Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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

#148206 Aug 19, 2013
Urb, why do you keep forgetting that most Christians in the world accept the theory of evolution? The disease o fundamentalism is centered mainly in the U.S..

So since most Christians disagree with you perhaps you are the one who wants most Christians to die. We certainly don't.

We don't even want most of the creationists to die.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148207 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
The following is a list of genetic disorders and if known, causal type of mutation and the chromosome involved. The list of human genes includes genes not listed here, which also affect predisposition toward certain diseases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...
Yes moron, nobody on our side claims that all mutations are good.

Sadly your side makes the opposite mistake. Creatards very often say that all mutations are bad, even though this is demonstrably wrong.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148208 Aug 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
VERY speculative, but interesting nevertheless:
North Atlantic Killer Whales May Be Branching Into Two Species
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/08/...
Killer whales (Orcinus orca) can be surprisingly finicky eaters. In the North Pacific and Antarctic, some feed only on fish; others, only on mammals—dietary preferences that seem to have led to new species of orcas. Some researchers think that a similar process is occurring in the killer whale populations of the Northeast Atlantic. But speciation there may be a long time in coming. A new paper examining these orcas’ diets over the last 10,000 years reveals that most are not as picky as their relatives; those eating herring today may be feasting on baby seals tomorrow. The study shows that the Northeast Atlantic whales may only be at the beginning of the speciation process.
Evolutionary biologists have long argued about whether it’s possible for a new species to arise in a population that isn’t separated by geographic barriers, such as an ocean or a mountain range—a process called sympatric speciation.“Killer whales have been thought of by some as something like the poster child” for the process,“because there are multiple genetically distinct populations [which have not yet been formally described as separate species] with different prey preferences in the North Pacific and Antarctic,” says Phillip Morin, a cetacean biologist at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in San Diego, California, who was not involved in the new study. Scientists have suggested that the orcas separated into distinct species because of what they chose to eat. In this scenario, fish-eaters would mate only with other fish-eaters, and mammal-eaters only with other mammal-eaters. Given enough time, the two populations would become genetically distinct and unable to reproduce.
Some killer whale observers have proposed that the orcas in the Northeast Atlantic also likely comprise two species, because some pods appear to be fish specialists, while others prefer marine mammals. They point out that the orcas’ hunting tactics for the two types of prey differ dramatically and are learned behaviors—cultural differences that may also help drive populations apart.
<<more at link above>>
I call BS! Just because two animals of the same kind happen to order off different menus doesn't make them seperate species. Ask yourself: Are they similar? Can they/could they breed successfully? Are they essentially the same geno/phenotype?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148209 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes moron, nobody on our side claims that all mutations are good.
Sadly your side makes the opposite mistake. Creatards very often say that all mutations are bad, even though this is demonstrably wrong.
Mutations are either near neutral, neutral, or deleterious -disease causing, with one exception: a deleterious mutation (genetic error) that ultimately causes a negative net loss of genetic information and a loss of overall fitness vs. the original wild population, while resulting in a survival benefit in a new population facing a hostile environment.

Every example that you claim is beneficial falls in the last category.

Nobody has ever seen a positive mutation that clearly creates new, useful information that leads to some new/nascent organ/limb/tissue that increases the fitness in the original wild population!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#148210 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I call BS! Just because two animals of the same kind happen to order off different menus doesn't make them seperate species. Ask yourself: Are they similar? Can they/could they breed successfully? Are they essentially the same geno/phenotype?
"Are they similar" is a worthless question.

There are plenty of animals which are "similar" which are CLEARLY different species. Milk snakes and coral snakes are easy to confuse but they are clearly NOT the same species.

"Can they/could they breed" is a viable question, but it's fraught with difficulty.

For example: There are dozens (hundreds?) of different species of jumping spider which are more or less genetically compatible with one another. However, due to differences in everything from mating dances to sex organs (some spiders' "keys" don't fit the other spiders' "locks") they can not successfully reproduce.

Not to mention, how do you determine if a tortoise alive today could have reproduced with a tortoise which existed two thousand years ago?

What you need to remember is that "species" is a human term. It's not something which actually exists in nature. It's a means by which we, as humans, can exchange information more efficiently.

