Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,923

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

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124249 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "no known limit"?
4.5 billion years is a limit.
The primordial soup is not infinite.
Yes,, you have big numbers to work with.
But you improbabilities are infinitely greater.
One of my favorite rules in engineering and development is "If it has happened, it must be possible."

Obviously, you've never heard that one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124250 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Perversions of mathematical logic lie at the heart of the evolutionary paradigm.
If only you understood anything about math to be able to prove that...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124251 Mar 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA is nothing more than chemistry. If chemistry has purpose, demonstrate it.
If you refuse to acknowledge the purposeful organization of DNA, we have nothing to talk about.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124252 Mar 20, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my favorite rules in engineering and development is "If it has happened, it must be possible."
Obviously, you've never heard that one.
Your logic is pathetic.
You're saying... "Man is, therefore he evolved".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124253 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
This is done in the face of massive evidence that every proposed mechanism of evolutionary transmutation is biologically impossible.
In short, you are using scientific tools to justify your religion of atheism.
You just contradicted yourself. Allow me to translate:

"Evolution is scientifically impossible therefore GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!"

Luckily for us evolution is not atheism and nor is it scientifically impossible.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124254 Mar 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, find us ANYBODY who is suggesting that all, or even most, mutations are beneficial. Then, provide us the quote and a link to that quote in context.
Or, admit that you're just creating a strawman argument.
ChristineM says that most mutations are beneficial.

Your problem is defining "neutral".
A mistake in replication is a defect, regardless of whether or not it's measurable by traditional methods of science.
ToE supposes that numerous mistakes can add up to a benefit.
There is no scientific logic behind such an assumption.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124255 Mar 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
More evolution research by REAL SCIENTISTS released today (3/20/13):
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-benefic...
When timing is everything: Research says beneficial mutations need specific circumstances to win out
March 20th, 2013 in Genetics
When it comes to the sort of beneficial mutations that drive natural selection, there's new evidence that, evolutionarily speaking, timing is everything.
In paper published in the March issue of Genetics, Christopher Marx, associate professor of organismic and evolutionary biology, says that beneficial mutations may occur more often than first thought, but many never emerge as "winners," because they don't fall within the narrow set of circumstances required for them to dominate a population.
"Remarkably, it's just not that hard to improve. But the trick is that it's not good enough to just be good," Marx said. "Any particular mutation being a winner is unlikely because it has a number of battles to face to avoid being wiped out. It's pretty cutthroat."
Interestingly, Marx hadn't set out to study these intra-population struggles.
His original goal was to study how Methylobacterium extorquens, a bacterium known for eating methanol and excreting formaldehyde, developed its unusual behavior. To examine that question, Marx began by genetically altering the bacteria to replace the normal metabolic pathway with a new one.
The foreign pathway, however, put too much strain on the organisms, forcing them to evolve ways of reducing that burden, including by decreasing the expression of the new genetic pathway or by reducing the number of copies of the new genes.
It was the third strategy, however, that caught Marx's attention. To insert the new metabolic machinery into the bacteria, he expressed them from a plasmid—a sort of free-floating chromosome—that is present in 10 copies for each bacterial cell. In some cases, the beneficial mutations occurred by recombining this introduced plasmid into the bacterium's normal chromosomes, thereby essentially co-opting the new genetic material into its own.
"This happens in nature all the time. Genes get passed around on plasmids like this," Marx said. "In the long term, if you're going to stick around, you can't be standing in the foyer with your coat on, you have to get into the house. You have to get into the chromosome if you're going to remain for a longer period of time, and we actually saw it happen." In fact, Marx said, researchers saw the mutation occur many times, in multiple strains of bacteria.
In one case, he said, the mutation occurred 17 times in the same population, yet none of these ever went on to dominate the population. Of the eight populations examined in the paper, the type of mutation that brought the plasmid into the chromosome emerged as the most successful evolutionary strategy only three times.
Though the mutation resulted in as much as a 20 percent increase in fitness, Marx said it simply wasn't enough in some cases.
<<Snipped for brevity. More at link above>>
This article is a smokescreen.
The mechanisms of bacterial adapatation through plasmid transfer and deregulating existing genes has nothing to do with the supposed evolution of land mammals to whales or flight in birds.

