Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,187

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
One way or another

United States

#139295 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you dozens of times. First you said no, then you refused to acknowledge my argument about it. Now that you've allowed the possibility of human gravitational pull increasing as they spin, you now realize that your responses contradict each other and you need to backtrack.
Does a non-rotating mass exert any gravitational pull?
As to your last sentence,-----

I don't know for sure, I can only say that i believe that spin is a necessary component of gravity.

What in space does not spin? Everything In space, spins. Spin is a part of everything in space and that is alive on earth.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#139296 Jun 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
So Jimbo has some "theory" about spinning makes gravity? Oh, lovely.
Energy does have gravity, but it is tied with the equation e=mc2, meaning that it takes A LOT of energy to create a measurable amount of gravity. A rotating body of normal matter would fly apart from its centrifugal force long before any appreciable amount of kinetic gravity would be created. An ice skater with their arms out or in still has the same amount of rotational energy.
the Orion nebula energy field of electron gravitational mass and force.

the Oort cloud energy field of magnetek gravitational mass and force.

this answer your question. chum.
One way or another

United States

#139297 Jun 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you dozens of times. First you said no, then you refused to acknowledge my argument about it. Now that you've allowed the possibility of human gravitational pull increasing as they spin, you now realize that your responses contradict each other and you need to backtrack.
Does a non-rotating mass exert any gravitational pull?
Show proof that I backtrack, by the posts you present or ya got nothing. I admit I can make mistakes, you prove nothing.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#139298 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
As to your last sentence,-----
I don't know for sure, I can only say that i believe that spin is a necessary component of gravity.
What in space does not spin? Everything In space, spins. Spin is a part of everything in space and that is alive on earth.
Earth and the star system spirals headlong through a vortex not vacuum of space brought into being by Chaos theory being proved by the behaviour of two positively charged energy fields the Orion nebula and the Oort cloud.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#139299 Jun 26, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a physicist??
Ooops I'm sorry, I forgot for a moment that you are that batspit crazy person who keeps posting junkscience.
i disagree i think One way or another is quite a bright physicist. someone with guts and determination whatever the bull Crappers have to say.
One way or another

United States

#139300 Jun 26, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
i disagree i think One way or another is quite a bright physicist. someone with guts and determination whatever the bull Crappers have to say.
Thanks TDL, but I have but the education that only a mother could provide, along with a copy and paste 10th grade education, provided by, what I see as an ignorant school system.

Most that I write is guesswork, just like science. I mean well, with an honest heart, but proof reigns supreme.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#139301 Jun 26, 2013
so early mankind came from trees and plants,
just as GSZ evolution theory proclaims.

but how does he adapt to his environment?
the horse lost in the deserts of the Gobi
for example become a camel,
with one or two humps.

the horse quite at home however in the savannahs
of Ethiopia becomes a giraffe,
with along neck,
and a precariously long pair of legs.

genetic makeup is so important at the beginning
of lives at its early stages of development,
in fact for all of its infertile period genetics from
natural parent is key if not
central to this animals life prospects
if not life chances to survive
the wilderness.
only when fertile will it environmental factors
kick into the equation an bring along with
it a whole host of adaptations
into the equation.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#139302 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks TDL, but I have but the education that only a mother could provide, along with a copy and paste 10th grade education, provided by, what I see as an ignorant school system.
Most that I write is guesswork, just like science. I mean well, with an honest heart, but proof reigns supreme.
do not confuse the workings of the intellect for guesswork,
just because it does not come directly from the memory doesn't make your
work inferior.
i think that science that springs from the inner most secret workings
of the minds are at there level best when
as you say proof reign supreme.

perhaps there is food for thought for us both.
Juan

Lockport, KY

#139303 Jun 26, 2013
Hi!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#139304 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
We are apes? interesting. I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue? So for evolution to work the number of genes would have to about double and reorganize themselves. There is NO biological mechanism that allows for this to happen. Mutating genes is very different than creating genes. Plus reorganizing them! Someone previously suggested that conception would allow for this to happen- lol. You cannot evolve through conception. Genetic recombination will also not cause evolution in a species.
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
Itís not a matter of buying into the MSM itís a matter of following the science journals and university webpages.