Like with all other methods of human categorization, the lines are much blurrier than they appear on paper.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148211 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think that when we point out the errors in your book of myths that we want all Christians to die?
Why do you evotards always avoid science and instead bash Christians all day? And just to be clear, there are no errors in the Bible. You and millions before you have tried but failed to prove any.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148212 Aug 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
VERY speculative, but interesting nevertheless:
North Atlantic Killer Whales May Be Branching Into Two Species
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/08/...
Killer whales (Orcinus orca) can be surprisingly finicky eaters. In the North Pacific and Antarctic, some feed only on fish; others, only on mammals—dietary preferences that seem to have led to new species of orcas. Some researchers think that a similar process is occurring in the killer whale populations of the Northeast Atlantic. But speciation there may be a long time in coming. A new paper examining these orcas’ diets over the last 10,000 years reveals that most are not as picky as their relatives; those eating herring today may be feasting on baby seals tomorrow. The study shows that the Northeast Atlantic whales may only be at the beginning of the speciation process.
Evolutionary biologists have long argued about whether it’s possible for a new species to arise in a population that isn’t separated by geographic barriers, such as an ocean or a mountain range—a process called sympatric speciation.“Killer whales have been thought of by some as something like the poster child” for the process,“because there are multiple genetically distinct populations [which have not yet been formally described as separate species] with different prey preferences in the North Pacific and Antarctic,” says Phillip Morin, a cetacean biologist at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in San Diego, California, who was not involved in the new study. Scientists have suggested that the orcas separated into distinct species because of what they chose to eat. In this scenario, fish-eaters would mate only with other fish-eaters, and mammal-eaters only with other mammal-eaters. Given enough time, the two populations would become genetically distinct and unable to reproduce.
Some killer whale observers have proposed that the orcas in the Northeast Atlantic also likely comprise two species, because some pods appear to be fish specialists, while others prefer marine mammals. They point out that the orcas’ hunting tactics for the two types of prey differ dramatically and are learned behaviors—cultural differences that may also help drive populations apart.
<<more at link above>>

Very interesting article.

Thanks Kong.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148213 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Urb, why do you keep forgetting that most Christians in the world accept the theory of evolution? The disease o fundamentalism is centered mainly in the U.S..
So since most Christians disagree with you perhaps you are the one who wants most Christians to die. We certainly don't.
We don't even want most of the creationists to die.
Massive BS from another flesh-eating evotarded voodoo darwin zombee.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#148214 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I call BS! Just because two animals of the same kind happen to order off different menus doesn't make them seperate species. Ask yourself: Are they similar? Can they/could they breed successfully? Are they essentially the same geno/phenotype?
As I said in my original post: "VERY speculative, but interesting nevertheless:"

The article goes on to say that it "MAY" be the beginning of speciation, etc. Nothing definite has been indicated. Here's the abstract of the paper this article was derived from (MORE admitted speculation):

"Abstract

Niche variation owing to individual differences in ecology has been hypothesized to be an early stage of sympatric speciation. Yet to date, no study has tracked niche width over more than a few generations.

In this study, we show the presence of isotopic niche variation over millennial timescales and investigate the evolutionary outcomes. Isotopic ratios were measured from tissue samples of sympatric killer whale Orcinus orca lineages from the North Sea, spanning over 10 000 years. Isotopic ratios spanned a range similar to the difference in isotopic values of two known prey items, herring Clupea harengus and harbour seal Phoca vitulina. Two proxies of the stage of speciation, lineage sorting of mitogenomes and genotypic clustering, were both weak to intermediate indicating that speciation has made little progress.

Thus, our study confirms that even with the necessary ecological conditions, i.e. among-individual variation in ecology, it is difficult for sympatric speciation to progress in the face of gene flow. In contrast to some theoretical models, our empirical results suggest that sympatric speciation driven by among-individual differences in ecological niche is a slow process and may not reach completion.

We argue that sympatric speciation is constrained in this system owing to the plastic nature of the behavioural traits under selection when hunting either mammals or fish.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/conten...

Again: INTERESTING, but even they admit there is not enough information (yet) to make the call for speciation.

