Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180388 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#130150 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
By the way HST, the reason that no one has published an article showing how "mathematically" it is possible for evolution to occur is that same reason as no one has ever published and article showing how it is mathematically possible for a rock to fall.
It is obvious to all but the most dense student that if something has happened it is mathematically possible.
Now you can show that it is mathematically possible the way that I did. But that is such an obvious observation that it will never make it to a professional journal.
We know evolution is possible. We see it happening all of the time and can be observed several different ways. There is no need to "prove" that it is possible. It has already been "proven".
Why, when you fail terribly with our mathematical "proofs", which you always do, do you then try to shift the burden of proof to others?
Do you think you are fooling anyone with that idiocy?
Evolution is imagined... it is not observed.
A falling rock is observed and is undisputed.
If someone questioned that a rock would fall, it could easily
be shown that it's mathematically possible for a rock to fall. You, however, cannot show that evolution is mathematically possible. Your absurd declaration that it doesn't need to be shown is a manifestation of your supreme arrogance.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130151 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, doofus!*YOU* were the one who claimed wisdom teeth are a detriment to survival. Don't you remember?
How about you back that up first before we move on to your next ridiculous claim.
I implied that, according to evolution, wisdom teeth are a detriment to survival. If they are, there shouldn't be any because the all powerful natural selection has had millions of years to remove them from the population.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130152 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
By the way HST, the reason that no one has published an article showing how "mathematically" it is possible for evolution to occur is that same reason as no one has ever published and article showing how it is mathematically possible for a rock to fall.
It is obvious to all but the most dense student that if something has happened it is mathematically possible.
Now you can show that it is mathematically possible the way that I did. But that is such an obvious observation that it will never make it to a professional journal.
We know evolution is possible. We see it happening all of the time and can be observed several different ways. There is no need to "prove" that it is possible. It has already been "proven".
Why, when you fail terribly with our mathematical "proofs", which you always do, do you then try to shift the burden of proof to others?
Do you think you are fooling anyone with that idiocy?
You're busted, SZ.
You cannot demonstrate that evolution is mathematically possible.
No one can, because it is impossible.
All you can do is hurl stupid insults and creat distractions and smokescreens.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130153 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
First, your "junk DNA" paradigm has collapsed. Why do you persist in the debunked "98% nonfunctionality" dogma when you know perfectly well that it is false?
The junk paradigm has not collapsed. It has been found that some of the junk DNA has a use. It does not have the same use as regular DNA and that is why mutations, very often, do not change it. The so called "functionality" of junk DNA is not the same as that of coding genes. It is still perfectly fine to use the proper term "non-coding DNA". You are the one who is caught in a lie here, not me.
Second, you say most mutations are "benign". You think because their effects are not measurable that they are harmless. If their effects are not measurable, then how is natural selection going to preserve them. Natural selection cannot get rid of obvious problems like wisdom teeth and appendices, so what makes you assume that it can filter out mutations that have no measurable harmful effect?
All you've done is simply imagine that if you can amass enought "benign" mutations into the genome, that they will magically come together to form a man from an ape. That is not valid science. That is nothing less than a bedtime story.
They are preserved since there is not active program to get rid of them. We can observe these changes in the genome and we know, again by observation, that over 99% of them have no measurable effect. That is by definition benign. Of course 98% of them are going to end up in the non-coding regions so their benign nature is understood.
There are, according to evolutionary dogma [unproven, of course], only 60 million differences in nucleotides between humans and chimps. Do you seriously think that the sequences of those 60 million nucleotides that define human vs ape are not important? How many different configurations do you imagine would be possible? I want you to give me a number...
First off, please quit lying. There is no "evolutionary dogma". Look up the meaning of the word "dogma" it does not apply. Second, 98% of those differences are in noncoding areas so yes, those differences should make no or very little change in the two species. At best most of the so called functionality merely tells genes when to turn off or on. Minor changes in the genome do not seem to affect this, otherwise we would all be in trouble with our 100 mutations per generation.
You're saying that a monkey to be able to type specific a work of Shakespeare. I say that a monkey couldn't type any meaningful text in any language, given trillions of years. In the same manner, evolution cannot create a meaningful secquence of nucleotides, because the number of meaningless possibilities, each of which is equally likely to occur, is astronomically great.
No, I said virtual monkeys using a selection method similar to the natural selection one sees in nature have typed out the works of Shakespeare. You can say what you like, you of course will be wrong. You have no idea how natural selection works with variation to allow evolution to continue. That much is obvious.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130154 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're busted, SZ.
You cannot demonstrate that evolution is mathematically possible.
No one can, because it is impossible.
All you can do is hurl stupid insults and creat distractions and smokescreens.
Wrong. I did show it was mathematically possible. Do you need to see it again?

