Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,432

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
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121721 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice contradiction...
Why do you refer to your ridiculous stores about microbes evolving into carrots and kangaroos and redwood trees as "science"?
No, it's the religious nuts that say it like that. Science is microbes evolve into slightly more complex organisms, eucrytes or some such thing. Which are colonies of microbes that work together. These colonies evolve into more specialized functions, and eventually combine with other colonies to work together. Eventually these colonies become entire organisms, mixing up that much genetic material would cause the strands to mix up as well, basic chemistry. Then those organisms would lose the capability of surviving on their own and require being part of the larger colony of colonies ... then you have more complex organisms as more colonies appear offering new traits by performing different functions ...

In short, a microbe doesn't evolve into a more complex organism.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121722 Mar 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
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.
What paradox? Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? Look it up

Why have some people got blue eyes?

Because one ancestor underwent a genetic mutation of the gene adjacent to the OCA2 gene which controls melanin production. The mutation effected the OCA2 gene restricting that production which diluted eye for every human born of that original ancestor.

Blue eyed people have one common ancestor and it is known approximately where and when that mutation occurred, around the Bosperous between 6 and 10 thousand years ago

So are all humans blue eyed?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121723 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.
Do you have any geological evidence that any of your claims are true? Can you show me a reference that indicates that the Hawaiian islands were once close to a continent? No geologist believes that. You have cherry picked whatever geologic theories you've embraced purely on their consistency with you religion of atheistic evolution.
I'm wondering how you're going to try and explain away the seals at Lake Baikal. Specificallly, how did Monk seals arrive in Hawaii, given the fact that they are supposedly descended from Atlantic seals. And how did a 900 pound land tortoise make it 600 miles to the Galapagos? You can't just say "plate tectonics, swimming, and continental drift"... that's a dodge.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121724 Mar 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What paradox? Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? Look it up
Why have some people got blue eyes?
Because one ancestor underwent a genetic mutation of the gene adjacent to the OCA2 gene which controls melanin production. The mutation effected the OCA2 gene restricting that production which diluted eye for every human born of that original ancestor.
Blue eyed people have one common ancestor and it is known approximately where and when that mutation occurred, around the Bosperous between 6 and 10 thousand years ago
So are all humans blue eyed?
He doesn't know what the word paradox means, he's just spewing it because someone told him his religious views were paradoxical and now he thinks he knows what it means.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121725 Mar 6, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What paradox? Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? Look it up
Why have some people got blue eyes?
Because one ancestor underwent a genetic mutation of the gene adjacent to the OCA2 gene which controls melanin production. The mutation effected the OCA2 gene restricting that production which diluted eye for every human born of that original ancestor.
Blue eyed people have one common ancestor and it is known approximately where and when that mutation occurred, around the Bosperous between 6 and 10 thousand years ago
So are all humans blue eyed?
Why do you incessantly parrot bedtime stories? Do you think that anyone considers that "science"?
One way or another

United States

#121726 Mar 6, 2013
Blue eyes came about because of environment.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121727 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's the religious nuts that say it like that. Science is microbes evolve into slightly more complex organisms, eucrytes or some such thing. Which are colonies of microbes that work together. These colonies evolve into more specialized functions, and eventually combine with other colonies to work together. Eventually these colonies become entire organisms, mixing up that much genetic material would cause the strands to mix up as well, basic chemistry. Then those organisms would lose the capability of surviving on their own and require being part of the larger colony of colonies ... then you have more complex organisms as more colonies appear offering new traits by performing different functions ...
In short, a microbe doesn't evolve into a more complex organism.
First, everything you just said is imaginary. You have no experimental science to back anything up.

Second, you are saying that one organism doesn't increase in complexity in one generation, but over many generations increases in complexity. That doesn't add up mathematically. If tens of thosuands of bacteria are bred in a lab, and if no increase in complexity is occurring... then no evolution is occurring, even on a small scale.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121728 Mar 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Blue eyes came about because of environment.
Really? So then show us the mechanism that caused it.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121729 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Was it godmagic?

Perhaps it was one of these scientific theories
The Arctic origins hypothesis
The Paratethyan hypothesis
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/...

So me how you god magiced the universe form nothing?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min replaytime 126,869
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 min Chimney1 139,213
More Theories to Disprove Creation 11 min shasha_m 29
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 13 hr TurkanaBoy 994
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 13 hr DanFromSmithville 13,572
Darwin on the rocks 16 hr TurkanaBoy 817
Quran descendants of apes and pigs cursed by Al... (Sep '08) Sat DanFromSmithville 10

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE