Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178688 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#130749 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>SO then according to you, having children with your sister should be no problem? Because accumulated VSDM's don't really exist, and those genetisists are all wrong?
Congratulations.

Thats more evidence against The Flood.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130750 May 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Your made up law? Sure, I'll get right on that.
Perhaps I could call it Cowboy's Principle of Non-Macroevolution. Do you like better? Law may have been a bit much.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130751 May 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations.
Thats more evidence against The Flood.
Do you understand what the word "accumulate" means? That means that at first, there aren't any, or very few, but then with each generation, 100 or so VSDM's accumulate. The number increases with each generation. Now we have too many and must diversify in order to procreate in a healthy manner. Back in Noah's Day, this would not have been a problem becaues what miniscule number there were since creation would only have a very remote chance of being sexually combined and manifest disease and death as it does today.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130752 May 20, 2013
"A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%.[100] Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding.[14] A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.[101]"

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

^ a b Wolf, Arthur P.; Durham, William H.(2004). Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century. Stanford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-8047-5141-2.

^ Baird, P. A.; McGillivray, B.(1982). "Children of incest". The Journal of Pediatrics 101 (5): 8547. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(82)8034 7-8. PMID 7131177.

There are numerous studies like this about inbreeding amoung animals in small populations. This is certainly one cause of extinction. This is also happening to us!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130753 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
SO then according to you, having children with your sister should be no problem? Because accumulated VSDM's don't really exist, and those genetisists are all wrong?
That's not genetic entropy. Genetic entropy has been debunked. It is not a phenomenon. Renaming things that DO occur "genetic entropy" does not make it so. You should try honesty sometime. It works.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130754 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand what the word "accumulate" means? That means that at first, there aren't any, or very few, but then with each generation, 100 or so VSDM's accumulate. The number increases with each generation. Now we have too many and must diversify in order to procreate in a healthy manner. Back in Noah's Day, this would not have been a problem becaues what miniscule number there were since creation would only have a very remote chance of being sexually combined and manifest disease and death as it does today.
Remind us of the genetic bottlenecks that all life on Earth exhibits that all trace back to 4500 years ago.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130755 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps I could call it Cowboy's Principle of Non-Macroevolution. Do you like better? Law may have been a bit much.
You have principles?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#130756 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand what the word "accumulate" means? That means that at first, there aren't any, or very few, but then with each generation, 100 or so VSDM's accumulate. The number increases with each generation. Now we have too many and must diversify in order to procreate in a healthy manner. Back in Noah's Day, this would not have been a problem becaues what miniscule number there were since creation would only have a very remote chance of being sexually combined and manifest disease and death as it does today.
This is a more complete answer than what I could come up with given that I am at work now:

"Based on a literal reading of Genesis, most "young-earth" creationists (YEC's), believe that a violent global violent flood occured only a few thousand years ago, and extinguished all land life on earth except the pairs of animals and eight humans aboard Noah's Ark. However, this position contradicts extensive scientific evidence, and many Biblical scholars interpret the Flood as regional rather than global (since the Hebrew word for "land" can also mean "region" or "area" (Morton, 1997) or consider it an allegorical account.

Besides geologic evidence contrary to a recent global flood, YECs and other anti-evolutionists have a problem explaining the vast range of modern diversity for both humans and other creatures, if they were reduced to such small populations only a few thousand years ago. More specifically, they need to account for the many alleles (different states of a gene) found in modern populations today, if they did not come about through evolution. For example, a gene locus in the human leukocyte antigen complex has 59 different alleles (Ayala et al, 1993). However, each individual person normally has only two alleles for a given gene locus (one allele from each parent).

