Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 175,430

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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

#148972 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. And if I can establish that there are no positive mutations, I have my second part fulfilled as well.
No you still have not explained why meiosis would prevent macro evolution. Not even close.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

#148973 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So I accomplished exactly what I set out to do. And if I can establish that there are no positive mutations, I have my second part fulfilled as well.
You planned to show why macro evolution is impossible based on meiosis. Still waiting.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#148974 Aug 26, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
If evolution is not an all encompassing view...
It's not a 'view' at all. It is a process.
Believer wrote:
...what determines the rest of your worldview if there is nothing else influencing our lives outside the intelligence evolutionists (i assume) think evolved along with our physical bodies?
Many things. Experience, education, etc.
Believer wrote:
Do you have answers/ evidence that explains how the food and fresh water and sunlight and rain evolved along with us to provide exactly what we needed to sustain us in the process?
Again, you're using 'evolve' in a very broad sense. In any event, food, water, sunlight and rain didn't 'evolve' along with us. They all predated humanity by eons. It was *US*(and the rest of life) who evolved to survive in this environment.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#148975 Aug 26, 2013
Believer wrote:
And, why did John and Paul evolve to possess the talent they had to express human emotion through composing, and others a talent to express themselves through painting, and others through acts of kindness and sacrifice.
John and Paul (and George and Ringo) didn't evolve. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.
Believer wrote:
And why do some choose to use these talents for good, to promote love and peace and beauty....while others use their abilities to promote hate and violence?
I imagine the stock answer is free will.
Believer wrote:
Are scientists able to disregard human nature, emotions, and actions as something that just "is what it is." We should just exist and die and never seek answers to the problems we can't solve using a microscope or find in the fossil records?
You just love to compartmentalize everyone, don't you? All scientists do not think alike. Surprise! Some are Christian. Some are Jews. And some are atheists or agnostics. They all have their opinion on the 'why'.

Guess what? They all seeks answers. As do I. Seeking answers isn't exclusive to believers.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#148976 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not following! I am addressing two entirely separate concepts.
"All animals have potentially unlimited genetic variation..."
That is the first part of my Rule of Non-macroevolution.
I demonstrated the following:
The processes of Random Fertilization and Independent Assortment of Chromosomes during Metaphase I, provide far in excess of 70 trillion (2^23 X 2^23) combinations multiplied by the variation brought about by the crossing over during recombination in Prophase I, "that the possibilities are truly astronomical."
(Interesting how none of the evotards commented on this as it is obviously WAY over their tiny little heads.)
And the second part, which is as follows:
"But are restricted to their own kind, regardless of ancestry or time."
Which is why I am so interested in the boundries between kinds. And have generously given you the primates as the boundry for now because I am such a nice person.
And furthermore, barring any mutations (which can only be neutral or harmful anyway), in order for meiosis to be successful, the chromosomes have to be compatible to some degree.
Are you sure those numbers are right Urb?

Genes are only swapped for their equivalent gene. So a blood type gene swaps for a blood type gene, a hair gene for a hair gene and a knee bone gene for a knee bone gene.

So as Adam only has two of each gene there should still only be two of each gene as you claim they can't mutate.
Is that the case?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148977 Aug 26, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure those numbers are right Urb?
Genes are only swapped for their equivalent gene. So a blood type gene swaps for a blood type gene, a hair gene for a hair gene and a knee bone gene for a knee bone gene.
So as Adam only has two of each gene there should still only be two of each gene as you claim they can't mutate.
Is that the case?
The numbers are right out of Campbell Biology 8th Ed. under the discussion of genetic variation and Meiosis. When I get home after work, I could give the page number too.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148978 Aug 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You planned to show why macro evolution is impossible based on meiosis. Still waiting.
Not hardly. You are obviously very confused.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148979 Aug 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No you still have not explained why meiosis would prevent macro evolution. Not even close.
I used meiosis to explain the potentially unlimited genetic variation. The part about being restricted within it's own kind is a altogether different.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148980 Aug 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to cultivate the skill of reading.
Read Chimneys post again.
Chimney1 wrote:
Early monkeys evolved from more primitive primates resembling lemurs, tarsiers, and shrews.
The earliest primates evolved from insectivorous mammals probably closest to today's rodents.
"Probably"? You call that evidence? I call it wild speculation with no evidence.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148981 Aug 26, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bubba. As much as the Tea Party nutcases would like to dismantle the educational system and forward the savings to the top 3%, it ain't gonna happen.
There are a host of life skills that cannot be fostered by staring at an led screen.
I guess you already forgot that home schooled were better adjusted, better socialized, got better grades, and had higher graduation rates?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#148982 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you already forgot that home schooled were better adjusted, better socialized, got better grades, and had higher graduation rates?
Link?
Believer

