Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180363 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

#131360 May 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Exaggerated analogy. Instead, compare the theoretical (evolution) of ape to man which is just a few million years. Compare the that number of generations that was required for all the genetic changes to a similar number of generations we have observed. For example, Lenski's long term evolution experiments on E.coli. His lab populations have surpassed 50,000 generations and no significant change which is far more than the number of generations that would have had to cause massive changes in the theoretical apes. And Lenski's changes are being artificially induced under strict lab conditions vs. selected naturally in the wild. In other words, we have observe a roughly equivalent number of years on the basis of generations that should have been more than sufficient to easily observe the full spectrum of macroevolution in action, but there has been nothing note worthy forthcoming. Conclusion: Macroevolution never happened.
Lenski's work does not apply in that way. That was the number of generations to produce one specific mutation. Why can't you idiots realize that evolution is not guided, that is what you are trying to do in this latest rant of yours. There were many other mutations besides the one sought. Since there was no evolutionary pressure to preserve other mutations they were not strongly expressed.
defender

Chicago, IL

#131361 May 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is not a true science, it is just a theory. You can't get a degree in Evolution. You don't go to school or get a job as an Evolutionist. And the reason we say it is not science is because more and more people are learning all the time that there really is nothing to support it anymore; yet, many people go on believing it anyway, despite this. That puts it more in the realm of ideology or religious beliefs. That is just the way it is. The honest truth.
It's giving more ground every day ... With every new discovery design is becoming more clear... Of course the zealots for the religious side of this theory will hold fast but it is just a matter of time...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131362 May 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Lenski's work does not apply in that way. That was the number of generations to produce one specific mutation. Why can't you idiots realize that evolution is not guided, that is what you are trying to do in this latest rant of yours. There were many other mutations besides the one sought. Since there was no evolutionary pressure to preserve other mutations they were not strongly expressed.
That's because they were all harmful/useless! Lenski is proving macroevolution false! LOL!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131363 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>]
There are limits to selective breeding.
A wild crabapple can be bred into a red delicious apple.
That doesn't suggest that a 100 pound apple can be selectively bred by just confusing the process.
Such an extrapolation might sound ridiculous, but you believe that a 100 foot blue whale could be selectively bred from a microbe.
If a gourd that weighs one pound can be selectively bred (evolved) to produce gourds that weight half a ton, the same general process can be applied to most anything. The main difference is the ease with which gourds allow such changes to occur. But, make no mistake: there is no reason a 100 pound apple-producing apple tree couldn't be selectively bred (evolved).

But, all that aside, your willful ignorance of how science works, how genetics works, and how biology works is your prized possession, and you view it as the critical barrier between your faith and faithlessness. Isn't it sad that you have to avoid learning to maintain your God belief? Isn't it sadder yet that you don't have to do that, but that you're convinced that you do?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131364 May 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because they were all harmful/useless! Lenski is proving macroevolution false! LOL!
So, you're saying there are harmful mutations and NEUTRAL mutations? You admit that there are neutral mutations?

Tell us why it's impossible for a mutation of any kind to be beneficial. If you had a mutation whose expression resulted in a marked increase in intelligence due to creating additional folds in the brain, would that be beneficial, neutral, or harmful? Is such a mutation impossible? Remember, you can't say "no, because beneficial mutations are impossible." That's a circular argument. Tell us the biological reason it's impossible for a mutation to occur that would increase intelligence by increasing the number of folds in the brain, or tell us why increased intelligence is either neutral or harmful.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131365 May 25, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It's giving more ground every day ... With every new discovery design is becoming more clear... Of course the zealots for the religious side of this theory will hold fast but it is just a matter of time...
And, yet, not a single peer-reviewed scientific journal article makes note of such a thing. Is that all part of the grand atheistic conspiracy?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131366 May 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Exaggerated analogy. Instead, compare the theoretical (evolution) of ape to man which is just a few million years.
It's not "ape to man." Man IS an ape.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Compare the that number of generations that was required for all the genetic changes to a similar number of generations we have observed.
Much of it would have resulted as a snowball effect from a few environmental and behavioral changes, primarily the introduction of cooking, which allowed for much higher nutritional value to be drawn from a given prey animal, which meant more available calories for the brain, which meant that mutations for slightly larger brains would have a better chance of surviving. The advent of larger brains allowed for an avalanche of changes in behaviors, diet, and needs, which allowed for other mutations to take hold, such as reduced body hair, reduced muscle mass, bipedalism, etc.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131367 May 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not a true science, it is just a theory. You can't get a degree in Evolution. You don't go to school or get a job as an Evolutionist. And the reason we say it is not science is because more and more people are learning all the time that there really is nothing to support it anymore; yet, many people go on believing it anyway, despite this. That puts it more in the realm of ideology or religious beliefs. That is just the way it is. The honest truth.
I am sure that it has been pointed out to you many times that any idiot who claims that evolution is "just a theory" has just disqualified himself from debating the topic.

In crime that would be the same as claiming that someone "only committed murder, it is not as if he broke a serious law". In science a theory is the ultimate pinnacle thought and accomplishment wise. A scientific theory, which is what evolution is, is not the same as a "Urb Theory". The latter is worthless, the former can be of infinite value.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131368 May 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because they were all harmful/useless! Lenski is proving macroevolution false! LOL!
How do you know? Where is your data to back up this statement?

