Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180394 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124303 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't described a genetic mechanism to increase genetic information. You merely imagine that if enough mutations occur, eventually natural selection will sort them all out and the organism will end up with something positive. That is not the way natural selection works.
What makes you conclude that natural selection can preserve favorable mutations when, by your own admission, most mutations are "neutral"? You can't have it both ways.
Is the ability to digest lactose as an adult harmful, neutral, or beneficial?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124304 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one guilty of simplistic thinking.
How did man's higher intellectual faculties evolve?
Do you think man's ancestors were performing integral calculus, composing symphonies, and pondering the secrets of the universe while they were hunters/gatherers?
If not, then how did those abilities appear through evolution?
Abstract thought came first. Then, language. Then, after that, we continued to build upon information passed down from the previous generation. That's why we know more than humans 100 years ago knew, and why they knew more than humans 1,000 years ago knew, and why they knew more than humans 10,000 years ago knew. But, I suppose that whole "learning" thing has evaded you thus far. Otherwise, you would already know the answers to the questions you think are impossible to answer.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124305 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're assuming that good mutations are frequent. You have no proof whatsoever that a given percentage of the 150 or so mutations per generation in humans can ever add up to anything positive. You have no logical argument that they could. All you know is that mutations occur, and their affect for the most part cannot be measured.
False.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124306 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Regardless of how you define "superior", infinitely more random disfunctional outcomes are possible than those that could confer any sort of added fitness.
It is undeniable that the intelligence of man is superior to that of apes. That being said, according to NDT, that intelligence had to evolve onward and upward, requiring one specific purposeful mutation after another.
False. You cherry-pick which mechanisms to oppose and accept at your convenience. Since evolution deals with all, that is why you fail.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124307 Mar 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In evolutionary terms "I" do not define it at all.
The sole valid criterion of superiority in evolution is "what survives and reproduces".
The meanest? The smartest? The best cooperator? The best at eliciting sympathy? The boldest? The best risk estimator? The biggest risk taker? The manipulator? The honest Joe? The best liar? The best lie detector? The fastest? The best thrower? The best hider? The most charming? The cleanest? The dirtiest? The best optimiser of all the qualities above?
What works best is contextual, for starters.
Claiming its intelligence merely suggests that you think you are pretty intelligent so therefore that SHOULD be the most important criterion. Even claiming that as the defining characteristic of humans above all else, intelligence should therefore continue to be the hallmark of human evolution, is still making the same mistake. Liek any other attribute, there may be a ceiling which means more intelligence could work against survival.
You just don't know.
For all we know, the main dimension of fitness today could simply be the ability to tolerate huge quantities of ever more degraded junk food.
Natural selectin is a tautology.
None of your assertions have been scientifically validated.
Whoever survives is by definition the fittest.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124308 Mar 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Abstract thought came first. Then, language. Then, after that, we continued to build upon information passed down from the previous generation. That's why we know more than humans 100 years ago knew, and why they knew more than humans 1,000 years ago knew, and why they knew more than humans 10,000 years ago knew. But, I suppose that whole "learning" thing has evaded you thus far. Otherwise, you would already know the answers to the questions you think are impossible to answer.
Man's ability to perform higher intellectual functions supposedly evolved long before he ever used them.
Therefore, their existence cannot be explained by evolution.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#124309 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You will never think logically because you don't believe in math.
If math doesn't conform to your religion, you simply reject it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! You are funny!!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124310 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that's your suggestion. When you make assertions for people your dishonesty becomes clear as day.
No, you said,

"So you are saying that an organism born with legs would not have a better chance of surviving on land than one born with nothing but fins." [see previous post]

NOw you accuse me of your ridiculous statement.
You implied that a mutated amphibian was born with funcitonal legs.
I asked you who he mated with.

Rather than your incessant dodging, why don't you take responsibility for your meanderings?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124311 Mar 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
False. You cherry-pick which mechanisms to oppose and accept at your convenience. Since evolution deals with all, that is why you fail.
Your incessant evo-babbling is annoying. You NEVER answer a question. All you ever do is set up idiotic smokescreens and distractions. Did you even read my post?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124312 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has been tested, and it has failed...
False.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
HTS wrote:
1. Lamarckism: failed
Correct.
HTS wrote:
2. Junk DNA: failed
False.