But before I do that you have to admit that your so called proof against it was totally flawed. In fact it was hilariously flawed. Do you know the reason why?

I would like to see one unearned insult that I have ever hurled. And none of my insults are stupid. That was an unearned insult on your part.

For example, I don't continually call you "How's That for Stupid". I only do that when you REALLY put your foot in your mouth. You have shown such a low level of comprehension that that could be applied to you each and every time that you post here. I save that one, as I said, for special moments.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#130155 May 15, 2013
I was thinking about Angelina Jolie and her recessive genetic variant, BRCA1, from a natural selection perspective and with genetic entropy in mind. There you go, the most desirable woman on Earth but less fit and potentially faced with disease and an untimely death.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130156 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is imagined... it is not observed.
A falling rock is observed and is undisputed.
If someone questioned that a rock would fall, it could easily
be shown that it's mathematically possible for a rock to fall. You, however, cannot show that evolution is mathematically possible. Your absurd declaration that it doesn't need to be shown is a manifestation of your supreme arrogance.
Lying pisses off your pretend friend.

Evolution has been observed in many places. Perhaps you don't now the meaning of the word "observe". I have shown that evolution is mathematically possible. You fail at showing that it is impossible. You make continual bad assumptions and try to force facts to agree with you. You always fail.

Once again, one of the reasons we know evolution is right is that every science agrees with it. When used as a theory it works extremely well with all of the different branches of biology. And of course geology. Creationism doesn't. It cannot explain ERV's, many many nested hierarchies, homology, embryology, paleontology or countless other branches of science.

When a group of independent studies all agree that is thought to be very strong evidence that an idea is correct.

There is no scientific support of creationism. None. Creatards cannot get past the first step in forming a theory.

You are simply an ignorant fool who won't even bother to try to learn.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#130157 May 15, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention infant mortality was abysmal up until the post Industrial age (working from memory here). Only until relatively modern sanitation and medical advancements did infant mortality begin to drop significantly.
I thought I read Infant mortality rates at about 50%(Pre-industrial England?). Unable to check that data now, as I'm at work.
While that is partially true, we still are accumulating harmful mutations.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130158 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I was thinking about Angelina Jolie and her recessive genetic variant, BRCA1, from a natural selection perspective and with genetic entropy in mind. There you go, the most desirable woman on Earth but less fit and potentially faced with disease and an untimely death.
Evolution takes place on a species-wide scale, NOT in individuals, so it doesn't matter how attractive Jolie might be or how many biological children she has had, etc.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130159 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, please quit lying. There is no "evolutionary dogma". Look up the meaning of the word "dogma" it does not apply. Second, 98% of those differences are in noncoding areas so yes, those differences should make no or very little change in the two species. At best most of the so called functionality merely tells genes when to turn off or on. Minor changes in the genome do not seem to affect this, otherwise we would all be in trouble with our 100 mutations per generation.
So you're saying that there's really very little difference between a chimp and a human. Look in the mirror ponder what you just said.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130160 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
While that is partially true, we still are accumulating harmful mutations.
Harmful mutations tend, over the long term, NOT to accumulate, because they present a barrier to reproduction.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130161 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying pisses off your pretend friend.
Evolution has been observed in many places. Perhaps you don't now the meaning of the word "observe". I have shown that evolution is mathematically possible. You fail at showing that it is impossible. You make continual bad assumptions and try to force facts to agree with you. You always fail.
Once again, one of the reasons we know evolution is right is that every science agrees with it. When used as a theory it works extremely well with all of the different branches of biology. And of course geology. Creationism doesn't. It cannot explain ERV's, many many nested hierarchies, homology, embryology, paleontology or countless other branches of science.
When a group of independent studies all agree that is thought to be very strong evidence that an idea is correct.
There is no scientific support of creationism. None. Creatards cannot get past the first step in forming a theory.
You are simply an ignorant fool who won't even bother to try to learn.
Nylonase-producing bacteria and peppered moths are "observed". That does not imply that man evolved from a worm.

