Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
144,501 - 144,520 of 171,506 Comments Last updated 19 min ago

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148195
Aug 19, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And sometimes outright lies. You should see how they try to deal with the Tyre Prophesy.

I know. Failed "prophecy". They got to try to warp it the best they can.

But all you got to do to refute it is READ THE TEXT.
Believer

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148196
Aug 19, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What a distorted view of the world.
What about children that are not abused and die?
What about children that are horribly abused and don't die?
I've know children who have been abused and find purpose for their lives, believing that the God who created them loves them and has a purpose for them.
The abuse they suffered makes them able to empathize with others who need someone to understand.
Children during from abuse was not Gods plan. That is evil at work in the lives of all mankind and it has been that way since Lucifer was cast out of Heaven ( literally or otherwise).

All Children who die go to be with God in Heaven!

Our mistake is in thinking God chooses and causes suffering. Jesus life and death shows us otherwise.

We can't change what is, we just do our best to make sense of what is. In my opinion, Jesus is the only rational answer for those kind of questions.

All people suffer and die. The worse thing we can imagine is a child suffering on this Earth. God knows why and knows what a beautiful eternity He has in store for that child. That's how I deal with it, and that gives me the only peace I can think of for the resolution of evil on Earth.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148197
Aug 19, 2013
 
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>>

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148198
Aug 19, 2013
 
Believer wrote:
One more thing ( I am a mom, so have said that often over the years, and got the rolling of the eyes and sighs). ;o)
We rightfully, I think, want to share our honest beliefs and theories with even those who don't agree with us, when we feel we are disrespected for those beliefs and theories.
I think we are all just saying, believe what you want to believe or think what you want to think, that is all of our right. Just don't disrespect my honest theories backed by scientific evidence or my religious beliefs for which I don't need scientific evidence.
All of our motives seem to be good motives. You to make us see there is knowledge out there that we can benefit in knowing. And us the same motive just a different kind of knowledge.
I don't think any of us are trying to take away from what the other has found.
We just want not to be respected for what we have made priority in our own individual lives.
As far as who is 100% right or wrong. We should not care, and I don't believe God cares about most of what we debate here.
There are people who know nothing about science and nothing about the Bible.
Most in some way benefit every day from what science has given us to improve our lives. They didn't have to understand it to reap the benefits.
Same with the Bible. God knows what we know and understand, and for some that will only be a sunset, or a rainbow, or a cool spring to drink from. He knows our heart.
To whom much is given, much is required.
I've no problems with overtures of olive branches, with the caveat that children not be indoctrinated to bronze age superstition. The author of the article who sparked this discussion claims from his lofty perch of microbiology that even the fundamentals of the theory of evolution is too complicated to teach below collegiate level - and he is dead wrong. That is akin to a poli-sci professor stating that middle schools schools shouldn't teach civics, or an economics professor claiming that grade schoolers shouldn't be given piggy banks. The creationists have latched onto the title of his article to clamor that the Bible should be taught >instead< - and they are also dead wrong.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148199
Aug 19, 2013
 
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
I've know children who have been abused and find purpose for their lives, believing that the God who created them loves them and has a purpose for them.
The abuse they suffered makes them able to empathize with others who need someone to understand.
Children during from abuse was not Gods plan. That is evil at work in the lives of all mankind and it has been that way since Lucifer was cast out of Heaven ( literally or otherwise).
All Children who die go to be with God in Heaven!
Our mistake is in thinking God chooses and causes suffering. Jesus life and death shows us otherwise.
We can't change what is, we just do our best to make sense of what is. In my opinion, Jesus is the only rational answer for those kind of questions.
All people suffer and die. The worse thing we can imagine is a child suffering on this Earth. God knows why and knows what a beautiful eternity He has in store for that child. That's how I deal with it, and that gives me the only peace I can think of for the resolution of evil on Earth.
But..but.. think of the CHILDREN!! sob...
Aargh... not to rain cynical on your love parade, but it's your god's plan that the vast majority of humans who ever lived will writhe for eternity in unimaginable torture.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148200
Aug 19, 2013
 
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
And some mistakes are made leading to new genetic combinations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
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_...

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148201
Aug 19, 2013
 
Believer wrote:
There are people who know nothing about science and nothing about the Bible.
I'm going to give you a thought experiment.

Let's say some bizarre natural disaster happens and everyone on Earth who knows about science and/or the Bible vanishes along with all our buildings, books, computers, etc.

All that is left is are a few tribes of people deep in the jungles of Brazil, Congo, Papua New Guinea, etc. They know only what they know right now. They have none of our current information and they will never find anything on Earth to give them a clue about what we've known.

A thousands years go by. Ten thousand even. These people spread out, travel, settle around the world, etc.

The far flung tribes find one another. They have wars. They have peace. Etc.

Given that they are all starting without any influence from either side, science or the Bible, do you think they will rediscover gravity? Astronomy? Thermodynamics? Biology? Medicine? The elemental table? Phyics? Etc?

In other words, will they rediscover all of science? Maybe not in the same order. Certainly not with the same names.

I propose that they absolutely would. That, without a doubt, they would uncover all the same mysteries that science has solved.

Now, second question:
Would these people re-develop a story about a talking snake? OR would each tribe have derived different religions from their current belief system?

See, I do NOT believe that all these people, without contact with our current history, would spontaneously come up with a religion based on Judaism.

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.

Do you disagree? If so, can you explain WHY you believe these people would spontaneously develop Christianity?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148202
Aug 19, 2013
 
Believer wrote:
Our mistake is in thinking God chooses and causes suffering.
Exodus makes it clear that God chooses and causes suffering.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148203
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are making 15DL's point.
shuf·fle
verb \&#712;sh&#601;-f& #601;l\
shuf·fledshuf·fling
Definition of SHUFFLE
transitive verb
1
: to mix in a mass confusedly : jumble
2
: to put or thrust aside or under cover <shuffled the whole matter out of his mind>
3
a : to rearrange (as playing cards, dominoes, or tiles) to produce a random order
b : to move about, back and forth, or from one place to another : shift <shuffle funds among various accounts>
4
a : to move (as the feet) by sliding along or back and forth without lifting
b : to perform (as a dance) with a dragging, sliding step
intransitive verb
1
: to work into or out of trickily <shuffled out of the difficulty>
2
: to act or speak in a shifty or evasive manner
3
a : to move or walk in a sliding dragging manner without lifting the feet
b : to dance in a lazy nonchalant manner with sliding and tapping motions of the feet
c : to execute in a perfunctory or clumsy manner
4
: to mix playing cards or counters by shuffling
— shuf·fler noun
See shuffle defined for English-language learners »
See shuffle defined for kids »
Examples of SHUFFLE
He shuffled across the floor.
She stood there, shuffling her feet, waiting for the bus to arrive.
She shuffled the papers on her desk.
The manager shuffled the batting order.
Whose turn is it to shuffle and deal?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shu...
Dogshit, you ignorantslut, themoron 15DL said it was NOT a shuffling.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148204
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Exodus makes it clear that God chooses and causes suffering.
You must be cheering on the Brotherhood Boys as they rape, torture, murder, and burn down Christian churches in Egypt, you hateful bigot.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148205
Aug 19, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be cheering on the Brotherhood Boys as they rape, torture, murder, and burn down Christian churches in Egypt, you hateful bigot.
Why do you think that when we point out the errors in your book of myths that we want all Christians to die?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148209
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#148213
Aug 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••