Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131027 May 21, 2013
Nope, still nothing from How's That. Hey, I heard somewhere that willow bark was a cure for headaches. Trees can't get headaches, that chemical can only help man, right?

Oh drat, salicylic acid is a growth regulator in plants, actually it has a whole slew of uses but that is a very general way of stating it.

Meanwhile let me see if How's That has found his plant and wonder drug yet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131028 May 21, 2013
Still nothing from How's That. Surely there must be another plant that supply's drugs.

Oh wait. I just thought of one that sometimes grows wild where I live. Has anyone ever seen the lovely flower the Foxglove? It is used to make digitalin. These are used to treat heart disease. Everyone knows that plants don't have hearts. Surely this is the wonder drug that How's That is looking for.

Oops, dang! I was wrong again. It turns out that the whole plant is wildly poisonous and the medicine is derived from that poison. Of course the poison protects the plant.

Well that's three strikes and I am out. All the drugs that I could find had definite positive effects for the plant.

Perhaps How's That will have something by the morning.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131029 May 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a lying skum bag.
Urb, what did I tell you about the mirror above the monitor?

You were caught lying again. Why does that make you so mad?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#131030 May 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's very easy in a laboratory conducting fruitily breeding experiments and culturing bacteria.
Yes , isolated and controlled it IS observed in the lab.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-b...

So keep it up and make yourself look like .....
The humiliated moron.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131031 May 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes , isolated and controlled it IS observed in the lab.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-b...
So keep it up and make yourself look like .....
The humiliated moron.
Can you please retry your link?

It is not working for me.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#131032 May 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You already stooped way beyond his level when you were stalking Dan the other day. Hypocrisy much?
Is this the best you got? Dan is an idiot that has been stalking and obsessed with a guy named Dan for years that always proved him wrong and an idiot in another forum. That is how he came up with the name "DanfromSmithville" You have no clue but you just feed right into his BS for he plays you like a fiddle. LMFAO

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#131033 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you please retry your link?
It is not working for me.
Google this.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab , big news for evolutionary science deniers.

"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131034 May 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Google this.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab , big news for evolutionary science deniers.
"A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait."
Google can access the correct article but I keep getting an error message. Do you have to be a member or have a subscription?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#131035 May 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Google can access the correct article but I keep getting an error message. Do you have to be a member or have a subscription?
No and yes the article is free, but New scientist charges a subscription to the full content of articles .
It works for me , but here.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
by Bob Holmes
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Profound change
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
Rare mutation?
By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
Evidence of evolution
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+- and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131037 May 21, 2013
Thank you. Yes, I am familiar with the Lenski experiment. And of course creationists have been denying its implications ever since the news was first published.

Just wait, you will hear that it was still "bacteria" from one of our tards.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#131038 May 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Thank you. Yes, I am familiar with the Lenski experiment. And of course creationists have been denying its implications ever since the news was first published.
Just wait, you will hear that it was still "bacteria" from one of our tards.
Yes, but it does show two things that can't be denied. Evolutionary changes happen and they can cause drastic changes suddenly. We can see by simple deduction through the fossil record , that these changes can add up over thousands of generations to produce new species, which is what it is.
But the argument "that it's still bacteria" is idiotic, animals evolve and produce new species , but they are still animals.
Animals do not evolve to become an air conditioner.
I see some viruses appear to be evolving into true life forms though, specifically the Meme virus.
Mugwump

UK

#131039 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I will point out two lines of evidence...[This does not suggest that this is the only evidence]
1. Biological altruism: Charles Darwin wrote repeatedly that the documentation of biological altruism between species would be fatal to evolutionary theory...
"Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; ...If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection"
*Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition, pg. 526-527
There are hundreds of plant species, particularly medicinal plants, that produce complex pharmacological substances that benefit man alone but do not benefit the plant that is producing them. The pharmacological benefit of plants to man is such a recognized biological fact that it has been assumed that the discovery of new species in remote areas of the earth such as the Amazon rain forest will lead to even more inroads into medicinal research and perhaps provide cures to other diseases.
If natural selection was the designer of plants, one would not expect to find substances in plants that benefit man but not the plant.
2. Complexity of life: Intelligent design is the only proven force in the universe capable of creating complex integrated systems. It is therefore scientifically logical to conclude that complex integrated systems of living things were also created by intelligent design. It is illogical to suppose that no intelligence created life, when intelligence is ALWAYS REQUIRED in the creation of complexities that man can observe. Therefore, every complexity of nature is evidence of intelligent design.
Fairy tales dressed up as science - you make an observation then PRESUME a creator because that fits your religious worldview.