I don't believe that humans and chimps can mate successfully....Our common ancestor was too far back in time. The split between chimps and the line that led to humans was around 5-7 million years ago.

However we did mate successfully with Neanderthals maybe 50,000 to 80,000 years ago and as a consequence all non African humans now carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood.

Below is the chimpís scientific classification
Chimps:
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Panini
Genus: Pan
Oken, 1816

Type species
Simia troglodytes
Blumenbach, 1775

**********

Below is the Neanderthal classification

Neanderthals:
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. neanderthalensis

Binomial name
Homo neanderthalensis
King, 1864

**********

Below is the human classification.

Humans:
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

Binomial name
Homo sapiens
Linnaeus, 1758

**********

The split between chimps and the line that led to humans was around 5-7 million years ago.

You will note the obvious difference between chimps and humans, and you can see how we could mate and produce fertile offspring with the earlier pre-human Neanderthals.

This pretty much makes the connection between us and the great apes that preceded us.

We DID evolve from earlier Genus Homo primates, and it happened somewhere around 200,000 years ago according to DNA and bone data.

We were NOT created by some personal god 6,000 or so years ago.

Thatís all ancient goat herder myths.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#139305 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks TDL, but I have but the education that only a mother could provide, along with a copy and paste 10th grade education, provided by, what I see as an ignorant school system.
Most that I write is guesswork, just like science. I mean well, with an honest heart, but proof reigns supreme.
All one has to do today is use the internet, a curious mind, and an active imagination....and the world is yours.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#139306 Jun 26, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
Evolution has been debunked. Why teach old failed theories?
No, no, no dummy....it is Creationism that has been (thoroughly) debunked, THEY use the old failed stories and craziness.

Science rules dude.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#139307 Jun 26, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Children love to change the subject when they can't speak to the subject at hand. Ah yes, that's what schools teach.
Perhaps you can give us poor civilians a list of all the sciences that you think are wrong....and why. I know I would find it helpful.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139308 Jun 27, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
We are apes? interesting. I can see why people would buy into the MSM on this issue. Something for you to think about: The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37. The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes. What more need I say? Or should I continue? So for evolution to work the number of genes would have to about double and reorganize themselves. There is NO biological mechanism that allows for this to happen. Mutating genes is very different than creating genes. Plus reorganizing them! Someone previously suggested that conception would allow for this to happen- lol. You cannot evolve through conception. Genetic recombination will also not cause evolution in a species.
(See 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)
And yet simply by reading the abstract of the article you linked, we see that the scientists themselves concluded that its not the human Y chromosome that has gained new genes for the most part, its the chimp chromosome that has lost them. Which debunks your whole question about the supposed large scale creation of new genes in just six million years.

More broadly, even that assumption of yours is falsified in biology. Whole new genes can be created, generally by an error of gene duplication. After the creation of an additional copy, one gene can continue the original function while the new gene can gradually mutate to create new functionality. Whole families of genes have ancestry that has been tracked in this way.

So no, your paper does not debunk evolution. Funny you should think that, when the papers authors wrote, " indicating rapid evolution during the past 6&#8201;million years." and "We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production,Ďgenetic hitchhikingí effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour."

So in fact, its an amazing finding, but not one that challenges evolution at all.

My guess: as usual for creationists on here, you have read some garbage in a creation "science" site and regurgitated it here without even examining it. The quotation marks are there for a reason. Read some science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#139309 Jun 27, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
So for evolution to work the number of genes would have to about double and reorganize themselves. There is NO biological mechanism that allows for this to happen. Mutating genes is very different than creating genes.
And here is an example of gene duplication, which creates new genes allowing some of those new copies to continue mutating for new functions:

"We found that salivary amylase gene (AMY1) copy number is correlated positively with salivary amylase protein levels, and that individuals from populations with high-starch diets have on average more AMY1 copies than those with traditionally low-starch diets."