Manchester, TN

#148983 Aug 26, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
John and Paul (and George and Ringo) didn't evolve. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.
<quoted text>
I imagine the stock answer is free will.
<quoted text>
You just love to compartmentalize everyone, don't you? All scientists do not think alike. Surprise! Some are Christian. Some are Jews. And some are atheists or agnostics. They all have their opinion on the 'why'.
Guess what? They all seeks answers. As do I. Seeking answers isn't exclusive to believers.
Thank that was helpful.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#148984 Aug 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Link?
Recently, a few posts back.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#148985 Aug 26, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
But, if the metal had not been mined, you wouldn't have a car to study. And, while "studying" that car, don't you think at some point it might become important to you and your ability to understand what you are looking at to know where the metal came from, how and who designed it, and most importantly the purpose the designer had in mind for tat particular model?
In your above thinking, doesn't it seem strange that he was too stupid to understand such?

That happens so often, some will refuse to babysit them.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148986 Aug 26, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that is just crazy talk. How life evolved seems to be extremely important, but how live began in the first place isn't important to you.
That isn't what I said at all. Why did you feel the need to lie?
Believer wrote:
Science doesn't have an answer for how, where, and when life began;
...therefore, God did it. Is that your point?
Believer wrote:
but does have all the evidence of how we got from we don't know where, and we dont know how, and we dont know when.....to we don't care because it doesn't matter because we have evidence that we did.
If we found footprints leading from a point in the center of the Sahara Desert to Cairo, and we found those footsteps ending at a dead body, we'd be able to say what the path is that he'd taken from where the footprints began to where they ended. The question of how he got to the center of the Sahara Desert is an entirely separate issue from the path he took from there to Cairo. Both are important questions to answer, but answering one question doesn't answer the other, nor is the answer to one necessary to answer the other.
Believer wrote:
Bless your heart. You do try.
Why do you think you need to lie so much to bolster your religious beliefs and protect them from the light of reason and reality?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148987 Aug 26, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
But, if the metal had not been mined, you wouldn't have a car to study. And, while "studying" that car, don't you think at some point it might become important to you and your ability to understand what you are looking at to know where the metal came from, how and who designed it, and most importantly the purpose the designer had in mind for tat particular model?
So, you're saying mechanics can't fix cars if they don't understand mining, nor if they don't understand how metals came to be?

It's important to understand all facets of the thing, but it's not important to understand how iron atoms first formed to understand how a car works. Do you agree or disagree?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148988 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I used meiosis to explain the potentially unlimited genetic variation. The part about being restricted within it's own kind is a altogether different.
And, as soon as you demonstrate that restriction and its mechanism, the Nobel Prize is yours. Good luck.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148989 Aug 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, as soon as you demonstrate that restriction and its mechanism, the Nobel Prize is yours. Good luck.
The answer obviously lies in the mutations. I think I need to demonstrate that mutations as a mechansim are incapable of driving macroevolutionary development. Actually, several researchers have already done this for me, although this is not necessarily what they intended to do.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#148990 Aug 26, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I used meiosis to explain the potentially unlimited genetic variation. The part about being restricted within it's own kind is a altogether different.
There are two possible "donor" versions of each gene. One from each side of the double helix. If there are 23,000 genes, there are trillions of possible combinations of all the pairings.

So what? Tell us something we didn't know.

This has nothing to do with any imagined limitation on cumulative change in the genome. I though you were planning to discover how this limits future genetic change, limiting it to "within kind".

And still of course, you ignore the problem with "kind", which is that different "kinds" today show convergence in the fossil record at every level of classification.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#148991 Aug 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to cultivate the skill of reading.
Read Chimneys post again.
Chimney1 wrote:
Early monkeys evolved from more primitive primates resembling lemurs, tarsiers, and shrews.
The earliest primates evolved from insectivorous mammals probably closest to today's rodents.
When it serves Urb's interest to misinterpret what was written, he won't hesitate.

Likewise, he goes on to claim that question marks over the exact lineage of primates = biologists have absolutely no idea how primates evolved.

It gets even better - in his first posts on the subject, he suggested that they have no idea and are not interested and are covering up the fact because it might be embarrassing to evolution. This degree of silliness is hard to credit.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min SobieskiSavedEurope 126,839
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr KAB 139,202
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 10 hr TurkanaBoy 994
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 10 hr DanFromSmithville 13,572
More Theories to Disprove Creation 10 hr TurkanaBoy 28
Darwin on the rocks 13 hr TurkanaBoy 817
Quran descendants of apes and pigs cursed by Al... (Sep '08) Sat DanFromSmithville 10

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE