Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180366 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 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130542 May 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I answered your question and that is all you get.
I could give you 4,5, and 6 and then you would demand 7,8 and 9. It is simply another method of lying that you creatards use.
You lost your challenge.
Try again tomorrow.
No, you lose because you failed to present a single example. The malaria example you refers to the connection with sickle cell anemia, right? How could you possibly cite copy/error disease as an example of new genetic information that translates into a new limb, tissue, or organ? Don't you even think these things through? Now either defend it properly or stand corrected and stop raising it as it makes you appear extremely ignorant.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130543 May 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No novel traits are produced by microevolution.
Existing traits can be diminished or enhanced, and dormant traits can be unmasked.
In selective breeding of dogs, for example, every trait of every breed of dog has always been within the genome of the gray wolf.
Wen man selectively breeds a sweeter apple, he has not "created" a new trait. He has enhanced a pre-existing trait.
You know that this is a lie.

The citrate digestion in E. coli was a new trait. There has been whole scale evolution of viruses where major structures have been evolved in the lab. Similar but totally different from old structures that were removed.

You cannot find a peer reviewed article that supports your beliefs since you know they are not true.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130544 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
HIV resistance in humans found in Europe.
No. No type of viral or bacterial resistance is an example of it.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130545 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not read what I typed? I asked for a clearly defined line between the two, not the actual definition. The actual definition, the one you posted, does not support your boundary at all. There is no boundary, and no mechanism to prevent any boundary from being crossed. Now again, what is the mechanism that prevents line from being crossed?
You are trying to change the subject. I am looking for one example of a positive mutation. The kind that must have happened millions of times over millions of years for bacteria to evolve into humans. The limit is simple and we've already defined it. It's called species and sometimes genus. We call it "kinds". You believe that whales evolved from mammals which evolved from fish. Evolution requires mutations to occur for this to happen so I'm just pointing out that if this is true, there should have been at least one example of it, but there is not even one.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130546 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Blue eyes.
No. THe fact is you have no basis for your beliefs. There isn't a single example of a positive mutation and every fossil ever found is of a plant or animal that was already fully formed. There just isn't a shred of evidence for evolution. It's pure ideology. There is no science in it at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130547 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you lose because you failed to present a single example. The malaria example you refers to the connection with sickle cell anemia, right? How could you possibly cite copy/error disease as an example of new genetic information that translates into a new limb, tissue, or organ? Don't you even think these things through? Now either defend it properly or stand corrected and stop raising it as it makes you appear extremely ignorant.
It does not matter what kind of change it is, a change is a change and by definition a mutation. It was not a preexisting trait.

You still lose Urb, you always lose Urb.

And of course you ignored the other one, the ability to digest lactose.

The thing is that a change by itself can be neutral, beneficial, or detrimental or even a combination of these. You need to check out the concept of islands of stability. Sometimes to get form one area to another a species must cross an area of lower survivability genetically.