In the first place, bacteria reproduce asexually. Secondly, no new genetic information is created.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124256 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
The fallacy of our logic lies in your belief that most mutations are beneficial. No one believes that...
And we don't have to. Some are beneficial. Some are detrimental. However most are neutral.

But even if detrimental mutations outweigh beneficial ones it doesn't matter, since (for obvious reasons) bad mutations are selected against and good mutations are selected for and will spread through populations faster. Hence your genetic entropy BS only becomes a problem when genetic variance is at an all time low, generally speaking, very small populations. This fact of reality is why in the fam nook nook that you fundies enjoy so much is a bad thing, but also (thankfully) a fictional account when someone is dumb enough to talk about Adam & Eve or Noah.
HTS wrote:
Tell me what your scientific reason is to conclude that most errors in the replication of coded information will improve the code.
DNA is not a code, it's a bunch of chemicals. And as we know there are literally TRILLIONS of potentially valid DNA configurations on planet Earth right now, with even more being born every day.

Pity you can only attack biological reality with caricatures and flawed analogies.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124257 Mar 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You just contradicted yourself. Allow me to translate:
"Evolution is scientifically impossible therefore GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!"
Luckily for us evolution is not atheism and nor is it scientifically impossible.
Let me translate:
God is impossible so EVOLUTIONDIDIT WITH MAGIC.
I trust you can see the hypocrisy of your logic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124258 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you refuse to acknowledge the purposeful organization of DNA, we have nothing to talk about.
If you refuse to demonstrate the purposeful organization of DNA, we have nothing to talk about.

And that's why we've had nothing to talk about for 8 months.(shrug)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124259 Mar 20, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? Her parents probably had several children, some with and some without genetic defects. The ones with healthy genes will succeed in having healthy children whilst the unhealthy ones won't and their faulty genes will die with them.
Igor, you need to differentiate between bedtime stories and science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124260 Mar 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If only you understood anything about math to be able to prove that...
It's really very simply.
Evolutionists don't believe in mathematics.
They are so arrogant in their religion that they refuse to yield to anything... even the authoritative laws of mathematics.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124261 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
ChristineM says that most mutations are beneficial.
Your problem is defining "neutral".
Neutral - a mutation which neither helps nor hinders an organism.
HTS wrote:
A mistake in replication is a defect, regardless of whether or not it's measurable by traditional methods of science.
This statement is based upon the undemonstrated assumption that there was an intended goal. DNA simply replicates and does so imperfectly. And by imperfect I mean it does not always make exact duplicates of itself. And this IS measurable by science. Which is why we are all born with an average of around 125 to 175 mutations. And this is a normal part of human reproduction.

Your problem is that you are using terminology in a subjective manner based on an assumption of an intended goal of a particular DNA configuration of which you have no evidence and have no idea how to describe. We on the other hand use terminology objectively to point out simply that life changes over time, and those changes can have a negative, positive or indifferent effect on that organism's ability to reproduce.
HTS wrote:
ToE supposes that numerous mistakes can add up to a benefit.
There is no scientific logic behind such an assumption.
That's because there is no scientific logic to assume that they are "mistakes", i.e.: implying intent. Evolution on the other hand is quite happy if a species evolves itself into extinction. Indeed 99% of everything that has ever lived is extinct. You're saying that if we carry on rolling the die for 4 billion years no-one will ever roll a six. This is plain wrong.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124262 Mar 20, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no transitional
This is not my assessment
It is the valid opinion of paleontologists, scientists in the field, scientists with their hands on fossils every day
Every sane paleontologist will tell you that H. erectus is an intermediate, as is tiktaalik, etc etc etc etc.

You are playing with definitions, as follows:

THE transitional was whatever actual species evolved into a daughter species.

However in the fossil record, we can technically only identify intermediates. For example, given the 22+ species of hominid so far identified, there is more than one potentially valid pathway from ape to human. Of course, only one of them actually happened according to evolution. So can we say with certainty, for example, that H. habilis was "the transitional"? No. Perhaps it led to us, perhaps it was a side branch. Perhaps we have not yet even discovered the transitional and we still might not know for sure when we have. All we know is that habilis represents a valid link in form between later australopiths and the early erectus.

