Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124100 Mar 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
There are 6,000,000,000 base pairs (specific sites) in a human genome sequence.
Given a 1:2,000,000,000 chance of mutation at each site, that would be a certainty of mutation for each birth at least three times over.
Your reasoning is flawed right out of the gate.

Actually his numbers must be wrong in that regard since the known mutation rate for a genome the size of ours (about average in length) is about 150 per generation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124101 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Human DNA is not a hodgepodge of random mutations. It is a sophisticated code with multiple levels of overlapping messages, data compression, intricate algorithms, etc.
Specific beneficial changes must occur to give natural selection a chance.
You can join Kittenkodder as a veritable moron.

Sorry, but that is exactly what it is. A bit of a mess with an amazing theme.

But your idea of what DNA is like is a bit more like a creationist sound bite than substance.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124102 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not going to argue with morons that think they can rationalize away incontrovertable concepts of mathematics by a worldview of absolute relativism.

I'm not going to argue with morons that think they can rationalize away incontrovertable concepts of mathematics by a worldview of absolutism.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124103 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't exactly how Koala's came to be in Australia; however, I didn't think the human population growth assumptions were a problem. I think I showed satisfactorily that if you start with the survivors and plugged them into a standard growth formula, using rates as observed, you wind up with approximately correct population levels. I thought we went over this.
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

You do remember that you got your head handed to you, don't you?

You do remember that observed population growth rates over human history were FAR to low to support the end global population we now observe.

Of course not. You have been shown to be far to dishonest for that.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#124104 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am old school. I prefer "psychotic break".
I usually stick hard to lay terms, in keeping with my formal education,(lest I be accused of over-compensating) but couldn't resist just once interjecting a more technical "decompenstating" for the standard psychotic break. OK, I'll start behaving now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124105 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Natural selection selects the whole organism - never the genes in the chromosomes. There is no certain correlation between the quality of fitness of the whole organism to the quality of the underlying genes. This also refutes the theory.

LOL. This should be submitted to FSTDT
One way or another

United States

#124106 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What UC is saying is that natural selection can't select a beneficial nucleotide. It must select a phenotype of over 6 billion nucelotides. Survival of the fittest is an abstract concept that doesn't remotely reflect reality. When seeds fall to the ground. The genetically superior seeds will not reproduce more than any other seed, because it is almost exclusively environmental factors (soild quality, etc.) that determine reproductive success. Also, genetically inferior seeds will not be preferentially eaten by predators. So this whole notion of natural selection is nothing more than a bedtime story.
Really good thinking and new thinking. Clapping!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124107 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How interesting that you would lecture me about logic...when all arguments for evolution rely on perceived logic and no experimentation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

You lose!

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Has a fruitily ever been selectively bred into a reproductively isolated novel species?

Has a fruitily ever been magic poofed into a reproductively isolated novel species?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Have any of the millions of generations of bacteria resulted in multicellular life?

Have any of the millions of generations of bacteria been poofed into multicellular life?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You have no observable experimental evidence of anything.

Outright and outrageous lie.

And I am stopping at this point. If you can't do better than to tell creotard whoppers then I really don't need to read any further.

One way or another

United States

#124108 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What UC is saying is that natural selection can't select a beneficial nucleotide. It must select a phenotype of over 6 billion nucelotides. Survival of the fittest is an abstract concept that doesn't remotely reflect reality. When seeds fall to the ground. The genetically superior seeds will not reproduce more than any other seed, because it is almost exclusively environmental factors (soild quality, etc.) that determine reproductive success. Also, genetically inferior seeds will not be preferentially eaten by predators. So this whole notion of natural selection is nothing more than a bedtime story.
You should keep a record of the new thinking you bring. Even what seems small is also new. It will matter and thanks for the new thoughts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124109 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the language of the genetic code.
To you DNA is pixie dust.
You can throw any transposon or duplicated chromosome at an organism and "poof"... any complexity imaginable because you know that evolutiondidit.

You have proved you don't know the first thing about genetics, about biology, nor about science at any level. I can have a more informed and intelligent discussion with my 12 year old nephew.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124110 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as?

Genetics

The fact that civilization was in full swing during this time period.

The fact that the story is metaphor and has much depth in non-literal meaning.

The fact that there is not, any evidence of it.

The fact that there is plenty of evidence against it.

Common sense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124111 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So all the fossils are the result of mini-catastrophic events? There this also - just like a one-time major world-wide flood event - precludes "time-marked" layers and your whole theory because it requires uniformatarianism, it requires gradual erosion and the building up of layers and strata in a very consistent basis. But all that is out the window if all the fossils are being formed catasrophically, whether individually or all at once.
Why do you think fossils are so rare, compared to the myriad of creatures that have lived and died? Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, dead creatures go back into the cycle. The odds against fossilisation are probably millions to one.

Mini catastrophes do not seriously interrupt the total layering. On the contrary, these smaller events contribute to the overall layering.

You keep using the quaint term "uniformitarianism" or should I say misusing it. It really only refers to the expectation that the same physical laws and principles applied in the past. When an asteroid hits, that does not violate the principle, even though its going to have severe "non-gradual" impacts. "Stopping the sun in the sky" - THAT would violate the principle because physical law as we understand it precludes that possibility.

