Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178597 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

Williston, ND

#130109 May 14, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok my fault - the space in the URL threw me off - my bad
Ok next the figure for the number of mutations to gain intelligence?
Oh since you getting all linky (it is the 21st century after all) if you want to throw one in about how the majority of medics reject evolution that would be peachy.
We can move on to your misuse of the numbers tomorrow
If you accept the belief that humans and chimps share 98% concordance in DNA, then the difference in nucleotides is 60 million.
If you accept that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 8 million years ago, then you need 30 million base pair changes during a time period of 8 million years to go from ape to man.
It is estimated that human evolution took place within a population of about 10,000 individuals.
Average human reproduction is three offspring every 20 years.
If one specific mutation occurs every 2 billion births, then you're looking at 1 specific mutation every 133,333 years. That means that you might get a total of 60 mutations during the entire evolutionary time period of 8 million years.
Here's another number to chew on... Sir Ronald Fisher (evolutionist and mathematician) calculated that the average mutation with a selective value of 0.1 would face a 499/500 chance of being extinguished in the first generation.
Also, nearly all mutations are recessive and therefore cannot be perpetuated by natural selection.

Now I realize what you're thinking... That evolution can take one of many pathways.
But the number of pathways is not infinite.
If you imagine one million different pathways to man's intelligence, you're still faced with insurmountable odds against it.
HTS

Williston, ND

#130110 May 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it appears that you have answered your own question. Sounds like a work in progress to me.
Do you have any evidence that individuals without wisdom teeth are more likely to reproduce than those with wisdom teeth? You're telling me that this is evolution in progress. Let's see the numbers.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130111 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer the question.
Why hasn't natural selection removed all wisdom teeth millions of years ago.
They are a detriment to survival.
They are not, and never were, a detriment to humans being able to reach reproductive age and procreate. And, dentistry has generally eliminated the survival disadvantage they might have possibly presented.

[QUOTE wo="HTS"]20% of the population has congenital absence of one of more wisdom teeth.
That is far more common than any mutations that you imagine that lead up to flight in birds.[/QUOTE]

And, if there were a survival and reproductive advantage to such absence of wisdom teeth, we'd see it in greater and greater proportions of the population. But, like I said, they don't affect our ability to reach reproductive age and procreate. As such, there is no selective pressure on wisdom teeth.

But, don't let things like reality get in the way of your little story.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130112 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In order for your analogy to be correct, natural selection would need to have supernal power.
If this is the case, why does anyone have wisdom teeth or an appendix?
Why didn't natural selection remove these traits millions of years ago?
Did wisdom teeth or the appendix prevent any significant proportion of the population from reaching reproductive age and procreating? If not, that's your answer.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130113 May 14, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Whats been on our money for 150+ years??
E Pluribus Unum?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130114 May 14, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The first indication that you aren't a very smart person is ridiculing your opponents in a debate by calling them names. A sure sign that you feel you have lost before you started. It tells me you clearly know you don't know so you have to belittle in order to achieve.
If brown fur color provides a benefit to the organism then natural selection would confer a selection advantage.
No one said that a microbe can be bread into a man.
What about yeast?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130115 May 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did wisdom teeth or the appendix prevent any significant proportion of the population from reaching reproductive age and procreating? If not, that's your answer.
In the past, before modern medicine and antibiotics yes. Today, not so much.
HTS

Williston, ND

#130116 May 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did wisdom teeth or the appendix prevent any significant proportion of the population from reaching reproductive age and procreating? If not, that's your answer.
Yes.
Wisdom teeth can become impacted and abscessed.
Acute appendicitis, which usually occurs before reproductive years, can be lethal.

If natural selection can favor a slightly frayed scale (feather evolution) over a normal scale, why is it incapable of favoring obvious survival advantages that occur much more commonly?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130117 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you accept the belief that humans and chimps share 98% concordance in DNA, then the difference in nucleotides is 60 million.
If you accept that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 8 million years ago, then you need 30 million base pair changes during a time period of 8 million years to go from ape to man.
It is estimated that human evolution took place within a population of about 10,000 individuals.
Average human reproduction is three offspring every 20 years.
If one specific mutation occurs every 2 billion births, then you're looking at 1 specific mutation every 133,333 years. That means that you might get a total of 60 mutations during the entire evolutionary time period of 8 million years.
Here's another number to chew on... Sir Ronald Fisher (evolutionist and mathematician) calculated that the average mutation with a selective value of 0.1 would face a 499/500 chance of being extinguished in the first generation.
Also, nearly all mutations are recessive and therefore cannot be perpetuated by natural selection.
Now I realize what you're thinking... That evolution can take one of many pathways.
But the number of pathways is not infinite.
If you imagine one million different pathways to man's intelligence, you're still faced with insurmountable odds against it.
You made a mistake in your analysis.

