Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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

“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

Tempe, AZ.

#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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130130 May 15, 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.
HST's main error here was that he assumes that evolution has a direction with this analysis. He calculated the odds of the specific changes that occurred rather than just the fact that changes occur.

His odds calculation is correct to show that if you had an identical population the odds of them repeating the hominid to man and chimp evolution would be practically zero. What he keeps forgetting is that the odds of evolution are extremely high.

Nice try HST, but you failed again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130131 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Empty excuses. Do the math. It's still basically impossible.
Wrong.

HST assumed directionality. Evolution is not directional in that sense. He made the mistake of calculating how difficult it would be for another population to follow the evolutionary trail that occurred in the past. If he made a calculation based upon how many changes there would have to be versus how many changes there actually are, even taking into account that most changes are neutral or even bad, he would have found that there were more than enough changes in the populations for this evolutionary action to take place.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130132 May 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You TOLD US you didn't go to college!
But I never stopped learning, unlike you who claims you went to school and demonstrate no education at all.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130133 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
Average human reproduction is three offspring every 20 years.
For the vast majority of human history, the reproductive rate was no where near this high. So your math fails.

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) 8 min SobieskiSavedEurope 134,045
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Chimney1 696
How would creationists explain... 8 hr Dogen 435
Science News (Sep '13) Dec 24 positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web