According to Genesis 7:7 the eight humans on the Ark consisted of Noah and his wife, their three sons and their sons wives. This means that that the Ark family had among them at most ten different alleles for each gene locus (3 x 2 = 6 for the wives, plus 2 each for Noah and his wife--their sons would have received all their alleles from their parents). Even if we allow the remote possibility that all three of Noah's sons were adopted and that all eight people on the ark were unrelated, each could have carried only 2 different alleles for each gene locus, and the entire ark family would have 2 x 8 = 16 alleles for each gene locus. So where did all the additional alleles in the modern population come from? In mainstream science, such alleles are the result of natural selection acting on mutations (sometimes involving duplicate genes as well as point mutations and "crossing-over"), acting over of millions of years. Strict creationists must account for them in only a few thousand years.

The problem of genetic diversity in a YEC framework becomes even more severe when one considers that only about a thousand years before the Flood (as most YECs interpret Genesis), the entire human genome resided in two individuals: Adam and Eve. Each of them could have had at most 2 alleles per gene, or 4 alleles per gene between them.

Creationists often claim that evolution cannot produce any new genetic information, but in view of the above considerations, many new alleles (which are clearly forms of new information) must have arisen by evolution. In fact, to account for the large numbers of alleles seen in current populations from the very limited ones at the presumed time of the Creation or Flood, would require more dramatic and rapid evolution than even "evolutionists" allow.

Conclusion
The diversity of modern species and the many alleles within their genomes is a major problem in the young-earth, Flood geology framework. One could propose ad-hoc miracles to account for them, or more reasonably, reject YECism and accept the massive evidence for an old earth and evolution.

http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130757 May 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not genetic entropy. Genetic entropy has been debunked. It is not a phenomenon. Renaming things that DO occur "genetic entropy" does not make it so. You should try honesty sometime. It works.
I'm being honest. You are in some sort of delusional denial. If accumulating genetic VSDM's aren't - OK we can call it what ever you like besides entropy - then WHAT IS IT?

