Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178688 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

#148539 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Article from The Scientist web site;
Is Peer Review Broken?
In the article it is called The Religion of Peer Review and say that peer review is something, that in science, is held "absolutely sacred". Hmmm almost sounds like a creationists talking there.
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
Your article does not support your claim. The author of it points out that there may be too many people submitting articles to peer reviewed journals. He doesn't seem to like it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#148540 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should try reading the article. It is not from anti-science creationists, it is from The Scientist Magazine.
And I am not saying it is or isn't broken. I found the article interesting.
I think others have dealt with the cases you cite.

But in general do you expect peer review to be perfect? Nobody else does.

Do you expect no bias for the current paradigm? Science is conservative and rightly so, and it takes a lot of evidence to change a paradigm.

However if creationism has any validity it should gradually accumulate the evidence to challenge the current paradigm. Hasn't managed that in 150 years, actually 200 becuase YEC was dead decades before Darwin.

I have yet to see a single challenge of theirs stack up. So let them keep trying. I am confident that they will fail because they are wrong and equally sure they will never stop trying. So we will just keep answering any questions you have and pointing out the errors in their attacks. Meanwhile the evidence support ing evolution just keeps piling up.

In summary I have confidence in the process even if its not perfect. Some junk gets through peer review and some good stuff gets blocked. But eventually the junk withers on the vine and the good stuff gets reinforced by further supporting research.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#148541 Aug 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you seem to have some spare time, why not help me look for recent research on the detailed mechanisms involved in meiotic prophase I recombination. I am looking for research that describes the process in detail and enumerates and quantifies how this is accomplished. How do two sets of chromosomes cross-over and recombine randomly to form one unique set? What determines which sequences are cut and which sequences are to remain? How much of one versus the other remains or is cut? Have there been any extensive statistical studies of recombinations that can provide statistical analysis? Is this really random or programmed? Can the resultant recombination be accurately predicted? And, ultimately, what is the scope of the recombination and its effect on the overall genome and phenome? Does recombination only effect certain protein-coding genes and not others? What can be said about that?
It's over your ability, it's over a humans mathematical ability to do this without crunching the numbers with a computer, as the prediction can be made in copy error etc but to model in a real world example the number of interactions make it a task for supercomputer modeling.
One way or another

United States

#148542 Aug 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Rats are fine.
Sorry UC, I must disagree.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#148543 Aug 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It's over your ability, it's over a humans mathematical ability to do this without crunching the numbers with a computer, as the prediction can be made in copy error etc but to model in a real world example the number of interactions make it a task for supercomputer modeling.
Speaking of which, we have things like this:

http://sifter.berkeley.edu/

Uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. Maybe we should ask Cowboy how the IDC version is doing. Last I heard their percentage was a big fat juicy zero.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#148544 Aug 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry UC, I must disagree.
But it's okay, you too can make your rats happy and stop them from urinating all over your toes by buying JIMBO'S HAPPY PET CARPET TACKS!!!

:-D

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#148546 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of which, we have things like this:
http://sifter.berkeley.edu/
Uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. Maybe we should ask Cowboy how the IDC version is doing. Last I heard their percentage was a big fat juicy zero.
Agreed and understanding such things is withing reasoning , with help from programing as such, and with help from such.

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/humangenetics/ce...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148547 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should try reading the article. It is not from anti-science creationists, it is from The Scientist Magazine.
And I am not saying it is or isn't broken. I found the article interesting.
I have. Many times. Literally every creationist who tries to argue against science and the scientific method trots out that same solitary piece, as though it proves that the peer review process is a wholly faulty and failed process.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#148548 Aug 21, 2013
The Holiday Model describes a mechanism for meiosis prophase I recombination. But still, pretty crude and disappointing level of understanding.



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

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#148549 Aug 21, 2013
This paper seems to address some of the issues I'm concerned with:

"Positive regulation of meiotic DNA double-strand break formation by activation of the DNA damage checkpoint kinase Mec1(ATR)"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#148550 Aug 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Holiday Model describes a mechanism for meiosis prophase I recombination. But still, pretty crude and disappointing level of understanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BhJf9MHHmc4XX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holliday_junctio...

How can you tell that from a youtube video?