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
HTS wrote:
3. Homology: failed
False.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
HTS wrote:
4. Genetic determinism: failed.
Straw-man.
HTS wrote:
5. Fossil record: failed.
False.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
HTS wrote:
6. Progressive improvement of genome: failed
False.

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
HTS wrote:
The only thing evolution has succeeded in is convincing man that he has a purposeless existence.
False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Mille...

1 out of 8. Not bad for a fundie. Don't think Meatloaf will be writing many songs about that though.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124313 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't described a genetic mechanism to increase genetic information.
Uh, bub, you're lying again. You ignore anything contrary to Goddidit with magic. Doesn't matter even when scientific reality points to unequivocal novel genetic material you call it a loss no matter which of the three possible outcomes occur.
HTS wrote:
You merely imagine that if enough mutations occur, eventually natural selection will sort them all out and the organism will end up with something positive. That is not the way natural selection works.
As you have no scientific education at all whatsoever you have no basis from which to make this statement.
HTS wrote:
What makes you conclude that natural selection can preserve favorable mutations when, by your own admission, most mutations are "neutral"? You can't have it both ways.
Actually it's BECAUSE of natural selection we can have it all THREE ways. Most mutations are neutral but that doesn't mean there aren't any non-neutral ones. But thanks for betraying your complete and utter total lack of understanding of the concept.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124314 Mar 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the ability to digest lactose as an adult harmful, neutral, or beneficial?
Does't matter, all that matters it's that it's a LOSS of genetic "information" no matter what, OKAY?!?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124315 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you said,
"So you are saying that an organism born with legs would not have a better chance of surviving on land than one born with nothing but fins." [see previous post]
NOw you accuse me of your ridiculous statement.
You implied that a mutated amphibian was born with funcitonal legs.
I asked you who he mated with.
Rather than your incessant dodging, why don't you take responsibility for your meanderings?
You made the assertion for me, you lied. It's pretty simple.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124316 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Natural selectin is a tautology.
None of your assertions have been scientifically validated.
Whoever survives is by definition the fittest.
Actually it's not. Take a diagonal platform with medium size holes in it. Get a bunch of marbles of three different sizes, large, small and medium. Roll them down the slope. Repeat this numerous times. Each outcome will be somewhat different, but the general results will show that some of the medium marbles will be lost down the holes. Most the small ones will. While virtually all large ones will make it to the bottom. Natural selection tested.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124317 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
Rather than your incessant dodging, why don't you take responsibility for your meanderings?
You've been dodging since you arrived. Can you stop blowing up the irony meters today?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#124318 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your incessant evo-babbling is annoying.
Good.
HTS wrote:
You NEVER answer a question. All you ever do is set up idiotic smokescreens and distractions. Did you even read my post?
I've answered plenty, as all of us here know. Same with plenty of other people. All you do then is whine about atheism as if it even had the slightest bearing on the discussion.(shrug)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124319 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Man's ability to perform higher intellectual functions supposedly evolved long before he ever used them.
Therefore, their existence cannot be explained by evolution.
Abstract thought would have proven useful for surviving in the wilds of the prehistoric world. Language would have proven useful for the group's ability to survive in the wilds of the prehistoric world.

Seriously, are you this stupid?

If we knew how to use a screwdriver to make a space shuttle in the mid-20th century, how come we didn't know how to use a screwdriver to make a space shuttle in the mid-19th century? How could screwdrivers have existed back then if we didn't know how to do much more complicated things with them than we did in the mid-19th century?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124320 Mar 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Does't matter, all that matters it's that it's a LOSS of genetic "information" no matter what, OKAY?!?
A "loss?" What was lost? Please identify exactly what was lost.

Is it your assertion that all, or most, mutations are harmful, and that there are NO beneficial or neutral mutations?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124321 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Are you suggesting that the first amphibian was born with functional legs?
And by the way, who did it mate with?
Why don't you tell us what YOU think the theory of evolution says about how amphibians came to be?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124322 Mar 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're assuming that good mutations are frequent. You have no proof whatsoever that a given percentage of the 150 or so mutations per generation in humans can ever add up to anything positive. You have no logical argument that they could. All you know is that mutations occur, and their affect for the most part cannot be measured.
Good mutations are rare. Neutral are common. Harmful are rare.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 min Endofdays 160,232
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Just another Joe 220,525
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 1 hr yehoshooah adam 2,641
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Into The Night 28,308
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Into The Night 61,046
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 99
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) Mar 15 fransherrell 227
More from around the web