For most of the time though, sediments do build gradually and under different conditions, also erode gradually. There are fine shale layers in the middle of your "flood layers" that require millennia of gradual deposition with minimal turbulence, interspersed with anhydrate layers requiring massive dessication - drying out at 30 + degrees C ...that cannot all happen in a one year flood.

So back to the question. Why is the fossil record consistent with evolution and not with creationism? You still have nothing better than the "faster runner theory" and you know as well as I do how absurd that is. And you are still avoiding the question with twaddle about uniformitarianism etc.

Do you see that you are merely avoiding a question you know you cannot answer?

Now which is faster? The velociraptor or the giant ground sloth? Daffodil or liverwort? Think that's a cheap shot? Its PRECISELY the logical question your creationist flood explanations demand.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#124112 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What UC is saying is that natural selection can't select a beneficial nucleotide. It must select a phenotype of over 6 billion nucelotides. Survival of the fittest is an abstract concept that doesn't remotely reflect reality. When seeds fall to the ground. The genetically superior seeds will not reproduce more than any other seed, because it is almost exclusively environmental factors (soild quality, etc.) that determine reproductive success. Also, genetically inferior seeds will not be preferentially eaten by predators. So this whole notion of natural selection is nothing more than a bedtime story.
You need to start over and understand what "selection" is. Natural selection is not about selecting "for" something. It is the process where "not-good-enough" is selected out of reproduction and "good-enough" is left to reproduce by default.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124113 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. This should be submitted to FSTDT
Done.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124114 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So all the fossils are the result of mini-catastrophic events?

Some mini, some micro, some huge,... and none involving a global fairytale flood 4500 years ago.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> There this also - just like a one-time major world-wide flood event - precludes "time-marked" layers and your whole theory because it requires uniformatarianism, it requires gradual erosion and the building up of layers and strata in a very consistent basis. But all that is out the window if all the fossils are being formed catasrophically, whether individually or all at once.

Not at all. catastrophic events occur on a daily basis. A guy in FL got swallowed by the earth while laying in bed watching TV.

But fossils are in layers that form over millions of years. You can go out an look for them yourself. If you find a nice Cambrian layer with trilobites in it you will find NOTHING but Cambrian fossils. Not one kangaroo. Not one rabbit.

Try it yourself.

One way or another

United States

#124115 Mar 19, 2013
HTS, you might like the following. No cussing or such. However, possibly much cut and paste only.

http://www.ted.com/conversations

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124116 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
Sanford does not assume point mutations to be the only types of mutations.

Sanford has been refuted. He actually got refuted... IN PRINT, before his book actually hit the shelves.

How is that for the efficiency of real science!

HTS wrote:
He's giving Darwinism every benefit of the doubt. You know perfectly well that transposons and polyploidy cannot account for what is seen in the genetic code. You cannot change the meaning of a book by randomly inserting words and paragraphs. Your evolutionary paradigm defies common sense.
So you've "refuted" Sanford point by point?

Blah, blah, blah. Sanford has been refuted. He really did not have any points.

HTS wrote:
I've refuted Darwinism point by point.

When? Where? You have never provided any science whatsoever! How could you? You don't actually know any.


[QUOTE who="HTS"] I've eviscerated you with the sword of scientific logic. Your arrogant words are meaningless. All you have done is parroted stories. Show me scientific evidence that any of your conjectures of evolutionary transmutation are possible.

The rest is just some sort of megalomanical delusion. Get back with us after you get back on your meds.
One way or another

United States

#124117 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Natural selection selects the whole organism - never the genes in the chromosomes. There is no certain correlation between the quality of fitness of the whole organism to the quality of the underlying genes. This also refutes the theory.
I'd say that seems to be true or the Evo scientists would be able to track each change at the cellular level, detailing how monkey evolved into man, great thinking UC.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124118 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One more thing...
Tell us how huge intact skeletons in large numbers were deposited in a single formation.

? You never hear of volcanic eruptions, floods, mud slides, sea quakes, tsunamis, earth quakes, asteroid impacts,......

Really? THIS is your question? Wow.

If ignorance is bliss you are having orgasms longer than pigs.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124119 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell you what, demonstrate how all the fossils formed without rapid burial.

Most fossils DO form after rapid burial.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> Tell us all how any creature could fossilize slowly over millions of years.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> Give us the scenario how this could possibly happen. Tell us how, for example, a fish, reptile, bird, or mammal died and what the circumstances were;, i.e., old age, sickness, hit on head with a rock, eaten by a predator (no, that wouldn't work), Hit by lightning, drowned, whatever. And then tell us how all the scavengers and decomposers, rain, sun, and wind, decompositiona and rot was ALL avoided but instead, over many years it was covered over by dust which formed a "geological layer" (LOL!- sorry, can't keep from laughing)

You should be laughing. This is a pretty funny straw man that you have built.

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text>
And then another thousand, 10, 20, 100, 1000, years goes by and at SLOWLY becomes fossilized (ROTFLMAO!), and then FINALLY, after untold millions of years it finally becomes a fossil in its geologic layer of time. OMG Chimney how could you believe this crap?

What nonsense. You have a vivid imagination.


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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min IB DaMann 58,050
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 48 min Subduction Zone 159,275
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr Hedonist Heretic 1,849
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Subduction Zone 27,261
News Intelligent Design Education Day Sun replaytime 2
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sun replaytime 219,597
News Betsy DeVos' Code Words for Creationism Offshoo... Feb 16 scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web