You obviously don't know what science is

Want to try again?

(Rebuttal technique courtesy of HTS)
Mugwump

UK

#131040 May 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Nope, still nothing from How's That. Hey, I heard somewhere that willow bark was a cure for headaches. Trees can't get headaches, that chemical can only help man, right?
Oh drat, salicylic acid is a growth regulator in plants, actually it has a whole slew of uses but that is a very general way of stating it.
Meanwhile let me see if How's That has found his plant and wonder drug yet.
Have to be honest - was thinking along the lines of

'Ive got wood'
'Not tonight ,I've got a headache'
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131041 May 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> No and yes the article is free, but New scientist charges a subscription to the full content of articles .
It works for me , but here.
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab
by Bob Holmes
For similar stories, visit the Evolution Topic Guide
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Profound change
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
Rare mutation?
By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.
That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special - either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.
To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.
Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?
Evidence of evolution
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+- and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.
Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."
Absolutely absurd. "Another poke in the eye"? LOL!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131042 May 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
But the argument "that it's still bacteria" is idiotic, animals evolve and produce new species , but they are still animals.
When has any animal evolved and produced new species other than in the minds of evolutionists?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131043 May 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Urb, what did I tell you about the mirror above the monitor?
You were caught lying again. Why does that make you so mad?
No, you were caught lying again. Don't you remember, I don't have any reason to lie like you do. ANd even though I provided the complete reference, including the name of the author and the year he wrote it and then later gave Mike the link and the full reference and even though it was easily found in several comments and replies you lied that I didn't post it? Everybody knows you and your voodoo Darwin zombee evotard mates lie all the time because that's the core basis for evolutionary theory. Lying, childish name calling, and making-up just-so stories is really all you have going. You really are pathetic. Satanic really. Completely degenerate and corrupt to your core.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#131044 May 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose a creationist has to reprint the entire article to avoid "quote mining". I obviously quoted text relevant to my point just like you did. And I did provide the complete reference and a link to that Crow paper much earlier and several times actually it was along with some other replies containing it. And then you post some stuff you think will rescue your cause (it didn't) and don't provide a link. So its OK when you do it but when I quote research it's called quote-mining. Hypocrite! And. Your attempt at sarcastic, self-deprecating British humor is BORING. The bottom line is there are dangerous mutations accumulating and none of them will ever add advancing information to the genome. That's what every article of this type is saying. Go ahead. Try and find one that refutes it. The genome is deteriorating. Genetic entropy.
Even if true, man has also evolved to the point where he 1s developing methods of genetic modification and repair such as gene therapy. So one may offset the other.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#131045 May 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
When has any animal evolved and produced new species other than in the minds of evolutionists?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/spe...

It happens frequently evidently, but to make a complete genetically different species would take the thousands of generations. People simply do not live long enough to personally that happen.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-s...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#131046 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I presented evidence of biological altruism. You have nothing to say in rebuttal.
Nah. You only pointed out that man can use plants to his advantage. That, in no way, is evidence that those benefits were specifically designed for man's use.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#131047 May 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Everybody knows you and your voodoo Darwin zombee evotard mates lie all the time because that's the core basis for evolutionary theory. Lying, childish name calling, and making-up just-so stories is really all you have going. You really are pathetic. Satanic really. Completely degenerate and corrupt to your core.
You might disagree with the theory but this is a really silly thing to post.

You might note that you also engage in childish name calling.

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
Time 22 min Beagle 5
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 23 min ChristineM 164,969
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 52 min Aura Mytha 84,038
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr Frindly 3,346
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 5 hr Zog Has-fallen 63
Alabama people are the Anunnaki 11 hr Mrs parker science 1
Creationism is a Fantasy Fri Zog Has-fallen 7
More from around the web