Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129381 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So where does the "eye spot" come from?
It just "appears"?
Why don't you ever look anything up yourself?

An eye spot is merely a concentration of nerves. The earliest eye spot would have been merely a inheritable statistically significant increase in the number of nerves in one part of the body. So is it that difficult to see that the first one was only a random slightly higher concentration and that trait was passed on?

Perhaps instead of asking questions of us that you are stupid enough to think that there is no answer to you could Google search it first. That would save us time and you embarrassment.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#129382 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So you compare the complexity of DNA to a pile of leaves? That means that man's intelligence and everything that his intelligence has created is no more complex than a pile of leaves.
I did not compare the complexity of human knowledge to a pile of leaves. Just the random complexity of DNA.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129383 May 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you ever look anything up yourself?
An eye spot is merely a concentration of nerves. The earliest eye spot would have been merely a inheritable statistically significant increase in the number of nerves in one part of the body. So is it that difficult to see that the first one was only a random slightly higher concentration and that trait was passed on?
Perhaps instead of asking questions of us that you are stupid enough to think that there is no answer to you could Google search it first. That would save us time and you embarrassment.
An eyespot is not merely a concentration of nerves. Your simplistic imagination does not remove any barriers to evolution. What functionality would a concentration of nerves have? Do you observe any perpetuation of such a trait today by natural selection?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129384 May 9, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not compare the complexity of human knowledge to a pile of leaves. Just the random complexity of DNA.
What is "random complexity"?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129385 May 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
That HAS to be the stupidest thing said by anyone EVER
are you Jim Ryan
You need to define complexity if you claim that a snowflake is complex.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129386 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
An eyespot is not merely a concentration of nerves. Your simplistic imagination does not remove any barriers to evolution. What functionality would a concentration of nerves have? Do you observe any perpetuation of such a trait today by natural selection?
As Sub Z said: "Dont you ever look up anything on your own?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...

<<copy/paste>>

The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot allows the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,[17] and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms. Visual pigments are located in the brains of more complex organisms, and are thought to have a role in synchronising spawning with lunar cycles. By detecting the subtle changes in night-time illumination, organisms could synchronise the release of sperm and eggs to maximise the probability of fertilisation.

<<end copy/paste>>

more at link above, with references for additional study

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129387 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You need to define complexity if you claim that a snowflake is complex.
You need to be able to QUANTIFY "complexity" if you claim that DNA is "more complex" than DNA.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129388 May 9, 2013
<<edit to above: You need to be able to QUANTIFY "complexity" if you claim that DNA is "more complex" than a SNOWFLAKE. >>
Mugwump

UK

#129389 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You need to define complexity if you claim that a snowflake is complex.
Good grief - you got it backwards again - do you put your shoes on before your socks.

It's YOU that is making a quantitive assessment of complexity of a snowflake (random - according to you)- and DNA (complex - according to you)

So how did YOU come to this assessment - how did you test it?

And while we are at it - how's that evidence coming along for how the majority of medical practitioners reject evolution.

Or were you just making sh1t up?

Rhetorical question

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129390 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
An eyespot is not merely a concentration of nerves. Your simplistic imagination does not remove any barriers to evolution. What functionality would a concentration of nerves have? Do you observe any perpetuation of such a trait today by natural selection?
That is all a primitive eye spot is.

Seriously what do you think an eye spot is?

You have no clue as usual, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129391 May 9, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<<edit to above: You need to be able to QUANTIFY "complexity" if you claim that DNA is "more complex" than a SNOWFLAKE. >>
Are you telling me that DNA is not more complex than a snowflake?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129392 May 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is all a primitive eye spot is.
Seriously what do you think an eye spot is?
You have no clue as usual, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...
If only there was some kind of electronic portal where one could search for this kind of information BEFORE asking dumbass questions.

Nah, stupid idea - will never catch on.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129393 May 9, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
As Sub Z said: "Dont you ever look up anything on your own?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...
<<copy/paste>>
The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from. Eyespots are found in nearly all major animal groups, and are common among unicellular organisms, including euglena. The euglena's eyespot, called a stigma, is located at its anterior end. It is a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals. Together with the leading flagellum, the eyespot allows the organism to move in response to light, often toward the light to assist in photosynthesis,[17] and to predict day and night, the primary function of circadian rhythms. Visual pigments are located in the brains of more complex organisms, and are thought to have a role in synchronising spawning with lunar cycles. By detecting the subtle changes in night-time illumination, organisms could synchronise the release of sperm and eggs to maximise the probability of fertilisation.
<<end copy/paste>>
more at link above, with references for additional study
The "eyespots" described in the above reference are not analogous to the proposed precursors to complex image forming eyes, which are not defined by a collection of nerves. There is no observational evidence of any element of eye evolution occurring in nature... All you have are simplistic stories. You imagine that because you find a less developed photoreceptive organ, you've proven that one complexity can evolve into another.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129394 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Are you telling me that DNA is not more complex than a snowflake?
NO YOU CRETIN

Its YOU that is making a quantatitive judgement with respect to complexity.

Our argument is that it is hard to define complexity , harder to measure it and therefore impossible to assign its cause to design.

(Kong - sorry for jumping in but thought would heroically attempt to shield you from the onslaught of stupid - but you on your own now as my armor is ripped to shreds from a mere 5 posts from this dolt)

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#129395 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What is "random complexity"?
DNA sequences.

http://nirmukta.com/2009/11/13/complexity-exp...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129396 May 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
If only there was some kind of electronic portal where one could search for this kind of information BEFORE asking dumbass questions.
Nah, stupid idea - will never catch on.
Hmm, maybe if we added pron to it so that people could learn how to search for specific ideas. If someone can find red headed three foot tall midgets that specialize in foot fetishes and light bondage those same skills could be used to find out answers to basic science questions.

Of course one wouldn't want to search for those answers on a porn site.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129397 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The "eyespots" described in the above reference are not analogous to the proposed precursors to complex image forming eyes, which are not defined by a collection of nerves. There is no observational evidence of any element of eye evolution occurring in nature... All you have are simplistic stories. You imagine that because you find a less developed photoreceptive organ, you've proven that one complexity can evolve into another.
<<sigh>>

Read further in the link provided.

Putz.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#129398 May 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
(Kong - sorry for jumping in but thought would heroically attempt to shield you from the onslaught of stupid - but you on your own now as my armor is ripped to shreds from a mere 5 posts from this dolt)
I feel the 'Tag-Team' approach to certain unlightened posters is an appropriate tactic, especially when those posters are so unwaivering and persistent.

No apologies needed.

Your insight is welcome any time.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129399 May 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
NO YOU CRETIN
Its YOU that is making a quantatitive judgement with respect to complexity.
Our argument is that it is hard to define complexity , harder to measure it and therefore impossible to assign its cause to design.
(Kong - sorry for jumping in but thought would heroically attempt to shield you from the onslaught of stupid - but you on your own now as my armor is ripped to shreds from a mere 5 posts from this dolt)
I see... So to accept your worldview of atheism, you are required to pretend that complexity does not exist... That DNA is no more complex than a snowflake.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129400 May 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is all a primitive eye spot is.
Seriously what do you think an eye spot is?
You have no clue as usual, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the...
A "primitive eyespot" is not just a proliferation of nerves. Rather than blindly post links, perhaps you should study biology.

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) 20 min Chimney1 151,466
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min thetruth 43,139
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Thinking 18,492
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr It aint necessari... 912
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Blitzking 204,731
Sun could not have formed as thought 5 hr Your Done 16
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Mon Bren 1
More from around the web