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

See, duplication of the amylase gene has been selected as humans incorporated more starch in their diet. Generally speaking, humans now have around 3 copies and chimps only one. Chimps each easily digestible fruits etc (along with a bit of meat). Humans east tubers and other harder to digest starches. If a duplication occurred, raising output of amylase enzyme, this would make it easier for that individual to get the most out of these starches so would be positively selected.

Now with numerous copies, the variants are open to individual adaptation to similar enzymes if they become advantageous. We would expect these copies to diverge over time - now by point mutation and minor insertions etc, instead by duplication. In this way, over a long period, you will have three distinct genes all the "offspring" of one original.

We see this in whole families of much older genes such as the globin family (myoglobin, hemoglobin, etc), with similar structures but adapted to different roles.

So entirely new genes generally start out as copies of old ones.
One way or another

United States

#139310 Jun 27, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
do not confuse the workings of the intellect for guesswork,
just because it does not come directly from the memory doesn't make your
work inferior.
i think that science that springs from the inner most secret workings
of the minds are at there level best when
as you say proof reign supreme.
perhaps there is food for thought for us both.
Yes, I understand and I believe what I write, but testing is a must as all will know. Thanks for your vote of confidence, be well.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139311 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Peer review is just another layer of controlling the scientists and if they don't like what is said, it goes no further and any that dare challenge, are labelled as trouble.
That's just how they control. If it were honest and open, all scientists could put forth their claims in front of all other scientists and allow it a fair trial.

Now you demonstrated you don't understand how peer review works or what it does.

One thing you don't understand is that journals are in COMPETITION with each other to attract the best and most innovative science which keeps their journals in publication.

No one wants to pay $40 an issue for a journal that says "same ole, same ole" every 2 months. In the same way they are competing for citation. The more often their journal gets cited the more university libraries will purchase it, etc.

Finding and publishing the best and most innovative research is what keeps a journal alive and thriving. Science journal editors are not paid in 'attaboys' but in monies that journal makes from subscriptions.

One way or another

United States

#139312 Jun 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you can give us poor civilians a list of all the sciences that you think are wrong....and why. I know I would find it helpful.
Helpful? Maybe different. While I'm content with arguing science, I don't believe man came from ape or that anything evolves. I don't say that out of a Christian belief, because I can't prove that. I argue what holds logic and proof for me.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139313 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you're too stupid to see that chromium an already tried that approach, but science shut him down, idiot boy. Actually, like you do to all interresting and intelligent thoughts, you copy them.

So, you are saying you don't understand the description.

For a similar nebula that demonstrates what I am talking about try this one.

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

Here the "bubble effect" is more pronounced.

Bottom line is you don't actually understand what is going on. The ejected material is mostly several lightyears from the central star and is moving away.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#139314 Jun 27, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You make yourself look like an idiot and then you want to change the subject, so ok, lets change the subject. Yes, a black hole is feeding this nebula, that's why it keeps expanding, while it retains its shape, even after a thousand years, where the matter is supposedly moving away from the neutron, since the blast.
Nothing in the nebula has been shown to cause flares and the scientists claim to be puzzled by that. The blue picture at the website given, shows by its design, that it is being fed, because without being fed, the pulsar would have dust and gas, equally distributed orotund the pulsar.

There is no black hole at the center of the crab nebula.
There is a pulsar (observable in visible light) there.
It keeps expanding due to inertia of the original plast.
The pulsar (formerly a giant star) has blown off material and thus there is LESS material near the star than further out.

So, again, you have no clue what you are talking about and you refuse to learn.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min macumazahn 14,583
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min MikeF 142,195
Why natural selection can't work 1 hr Dogen 20
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr ChromiuMan 941
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 6 hr ChristineM 795
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 832
Science News (Sep '13) Mon Ricky F 2,961
More from around the web