples to boot.
HTS

Williston, ND

#121703 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because microbes don't evolve into complex life forms.
So you're saying that what happened before could never happen again? This you call "science?"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121704 Mar 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be regressing.
And you seem to be unable to explain why your c-paradox is any problem at all for evolution.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121705 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying that what happened before could never happen again? This you call "science?"
Microbes never evolved into complex life forms, they evolved in stages which eventually became more complex than they were. I thought you wanted to talk about science not repeat canards.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#121706 Mar 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
So where does the term C-Value derive its name? This was an observation that genome size is constant within species.
"In 1948, Roger and Colette Vendrely reported a "remarkable constancy in the nuclear DNA content of all the cells in all the individuals within a given animal species",[1] which they took as evidence that DNA, rather than protein, was the substance of which genes are composed. The term C-value reflects this observed constancy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma
OK. Maybe we sort of knew that but stop to think about it. Take any particular species, even the ones whose populations are in the millions of members and within that species, all the members have exactly the same genome size. Every individual has exactly the same C-Value.
Every species therefore has a standard fixed-length genome. Very profound.
But wait! Fish were supposed to come before reptiles, right? So you expect reptiles to have a higher C-Value than fish right? Wrong! Fish have the higher C-Value. Same with Fish-Birds, Fish-Mammals, amphibians-mammals, Birds-Reptiles, etc.
And before you say the rule is progressively smaller genomes is the pattern, it is just as common for the opposite to occur, i.e, amphibians have a higher C-Value than fish, etc.
But keep in mind that within any particular species, the C-Value is constant. Is there any evidence for shrinking or expanding genomes anywhere? None.
This obviously tells me all the kinds were uniquely created for their specifically designed purpose.
This evidence causes great difficulty for the idea that life evolved from a common ancestor. This C-Value Paradox combined with the lack of any genetic mechanism for vertical evolution is a direct rebuking of macroevolution.
Reposted so Chimney can dodge it again.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#121707 Mar 6, 2013
So Chimney, how can there be differences in the millions of nucleotides between "same branch, common successor ancestors"; some way less, some way more, when these species all have a constant C-Value (genome length)? Perhaps this "paradox" is above your pay grade.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121708 Mar 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're a fruking moron, that never once brought anything of value to this board.
Piss off idiot.
Pour yourself another one, you drunken idiot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121709 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is credited with have created all nested hierarchies. There's nothing in the ToE that says it couldn't create more. There is no "forward" or "backward" in your paradigm. If you believe in ToE, you believe that a turnip could be selectively bred into a giraffe.
It's like talking to a brick, isn't it?
One way or another

United States

#121710 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.
You are always long on BS and short on evidence. Deceit is just what you have. You're an idiot, but then its your choice.
One way or another

United States

#121711 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I did. I explained that neither the growth nor the shrinkage of the genome would be any problem at all for evolution.
In other words, you have presented a straw man argument and nothing more. I answered what was necessary to answer and gave you some examples to boot.
No you didn't moron, you copy and pasted another idiots claims. Bacteria are the only entities that can enlarge, due to their natural ability, hard wired into their species.

There is no other species that will show such. Thank a teacher for your cut and paste nonsense.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121712 Mar 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like talking to a brick, isn't it?
You get more sense out of a brick

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121713 Mar 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You are always long on BS and short on evidence. Deceit is just what you have. You're an idiot, but then its your choice.
You are still projecting.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121714 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Microbes never evolved into complex life forms, they evolved in stages which eventually became more complex than they were. I thought you wanted to talk about science not repeat canards.
Nice contradiction...
Why do you refer to your ridiculous stores about microbes evolving into carrots and kangaroos and redwood trees as "science"?
One way or another

United States

#121715 Mar 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Pour yourself another one, you drunken idiot.
Aww does the little baby need his diaper changed. Keep crying baby, your mommy will get to ya, sooner or later.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121716 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Monotremes are easy. They split from mammals at a stage when all mammals probably still laid eggs etc. The innovations that led to marsupials came next, and then placentals. The fact that remnant examples of the older egg laying mammals might still exist is no problem, even though in general the non-egg laying mammals obviously out-competed the egg layers outside their specialist niches.
All monotremes, marsupials, and placentals fit within the nested hierarchy of the earliest mammals and share a common ancestor from that time. We know this because the earliest aspects of the mammalian anatomy to emerge - the 3-boned middle ear, the shape of the pelvis, the holes in parts of the skull, and the specialised dentition, all occur in the development of mammal-like reptiles and are shared by all later mammals.
We can infer that other shared characteristics of all mammals that cannot be directly seen in the fossils share a similar timeline - such as feeding the young through milk and hairiness. In fact as an early split in the mammalian branch of life, monotremes give us valuable information on the ordering of the changes from reptiles to mammals, showing that live birth was one of the last distinctive characteristics to emerge.
There is simply no issue there.
Bacteria to whales is a more complicated situation but still not an issue. The first eukaryote cell was already a "multibacterial colony" created by the ingestion but not destruction of some bacteria by others. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are examples, and even some cilia in modern bacteria have been found to be internalised remnants of once free living separate bacteria (in other words, the eukaryote is not the only example of this kind of cellular colonisation among bacteria).
This kind of compound cell was the first kind of multicellularity in a sense.
From there, its basically standard evolution and whales fit the nested hierarchy just as easily as every other eukaryote based creature.
FYI, live birth and other characteristics, not to mention the genomic evidence, show that whales are far more closely related to us than monotremes are. But in the end, or should I say, nearer the beginning, we are all related.
You realize that everything you just stated is raw speculation, entirely devoid of any science.
One way or another

United States

#121717 Mar 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like talking to a brick, isn't it?
Naah, talking to you is like talking to a piece of sh*t, but hey, that's what you project.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121718 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.
You are correct in that evolution is constrained. One species cannot evolve into another... except in your imagination.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121719 Mar 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How different species got to different islands varies so of course the answers do to.
Plate tectonics still apply to oceanic islands since they move with the sea floor. They may have been close to land masses in the psst. Animals can get to an island by flying, swimming, rafting, island hopping etc.. To be fair the same answer does not apply to all islands.
I know that you're a skilled storyteller, so tell me how seals arrived at Lake Baikal, 1,000 miles from the nearest ocean. I believe I'm exceeding the limits of even your imagination.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121720 Mar 6, 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.
Humans cannot breed a dog into anything other than another dog. Every trait in every breed of dog today has always existed in the genomes of wolves, so your analogy is false.

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) 25 min PointBlankPeriod 155,546
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Thinking 18,099
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 3 hr emrenil 973
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) 5 hr FREE SERVANT 3,398
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
More from around the web