You do understand that everything on youtube has been dumbed down for the average viewer.

No peer review on youtube.



“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148551 Aug 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Holiday Model describes a mechanism for meiosis prophase I recombination. But still, pretty crude and disappointing level of understanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BhJf9MHHmc4XX
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holliday_junctio...
No matter how little we understand about any particular subject, our ignorance will never be evidence for "God did it with magic." EVER.

“It is often that a ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

person's mouth broke his nose.

#148552 Aug 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your article does not support your claim. The author of it points out that there may be too many people submitting articles to peer reviewed journals. He doesn't seem to like it.
1. I made no claim. Just posted an article.
2. If you look back about 6 posts Dodgen and I already stated that yes the numbers of so many being submitted hinder it. Get caught up Sub.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#148553 Aug 22, 2013
Worthington wrote:
Would have a God involved in the day to day operation of the cosmos, have created Negroes and cockroaches?
Okay, Worthington. We get it.

You're a racist.

You've posted this sentence a dozen times or so, and have failed to get traction each time.

Unless you have something intelligent to say, please keep your bigotry to yourself.

You bore us.
Mugwump

UK

#148554 Aug 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, Worthington. We get it.
You're a racist.
You've posted this sentence a dozen times or so, and have failed to get traction each time.
Unless you have something intelligent to say, please keep your bigotry to yourself.
You bore us.
Seconded

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#148555 Aug 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter how little we understand about any particular subject, our ignorance will never be evidence for "God did it with magic." EVER.
You really enjoy the mocking aspect of *magic*, don't you? Nice. The Bible uses words like "created", "formed", and "made". Do they sound like words describing what a magician does? Is magic really the right choice of words? If God made us by methods we don't yet understand, does that make it magic? Do you keep saying this simply for it's derogatory value? Have you ever put any thought behind it? Or is it just the evotard mandate to be repeated over and over mindlessly as if by a zombie?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#148556 Aug 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, Worthington. We get it.
You're a racist.
You've posted this sentence a dozen times or so, and have failed to get traction each time.
Unless you have something intelligent to say, please keep your bigotry to yourself.
You bore us.
You guys are the biggest religious bigots on the planet. Pot calling the kettle black.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148557 Aug 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You really enjoy the mocking aspect of *magic*, don't you? Nice. The Bible uses words like "created", "formed", and "made". Do they sound like words describing what a magician does? Is magic really the right choice of words? If God made us by methods we don't yet understand, does that make it magic? Do you keep saying this simply for it's derogatory value? Have you ever put any thought behind it? Or is it just the evotard mandate to be repeated over and over mindlessly as if by a zombie?
It doesn't matter. Our ignorance of anything never supports your God claims. That, by definition, would be an argument from ignorance, and you surely agree that if one resorts to logical fallacies, one has lost. Do you disagree? Do you think an argument from ignorance is valid support for your God claims?

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#148558 Aug 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no 'Orion Galaxy'.
There are MANY galaxy's within the general direction we define by the stars that make up the constellation of Orion.
There are a number of nebula within Orion.
But no 'Orion Galaxy'.
we are in the galaxy of Orion its proven fact
the stars in orion constellation share our space
the star from another
constellation belong to another galaxy -
its how the universe works.
the Hindus are right when they say that we should turn back time
to the stars like cutting through layers of an onion
in fact we should pull back the layers
of the onion to reveal the true nature of orion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#148559 Aug 22, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
we are in the galaxy of Orion its proven fact
the stars in orion constellation share our space
the star from another
constellation belong to another galaxy -
its how the universe works.
the Hindus are right when they say that we should turn back time
to the stars like cutting through layers of an onion
in fact we should pull back the layers
of the onion to reveal the true nature of orion.
No. Anytjing you can see in the sky that looks like a star is within our own galaxy, the Milky Way. All the constellations of the night sky are collections of stars within our galaxy. Orion is a tiny collection of nearby stars in the Milky Way.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min DanFromSmithville 173,291
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 31 min Zog Has-fallen 419
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 53 min Zog Has-fallen 46
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 59 min Zog Has-fallen 61
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 50
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Chimney1 143,878
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... 5 hr DanFromSmithville 133
More from around the web