It seems whenever we point out the 9,000 pound gorilla in the room you evotards simply lash out, refusing to see it. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130758 May 20, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a more complete answer than what I could come up with given that I am at work now:
"Based on a literal reading of Genesis, most "young-earth" creationists (YEC's), believe that a violent global violent flood occured only a few thousand years ago, and extinguished all land life on earth except the pairs of animals and eight humans aboard Noah's Ark. However, this position contradicts extensive scientific evidence, and many Biblical scholars interpret the Flood as regional rather than global (since the Hebrew word for "land" can also mean "region" or "area" (Morton, 1997) or consider it an allegorical account.
Besides geologic evidence contrary to a recent global flood, YECs and other anti-evolutionists have a problem explaining the vast range of modern diversity for both humans and other creatures, if they were reduced to such small populations only a few thousand years ago. More specifically, they need to account for the many alleles (different states of a gene) found in modern populations today, if they did not come about through evolution. For example, a gene locus in the human leukocyte antigen complex has 59 different alleles (Ayala et al, 1993). However, each individual person normally has only two alleles for a given gene locus (one allele from each parent).
According to Genesis 7:7 the eight humans on the Ark consisted of Noah and his wife, their three sons and their sons wives. This means that that the Ark family had among them at most ten different alleles for each gene locus (3 x 2 = 6 for the wives, plus 2 each for Noah and his wife--their sons would have received all their alleles from their parents). Even if we allow the remote possibility that all three of Noah's sons were adopted and that all eight people on the ark were unrelated, each could have carried only 2 different alleles for each gene locus, and the entire ark family would have 2 x 8 = 16 alleles for each gene locus. So where did all the additional alleles in the modern population come from? In mainstream science, such alleles are the result of natural selection acting on mutations (sometimes involving duplicate genes as well as point mutations and "crossing-over"), acting over of millions of years. Strict creationists must account for them in only a few thousand years.
The problem of genetic diversity in a YEC framework becomes even more severe when one considers that only about a thousand years before the Flood (as most YECs interpret Genesis), the entire human genome resided in two individuals: Adam and Eve. Each of them could have had at most 2 alleles per gene, or 4 alleles per gene between them.
Creationists often claim that evolution cannot produce any new genetic information, but in view of the above considerations, many new alleles (which are clearly forms of new information) must have arisen by evolution. In fact, to account for the large numbers of alleles seen in current populations from the very limited ones at the presumed time of the Creation or Flood, would require more dramatic and rapid evolution than even "evolutionists" allow.
Conclusion
The diversity of modern species and the many alleles within their genomes is a major problem in the young-earth, Flood geology framework. One could propose ad-hoc miracles to account for them, or more reasonably, reject YECism and accept the massive evidence for an old earth and evolution.
http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm
Glen Kuban's Web site? LOL! There are so many errors in there I wouldn't know where to begin.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130759 May 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have principles?
Absolutely. Do you? Based on your comments, you have no problem insulting and mocking and generally causing trouble all the time. This seems to be a common denominator amoung evolutionists. LIke Mike, "Pissing people off" and your headline meant to provoke a reaction for your "Evotrolling" pleasures. Disgusting behavior.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#130760 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. Do you? Based on your comments, you have no problem insulting and mocking and generally causing trouble all the time. This seems to be a common denominator amoung evolutionists. LIke Mike, "Pissing people off" and your headline meant to provoke a reaction for your "Evotrolling" pleasures. Disgusting behavior.
What?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130761 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. Do you? Based on your comments, you have no problem insulting and mocking and generally causing trouble all the time. This seems to be a common denominator amoung evolutionists. LIke Mike, "Pissing people off" and your headline meant to provoke a reaction for your "Evotrolling" pleasures. Disgusting behavior.
Nobody likes a crybaby, Urb.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130762 May 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody likes a crybaby, Urb.
Then stop crying.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130763 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop crying.
Weak.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#130764 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Glen Kuban's Web site? LOL! There are so many errors in there I wouldn't know where to begin.
Oh, but I insist!
Please.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#130765 May 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It's pretty hard to identify when a beneficial mutation is
has been created, but microbiology has spotted a few. Mostly the presence of such mutation goes unnoticed or undiscovered as such.
But Our DNA has shown us certain markers of their history.
We call them ERVs and these are the signs of positive mutations that occurred. Here is one that is identified as a ongoing gradual implement of our genome. But without modern techniques of discovery, it too would have never been realized.
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/7/1/155
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/7/1/155
What logical reason is there to assume that natural selection can "see" what man cannot see?
What logical reason do you have to conclude that a randomly inserted segment of viral genome could impart funcitonality to an organism?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#130766 May 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Improbability is not a mechanism. Leaves defy probability every time they fall. Not to mention, accumulation is not an effect based on probability, it either happens or it doesn't. So, again, what is the mechanism that prevents changes from accumulating into more definable differences?
You should really consider actually learning about science some day, because I don't think you even know what a mechanism is.
Your logic is convoluted.
I don't need to point to a "mechanism" to prove that something is impossible. I'm indicating that the mechanims that you propose is flawed because it is too improbable.
Leaves do not defy probability when they fall, becaue there is a stastirical certainty that they will fall randomly. You are in effect denying that there is any order to living theings.

Why can't we observe the evolution of ape to humans today? Because more time is required for improbable mutations to occur. Give me the mathematical juistification for the conclusion that an ape can evolve into a human in just 8 million years.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#130767 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm being honest. You are in some sort of delusional denial. If accumulating genetic VSDM's aren't - OK we can call it what ever you like besides entropy - then WHAT IS IT?
It seems whenever we point out the 9,000 pound gorilla in the room you evotards simply lash out, refusing to see it. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Pure projection from you here.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#130768 May 20, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me the mathematical juistification for the conclusion that an ape can evolve into a human in just 8 million years.
Again, you're assuming that "Human" was the goal of the diversification that began with the common ancestor of present day H.Sapiens and our other Ape cousins 4-6 mya.

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) 4 min Dogen 173,381
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 78
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 119
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 2 hr Zog Has-fallen 97
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 17 hr Chimney1 143,899
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 20 hr Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... Fri Chimney1 134
More from around the web