No you're getting desperate. You cannot demonstrate that evolution is mathematically possible, so you must divert to the tired worn out arguments of homology, nested hierarchies, embryology, etc... all of which are entirely consistent with intelligent design.

Regardless of how much pretended "evidence" you present, evolutionary mechanisms are impossible by all mathematical parameters. and you cannot refute that. All you can do is rant and scream and challenge me to prove that evolution is impossible. You cannot show that it is possible. Therefore, you don't have a scientific theory.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130162 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I implied that, according to evolution, wisdom teeth are a detriment to survival.
Don't be coy. You didn't imply it. You stated it as a fact.
HTS wrote:
If they are, there shouldn't be any because the all powerful natural selection has had millions of years to remove them from the population.
Modern humans - depending on where you draw the line - have been around for somewhat less than a million years. So you're wrong about that too.

Ever heard of Google?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130163 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Harmful mutations tend, over the long term, NOT to accumulate, because they present a barrier to reproduction.
Storytelling is not science. Prove that "harmful" mutations are a barrier to reproduction.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130164 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I was thinking about Angelina Jolie and her recessive genetic variant, BRCA1, from a natural selection perspective and with genetic entropy in mind. There you go, the most desirable woman on Earth but less fit and potentially faced with disease and an untimely death.
Yet more proof that god loves us.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130165 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. I did show it was mathematically possible. Do you need to see it again?
But before I do that you have to admit that your so called proof against it was totally flawed. In fact it was hilariously flawed. Do you know the reason why?
I would like to see one unearned insult that I have ever hurled. And none of my insults are stupid. That was an unearned insult on your part.
For example, I don't continually call you "How's That for Stupid". I only do that when you REALLY put your foot in your mouth. You have shown such a low level of comprehension that that could be applied to you each and every time that you post here. I save that one, as I said, for special moments.
You didn't present any math. You just said that millions of mutations would occur, and that over millions of years those mutations would gradually form a human from an ape.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#130166 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I was thinking about Angelina Jolie and her recessive genetic variant, BRCA1, from a natural selection perspective and with genetic entropy in mind. There you go, the most desirable woman on Earth but less fit and potentially faced with disease and an untimely death.
Angelina is 38 years old, still alive, and still healthy.

How many children could she have given birth to before succumbing to breast cancer (which she has yet to contract)?

If she had died at age 6, she would not have passed on this genetic condition, now would she?

....is any of this sinking in?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130167 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that there's really very little difference between a chimp and a human. Look in the mirror ponder what you just said.
There are an amazing number of similarities, much more than there are differences. Why don't you look in a mirror at yourself and a chimp and a giraffe. Or to get a bigger difference you, a chimp, and a fish. Or an even larger difference you, a chimp, and s blade of grass.

Your idiocy know no bounds.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130168 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You didn't present any math. You just said that millions of mutations would occur, and that over millions of years those mutations would gradually form a human from an ape.
We went through this argument in the past. And no hard math is needed. All that is needed is to show that more than enough changes would appear with the known rates of mutation.

You are simply a sore loser when your stupidity is shown to the public. You were wrong again when you said that it was impossible.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130169 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Storytelling is not science. Prove that "harmful" mutations are a barrier to reproduction.
And here we have another "How's That for Stupid" moment.

Seriously HST, can't you think a little bit before you post?

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) 2 min Into The Night 74,946
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 11 min Genesis Enigma 162,034
News In Turkey, no teaching of evolution, but bannin... 17 min Science 39
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 24 min Nemesis 156
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 40 min THE LONE WORKER 245
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr John 32,048
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 1 hr Science 138
More from around the web