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

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130741 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not what the research shows. I cited Crow, 1997 that showed fitness of the human genome is declining at the rate of 1-2% per generation (Crow, 1997). And that the censensus among human genetisists is that, at present, the human race is genetically degenerating due to rapid mutation accumulation and relaxed natural selection pressure (Crow, 1997).
Ah, no, Urb. You have yet to back up this so-called consensus among geneticists. You keep carrying on as if you had. You're not fooling anyone. Except possibly yourself.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130742 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't help it if you have reading comprehension issues.
Oh here we go! It time for Urb to whine "you don't understand!" again.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130743 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not just the Bible, it's the numerous scientific evidence that points to a young earth and a complete absense of evidence for evolution. I'm being very logical here.
Thanks for the laugh, Urb.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130744 May 20, 2013
Urb, you can't bullshit people anymore.

Without a proper link we know that you are lying. In this case it is very apparent that you got your so called "fact" from a discredited creatard site.

Go back and try again.

The answer to the question "Why aren't we dead a hundred times over?" is easy. There is no genetic entropy. Truly bad mutations don't even get born. Slightly bad mutations get born but do not reproduce. By the time you get to the point where a person can reproduce with a "bad mutation" it is already in the fuzzy area of being an environment sensitively qualified trait. In some environments it could be considered a "bad gene" in others a "good gene". Even in genetics absolutes are not real.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130745 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
My law of non-macroevolution:
YOUR law??? LOL You're on a roll, Urb.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130746 May 20, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
YOUR law??? LOL You're on a roll, Urb.
Try and refute it. You can't.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#130747 May 20, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't find that quote in the source article. You c/p'ed it from other creationists. If you don't understand the context, how can you understand what is being said? You do know what quotemining is, right?
And, this is exactly why I mocked the premise of "fitness" regarding humans. We've redefined fitness for survival to meet our own standards, not those of nature. As a result, the genome is filling with deleterious mutations. We are CHOOSING to do that. That's not genetic entropy.
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?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#130748 May 20, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Try and refute it. You can't.
Your made up law? Sure, I'll get right on that.

“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?

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) 7 min dirtclod 133,976
How would creationists explain... 3 hr Hidingfromyou 434
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 5 hr Chimney1 678
Science News (Sep '13) Wed 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