That is why we talk of intermediates.

Was tiktaalik THE lobe finned fish transforming into a tetrapod that gave rise to the amphibians? Maybe. Maybe it was merely a cousin of the actual transitional. Maybe it was another offshoot.

All we can say for sure is that tiktaalik is measurably an intermediate form between lobe finned fish and the earliest tetrapods, and this confirms that forms like this were evolving in the right time and place to give rise to the amphibians.

That is why paleontologists are more likely to talk about intermediates than transitionals today.

THIS is the valid opinion of paleontologists, so enough of the twisting and distortion please.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124263 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
This article is a smokescreen.
The mechanisms of bacterial adapatation through plasmid transfer and deregulating existing genes has nothing to do with the supposed evolution of land mammals to whales or flight in birds.
In the first place, bacteria reproduce asexually. Secondly, no new genetic information is created.
New genetic information is created every time there are mutations. In fact the only time this isn't true is if a mutation results in a base loss. Otherwise there are additions, or the existing information will simply change. In either of those cases we have new information. Base loss is a loss. Base addition is an addition. Base change is a loss AND an addition. Quite simple really.

Especially when we've already pointed out to numerous studies which prove that new genetic information evolving is not only possible, but scientifically observed.

You bozos always call it a "loss" no matter what. But that would only be a valid argument if someone had a precise genome map of Adam and Eve.

Genetics says they never existed. Darn.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124264 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me translate:
God is impossible so EVOLUTIONDIDIT WITH MAGIC.
I trust you can see the hypocrisy of your logic.
Actually no, evolution did it with observed evolutionary mechanisms. This is why you ignored the hypocrisy of your own statement.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124265 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Igor, you need to differentiate between bedtime stories and science.
Bub, Cowboy knows a thousand times more about science than you do. And he's a YEC reality-denying idiot. You are COMPLETELY uneducated about and ignorant of science, period.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#124266 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's really very simply.
Evolutionists don't believe in mathematics.
They are so arrogant in their religion that they refuse to yield to anything... even the authoritative laws of mathematics.
Math is abstraction only. If math doesn't apply to reality then your math means diddly. That's why your math means diddly.

Not that you actually had any.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124267 Mar 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Every sane paleontologist will tell you that H. erectus is an intermediate, as is tiktaalik, etc etc etc etc.
You are playing with definitions, as follows:
THE transitional was whatever actual species evolved into a daughter species.
However in the fossil record, we can technically only identify intermediates. For example, given the 22+ species of hominid so far identified, there is more than one potentially valid pathway from ape to human. Of course, only one of them actually happened according to evolution. So can we say with certainty, for example, that H. habilis was "the transitional"? No. Perhaps it led to us, perhaps it was a side branch. Perhaps we have not yet even discovered the transitional and we still might not know for sure when we have. All we know is that habilis represents a valid link in form between later australopiths and the early erectus.
That is why we talk of intermediates.
Was tiktaalik THE lobe finned fish transforming into a tetrapod that gave rise to the amphibians? Maybe. Maybe it was merely a cousin of the actual transitional. Maybe it was another offshoot.
All we can say for sure is that tiktaalik is measurably an intermediate form between lobe finned fish and the earliest tetrapods, and this confirms that forms like this were evolving in the right time and place to give rise to the amphibians.
That is why paleontologists are more likely to talk about intermediates than transitionals today.
THIS is the valid opinion of paleontologists, so enough of the twisting and distortion please.
You guys had your chance with coelacanth and you lost.
Now you're just hoping that no one will find a living tiktaalik.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124268 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your logic is pathetic.
You're saying... "Man is, therefore he evolved".
Yup!! Unless you can produce a Magic Sky Daddy who created us all with pixie dust .... can you? Thought not!

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) 4 min Blitzking 149,720
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 17 min The Dude 17
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 22 min The Dude 694
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Thinking 16,811
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 28 min Charles Idemi 1,393
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr marksman11 141,001
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 848
More from around the web