You have no idea of what the purpose of Lenski's experiment was.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#131369 May 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Lenski's work does not apply in that way. That was the number of generations to produce one specific mutation. Why can't you idiots realize that evolution is not guided, that is what you are trying to do in this latest rant of yours. There were many other mutations besides the one sought. Since there was no evolutionary pressure to preserve other mutations they were not strongly expressed.
Of the "many ther mutations besides the one sought" that occurred, how many resulted in any macroevolution? Microbiologists have attempted to produce macroevolution in the laboratory and have invariably FAILED.
Conclusion: You stories are false.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131370 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Of the "many ther mutations besides the one sought" that occurred, how many resulted in any macroevolution? Microbiologists have attempted to produce macroevolution in the laboratory and have invariably FAILED.
Conclusion: You stories are false.
No, they have not failed. Much earlier I linked an article about "macroevolution" in a virus. The Lenski experiment could be said to be a case of macroevolution.

You have already admitted that evolution occurs on a small scale. We have massive evidence for it occurring on a large scale. Until you find some sort of evidence for a limit then "macroevolution" is already proven.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#131371 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your perspective s false.
There is nothing in the Bible to suggest a geocentric universe.
Either you are a liar or you are ignorant.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#131372 May 25, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Either you are a liar or you are ignorant.
OR ?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#131373 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
? Microbiologists have attempted to produce macroevolution in the laboratory and have invariably FAILED.
Reference ?
LowellGuy

United States

#131374 May 25, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not a true science, it is just a theory. You can't get a degree in Evolution. You don't go to school or get a job as an Evolutionist. And the reason we say it is not science is because more and more people are learning all the time that there really is nothing to support it anymore; yet, many people go on believing it anyway, despite this. That puts it more in the realm of ideology or religious beliefs. That is just the way it is. The honest truth.
Is gravity true science? It is just a theory. There's no degree in gravity (though there are evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology degree programs, so it does appear that you...uh...lied). So, is gravity science or what?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#131375 May 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Lenski's work does not apply in that way. That was the number of generations to produce one specific mutation. Why can't you idiots realize that evolution is not guided, that is what you are trying to do in this latest rant of yours. There were many other mutations besides the one sought. Since there was no evolutionary pressure to preserve other mutations they were not strongly expressed.
So, you think millions of years will solve the problem.
Lenski, an intelligent human being, couldn't produce macroevolution in 50,000 generations, but you assume that natural selection can create man from apes.
What is the scientific logic behind your faith?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131376 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you think millions of years will solve the problem.
Lenski, an intelligent human being, couldn't produce macroevolution in 50,000 generations, but you assume that natural selection can create man from apes.
What is the scientific logic behind your faith?
Are you sure? The difference that he made could be said to be as significant as the differences between us and other apes. Also, like most creationists you seem to misunderstand the goal of his experiment. His goal was a new trait that no E. coli had to date. He succeeded. It was a crap shoot since it was a specific mutation. That is not typical evolution, and it is not at all selective breeding. He demonstrated ahead of time that that trait did not exist. He proved it was possible for species to acquire new traits. In nature it is possible for thousands of different new traits to appear. They were stacking the deck against themselves by limiting themselves to one change that they were not even sure was possible in the first place.

To not understand that experiment you have to either be stupid on purpose or stupid in real life. In either case you lose.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#131377 May 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me one proven Fact that hasn't CHANGED that there is only ONE theory of evolution. The way you talk that should be an easy task for you to do. If you can't, then you show you have nothing but guesses and blah blah.
One proven fact that has not changed that supports the theory of evolution. OK, here it is, ready?

"There is no evidence the Abrahamic God or any other God exists."

That has not changed, ever. Happy now?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#131378 May 25, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
No one needs to use a bible to point out that evolution is religion.... It's only the desperate hope of the failing evolutionist to produce evidence... Along side The Big Bang and various failed Abiogenesis hypothesis, ToE is merely a broken model that is brought more and more in question every day...
In other words, you hate science.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131379 May 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you think millions of years will solve the problem.
Lenski, an intelligent human being, couldn't produce macroevolution in 50,000 generations, but you assume that natural selection can create man from apes.
What is the scientific logic behind your faith?
And all you have to do is say that whatever evolution you're seeing doesn't qualify as "macroevolution." Just tell us what prevents certain traits from being passed on to future generations from previous generations, and what prevents certain amounts of traits being passed on to future generations from previous generations.

You can't answer "probabilities." Why? Because DNA doesn't look at mathematics and say, "Oh, gee, look how improbable certain future outcomes are! Why, it's simply not realistic for me to pass on these traits." Traits get passed on. This you cannot deny. Multiple traits get passed on. This you also cannot deny. Traits vary. This you also cannot deny. When enough traits are passed on over time, you get whatever it is you deem to be "macroevolution." All you need to do is demonstrate the barrier that prevents certain traits, or certain amounts of traits, from being passed on. Do that, and you completely destroy the theory of evolution. You can't (you're far stupider than people who are also trying to do it, so it stands to reason that if they can't, you can't), but it might be fun to watch you try.

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) 9 min positronium 87,375
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 14 min Explorer 5,813
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Simon 166,326
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 18 knows 1,824
What's your religion? Feb 17 Endofdays 767
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web