Meanwhile, has the "Discovery Institute", or "Answers in Genesis" provided any papers of note lately?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148215 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
The following is a list of genetic disorders and if known, causal type of mutation and the chromosome involved. The list of human genes includes genes not listed here, which also affect predisposition toward certain diseases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_...

Fortunately most genetic disorders tend to die out of a species. Eventually. Of course in-breeding, like royal lineages, have more genetic diseases than more diverse breeding patterns. Just as genetics and evolution would predict.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#148216 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you evotards always avoid science and instead bash Christians all day? And just to be clear, there are no errors in the Bible. You and millions before you have tried but failed to prove any.
Genesis 1-2 and Tyre for starters.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148217 Aug 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe they would have religion. But that that religion would not be based AT ALL on the religion that the Jews cribbed off the Egyptians.

Hey! They cribbed off the Sumerians and Mesopotamians, too!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text> Do you disagree? If so, can you explain WHY you believe these people would spontaneously develop Christianity?

I would bet that they would be likely to develop something akin to Buddhism or Taoism along the way.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148218 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogshit, you ignorantslut, themoron 15DL said it was NOT a shuffling.

Urb, you ignorantslut, 15DL said it was like a shuffling OF CARDS.

Why are you so angry all the time?
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#148219 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism - or at least some naturalistic interpretation of Darwinism - succeeded in turning morality on its head."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Darwin_to_H...
Thank you very much, I agree.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148220 Aug 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Urb, why do you keep forgetting that most Christians in the world accept the theory of evolution? The disease o fundamentalism is centered mainly in the U.S..
So since most Christians disagree with you perhaps you are the one who wants most Christians to die. We certainly don't.
We don't even want most of the creationists to die.
Though many Christians do accept the evolutionary theory, they still believe in God the creator of life. Most of the evolution believing Christians believe God created life and the ability to evolve thus things becoming better/adapting better through evolution.

To honestly make your claim saying "Most Christians in the world accept the theory of evolution" you need to also show evidence of those that do except it, how many still believe in God that created life.

Example: Pope Benedict backs "theistic evolution" which considers that God created life through evolution. So in his belief he does believe in evolution but also that God created life.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148221 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I call BS! Just because two animals of the same kind happen to order off different menus doesn't make them seperate species. Ask yourself: Are they similar? Can they/could they breed successfully? Are they essentially the same geno/phenotype?

The article does not say they are separate species.

Didn't you READ the article?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148222 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations are either near neutral, neutral, or deleterious -disease causing, with one exception: a deleterious mutation (genetic error) that ultimately causes a negative net loss of genetic information and a loss of overall fitness vs. the original wild population, while resulting in a survival benefit in a new population facing a hostile environment.
Every example that you claim is beneficial falls in the last category.
Nobody has ever seen a positive mutation that clearly creates new, useful information that leads to some new/nascent organ/limb/tissue that increases the fitness in the original wild population!

This is false. How many times does it need to be demonstrated to be false (and riddled with logical fallacies) before you stop repeating it?

Can you at least edit out the logical fallacies?
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#148223 Aug 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Then a lot of people are controlled by Satan. The difference only being the power Hitler had.
Hitler was paranoid and delusional (but not psychotic in the conventional sense). That, in combination with a great deal of power, is very dangerous.
I'm glad you commented on this, since I've read this is in line with your profession. You are the perfect person to ask these questions.

Since many of the leaders of this current day, have as much or more power than Hitler did, and you see the atrocities they commit in unnecessary wars, would you say that they are all mentally ill the same as he was? The Bible says that God puts the leaders in their positions but Satan controls them. If you don't think that most leaders with power are doing evil things, please name one that we can trust.

Romans 13:1 in the KJV says: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148224 Aug 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you evotards always avoid science and instead bash Christians all day? And just to be clear, there are no errors in the Bible. You and millions before you have tried but failed to prove any.

Educated Christians know and admit there are errors aplenty in the Bible. Yahweh does not require rationalization.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148225 Aug 19, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you very much, I agree.

If you agree does that make it true?

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) 3 min Science 67,179
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 21 min Subduction Zone 160,955
Curious dilemma about DNA 23 min Subduction Zone 367
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 26 min Subduction Zone 28,655
What location did life started in? 40 min Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 48 min Confucius 1,766
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 10 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web