I see it.

Does anyone else see it?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#130118 May 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past, before modern medicine and antibiotics yes. Today, not so much.
Enough to endanger the survival of the species?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#130119 May 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You made a mistake in your analysis.
I see it.
Does anyone else see it?
What, that each entire generation is contained each a single breeding pair?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130120 May 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Enough to endanger the survival of the species?
No, but enough to endanger the survival of a certain percentage of those that have wisdom teeth or an appendix.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130121 May 14, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What, that each entire generation is contained each a single breeding pair?
Nope, he didn't seem to make that mistake. Keep trying.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#130122 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you accept the belief that humans and chimps share 98% concordance in DNA, then the difference in nucleotides is 60 million.
If you accept that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 8 million years ago, then you need 30 million base pair changes during a time period of 8 million years to go from ape to man.
It is estimated that human evolution took place within a population of about 10,000 individuals.
Average human reproduction is three offspring every 20 years.
If one specific mutation occurs every 2 billion births, then you're looking at 1 specific mutation every 133,333 years. That means that you might get a total of 60 mutations during the entire evolutionary time period of 8 million years.
Here's another number to chew on... Sir Ronald Fisher (evolutionist and mathematician) calculated that the average mutation with a selective value of 0.1 would face a 499/500 chance of being extinguished in the first generation.
Also, nearly all mutations are recessive and therefore cannot be perpetuated by natural selection.
Now I realize what you're thinking... That evolution can take one of many pathways.
But the number of pathways is not infinite.
If you imagine one million different pathways to man's intelligence, you're still faced with insurmountable odds against it.
Gosh, you'd better hurry and get a patent or trademark on this...you'll be rich

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#130124 May 14, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>

If you accept that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor 8 million years ago, then you need 30 million base pair changes during a time period of 8 million years to go from ape to man.
It is estimated that human evolution took place within a population of about 10,000 individuals.
Average human reproduction is three offspring every 20 years.
If one specific mutation occurs every 2 billion births, then you're looking at 1 specific mutation every 133,333 years. That means that you might get a total of 60 mutations during the entire evolutionary time period of 8 million years.


1.Man didn't go ape to man , man went from a hominid to a modern human, while current ape lineages went to a different evolutionary path, branching of into several different species, the last major branch split one path to humans and the other to chimpanzees.

2. The difference's between species after a branch is now being generated by both species down different paths.
The differences and

3. The mutation rate can only be examined by comparing the nucleotide difference generated between the two, but
the number of differences between two different species is used to estimate how long ago two species branched away from each other.
So the mutation rate is itself is based on the number of
changes between the two species.

4. You got the figure wrong it is 40 million.

5. The original estimate of 10,000 breeding pairs rises over the time span. Also he molecular clock and mutation can vary under environmental pressures.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130125 May 15, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you've never heard of triangulation. Good for about 400 light-years.
Slept through geometry class?
I ... don't think he went to school at all.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130126 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Wisdom teeth can become impacted and abscessed.
Acute appendicitis, which usually occurs before reproductive years, can be lethal.
If natural selection can favor a slightly frayed scale (feather evolution) over a normal scale, why is it incapable of favoring obvious survival advantages that occur much more commonly?
Obvious that you do not understand mutation and vestigial organs.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130127 May 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Obvious that you do not understand mutation and vestigial organs.
Vestigial organs? Really? It must be 10 years since I've last seen that one. LOL! You really need to catch up Kitten.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130128 May 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I ... don't think he went to school at all.
You TOLD US you didn't go to college!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130129 May 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
1.Man didn't go ape to man , man went from a hominid to a modern human, while current ape lineages went to a different evolutionary path, branching of into several different species, the last major branch split one path to humans and the other to chimpanzees.
2. The difference's between species after a branch is now being generated by both species down different paths.
The differences and
3. The mutation rate can only be examined by comparing the nucleotide difference generated between the two, but
the number of differences between two different species is used to estimate how long ago two species branched away from each other.
So the mutation rate is itself is based on the number of
changes between the two species.
4. You got the figure wrong it is 40 million.
5. The original estimate of 10,000 breeding pairs rises over the time span. Also he molecular clock and mutation can vary under environmental pressures.
Empty excuses. Do the math. It's still basically impossible.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min dirtclod 163,689
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 19 hr Paul Porter1 78
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 141,315
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) May 15 MikeF 13,700
More from around the web