Oh, and in case I forgot, you still lost.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130548 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. No type of viral or bacterial resistance is an example of it.
Wait, you asked for a new trait, and now you are saying that a new genetic trait is not an example of a new genetic trait .... do you spin around in your chair while typing too?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130549 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to change the subject. I am looking for one example of a positive mutation. The kind that must have happened millions of times over millions of years for bacteria to evolve into humans. The limit is simple and we've already defined it. It's called species and sometimes genus. We call it "kinds". You believe that whales evolved from mammals which evolved from fish. Evolution requires mutations to occur for this to happen so I'm just pointing out that if this is true, there should have been at least one example of it, but there is not even one.
Blond hair.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130550 May 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You know that this is a lie.
The citrate digestion in E. coli was a new trait. There has been whole scale evolution of viruses where major structures have been evolved in the lab. Similar but totally different from old structures that were removed.
You cannot find a peer reviewed article that supports your beliefs since you know they are not true.
Reality check. It was E.coli before it digested the citrate and it is E.coli after it digested the citrate. There was no change. There was no increase in genetic information. There was no new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ change of the type that would turn bacteria into fish and fish into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles and reptiles into birds and reptiles into apes and apes into humans. You would have to have had millions and millions of substantive, profound positive mutations for this to have happened but your best shot is E.coli digestion of citrate???!!! That doesn't even remotely qualify!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130551 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Blond hair.
No. Superficial color variations is from already existing genetic information. Nothing new was created. We are looking for new genetic information of the kind that would create or translate into significantly improved fitness from some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ which would clearly make it a new emerging species. There is no evidence for that.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130552 May 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter what kind of change it is, a change is a change and by definition a mutation. It was not a preexisting trait.
You still lose Urb, you always lose Urb.
And of course you ignored the other one, the ability to digest lactose.
The thing is that a change by itself can be neutral, beneficial, or detrimental or even a combination of these. You need to check out the concept of islands of stability. Sometimes to get form one area to another a species must cross an area of lower survivability genetically.
Oh, and in case I forgot, you still lost.
You don't simply by declaring it. You had to present at least one example and you haven't yet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130553 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't simply by declaring it. You had to present at least one example and you haven't yet.
Wrong, I presented three. You even admitted it. It does not matter if you did not like one of them, even that qualified. Only one was enough.

Too late for you to take it back now Urb.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130554 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Superficial color variations is from already existing genetic information. Nothing new was created. We are looking for new genetic information of the kind that would create or translate into significantly improved fitness from some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ which would clearly make it a new emerging species. There is no evidence for that.
Moving the goal posts, another losing creatard tactic.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130555 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Superficial color variations is from already existing genetic information. Nothing new was created. We are looking for new genetic information of the kind that would create or translate into significantly improved fitness from some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ which would clearly make it a new emerging species. There is no evidence for that.
Um ... no. To get a different color of anything the genetic material must be changed, you can't change your kid's hair by dying your own.

... and then you move the goal posts again. Tada! You have now submitted three fallacies. The sharp shooter, asking for a specific kind of trait. Moving the goal posts, a couple of times, first by declaring one genetic trait doesn't "count" because it doesn't fit your arbitrary and unscientific criteria, then by evading a trait, then ... Then you pulled another sharpshooter and strawman fallacy, you invented a trait that is actually a combination of several traits, then declared victory without even demonstrating how such a combination of traits is actually one single trait.

HIV resistance is a new genetic trait, and one of the newest we have discovered in the human population. That fits what you asked for, dismissing it merely betrays how you are lying to protect your myths.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130556 May 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Moving the goal posts, another losing creatard tactic.
Why don't you just be honest with yourself and admit you really don't have any evidence to support your beliefs? If man evolved from bacteria, there would have to have been millions upon millions of positive mutations with new, additional genetic information of the kind that create and translate into some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ that results in significantly improved fitness like fish gills to mammalian lungs or flippers into legs or arms into feathered wings or reptilian lungs into avian lungs, new body types, new species, new genuses, etc. And all you can come up with is mutations of pre-existing information related to either disease or change of food on the menu? The point is you should be knee-deep in these types of positive mutations but with all the best science has to offer over 50 years all over the world and there isn't a single adequate example. Don't you/can't yousee that something is very wrong here?

This, combined with the fact that we have collected millions of fossils all over the world and every one of them is of the fully-developed plant or animal that stayed exactly the same for its entire tenure until it either went extinct or is still alive, living as its fossil was found.

That combined with the fact that everything in the universe exhibits a pattern of moving from complex to less complex, hotter to colder, newer to older, a breaking down, wearing away, slowly deteriorating. And that is exactly what we see happening to the human genome, all living genomes. Entropy. Genetic entropy. Mistakes, errors, copy mistakes, deletions, disease, and death. Accumulating genetic mutations. Recessive genes. Prohibition against incest and close family relations because of known disease.

These three major processes are all very strong arguments against evolution but the three in combination are a thunderstrike so incredibly powerful as to deafen any hint of possibility for evolution. I just don't see any signs of hope for the theory to survive.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130557 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um ... no. To get a different color of anything the genetic material must be changed, you can't change your kid's hair by dying your own.
... and then you move the goal posts again. Tada! You have now submitted three fallacies. The sharp shooter, asking for a specific kind of trait. Moving the goal posts, a couple of times, first by declaring one genetic trait doesn't "count" because it doesn't fit your arbitrary and unscientific criteria, then by evading a trait, then ... Then you pulled another sharpshooter and strawman fallacy, you invented a trait that is actually a combination of several traits, then declared victory without even demonstrating how such a combination of traits is actually one single trait.
HIV resistance is a new genetic trait, and one of the newest we have discovered in the human population. That fits what you asked for, dismissing it merely betrays how you are lying to protect your myths.
So what is this new species called?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130558 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just be honest with yourself and admit you really don't have any evidence to support your beliefs? If man evolved from bacteria, there would have to have been millions upon millions of positive mutations with new, additional genetic information of the kind that create and translate into some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ that results in significantly improved fitness like fish gills to mammalian lungs or flippers into legs or arms into feathered wings or reptilian lungs into avian lungs, new body types, new species, new genuses, etc. And all you can come up with is mutations of pre-existing information related to either disease or change of food on the menu? The point is you should be knee-deep in these types of positive mutations but with all the best science has to offer over 50 years all over the world and there isn't a single adequate example. Don't you/can't yousee that something is very wrong here?
This, combined with the fact that we have collected millions of fossils all over the world and every one of them is of the fully-developed plant or animal that stayed exactly the same for its entire tenure until it either went extinct or is still alive, living as its fossil was found.
That combined with the fact that everything in the universe exhibits a pattern of moving from complex to less complex, hotter to colder, newer to older, a breaking down, wearing away, slowly deteriorating. And that is exactly what we see happening to the human genome, all living genomes. Entropy. Genetic entropy. Mistakes, errors, copy mistakes, deletions, disease, and death. Accumulating genetic mutations. Recessive genes. Prohibition against incest and close family relations because of known disease.
These three major processes are all very strong arguments against evolution but the three in combination are a thunderstrike so incredibly powerful as to deafen any hint of possibility for evolution. I just don't see any signs of hope for the theory to survive.
You fool.

You know that we have mountains of evidence.

Or don't you know what qualifies as scientific evidence either?

To be honest I have yet to see a creatard that can understand the simple concept of scientific evidence. Nor has I seen a creatard that will take the time to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence. Many positive mutations would not even be noticed. Many of them are very minor tweaks.

Too bad that you have no idea how evolution works or what is evidence. Of all of the creatards debating here you have been here the longest. You would think that you would have learned something in that time period.

Urb, why haven't you learned even the simple idea of what is and what is not evidence? Are you that afraid to learn?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130559 May 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is this new species called?
You did not ask for a speciation event. Now you have really moved the goal posts.

Does lying come to you naturally or what?

No wonder that creatards need a list of what is right and what is wrong. And they still can't obey that list.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130560 May 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You fool.
You know that we have mountains of evidence.
Or don't you know what qualifies as scientific evidence either?
To be honest I have yet to see a creatard that can understand the simple concept of scientific evidence. Nor has I seen a creatard that will take the time to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence. Many positive mutations would not even be noticed. Many of them are very minor tweaks.
Too bad that you have no idea how evolution works or what is evidence. Of all of the creatards debating here you have been here the longest. You would think that you would have learned something in that time period.
Urb, why haven't you learned even the simple idea of what is and what is not evidence? Are you that afraid to learn?
Why not just present it then?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#130561 May 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not ask for a speciation event. Now you have really moved the goal posts.
Does lying come to you naturally or what?
No wonder that creatards need a list of what is right and what is wrong. And they still can't obey that list.
Lame excuses.

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) 1 hr dollarsbill 85,471
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 2 hr dollarsbill 4,776
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Samuel Patre 165,351
What's your religion? Mon Paul Porter1 5
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Mon was auch immer 8
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Mon Dogen 33,127
God hates Tennessee Sun Rev Jackson 2
More from around the web