Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

One way or another

United States

#149277 Aug 28, 2013
Concerned Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
His posts # 149266 and # 149267 are good examples. IMHO
Keep talking

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149278 Aug 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be a moron. NO ONE denied that mutations are not important in evolution. They simply are one mechanism among many.
The rest of your post is just silly. The mechanism of evolution are well known and I have listed them at least 20 times, myself.
Type into your search engine "mechanisms of evolution" and hit [enter].
SEE!
Yes you did. And then you lied about. Can't get a straight answer out of an evotard. That's because evolution is based on lies and makes fools out of all of you.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149279 Aug 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, entropy will affect even DNA. So what?
Oh, that's good. At least we have some progress!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149280 Aug 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, that's good. At least we have some progress!
Let's see if you have made any.

Are you going to bring up claims that have been debunked ten times over already, or do you have some new nonsense?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149281 Aug 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your big number merely explains why every human is unique. It does nothing to explain why variation must continue indefinitely with some arbitrary "kind" .
You were referring to this "big number" (which comes right out of a popular Biology text):

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."

So you say it "merely explains why every human (and every other sexually reproducing animal as well) is unique".

Think about what you just said. I just described the genetic processes for variation which did NOT include ANY mutations. So what you are referring to is DESIGNED VARIATION. How is it that we get all this genetic variation from the mechanisms of meiosis and fertilization? Very key point! Because it is designed into every sexually reproducing creature. But your evolution (The Primary Axiom says that ALL genetic variation MUST come from random mutations) and does not allow intelligent design, does it? So your statement above directly contradicts that.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149282 Aug 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see if you have made any.
Are you going to bring up claims that have been debunked ten times over already, or do you have some new nonsense?
In order for something to be truly debunked, it must at least have some content. Your meaning of debunked is simply calling me childish names. That's not being debunked, it's just evotards acting like children.

Now I know you'd rather just call me silly childish names all day and night so go ahead, be my guest. You certainly don't have anything else to offer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149283 Aug 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
In order for something to be truly debunked, it must at least have some content. Your meaning of debunked is simply calling me childish names. That's not being debunked, it's just evotards acting like children.
Now I know you'd rather just call me silly childish names all day and night so go ahead, be my guest. You certainly don't have anything else to offer.
No, I call you names because you are an idiot.

All of your articles have been debunked many times and your using them again is only one small part of the reason that you are called an idiot.

Remember your hero? The one whose book was debunked before it was even published? Sanford, that was the dishonest little snake's name. Remember how he tried to get a "peer reviewed" label on his book but avoided submitting it as biology? Talk about being a tard.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149284 Aug 28, 2013
Oh and Urb, calling you names is only a perk, once we have debunked your idiocy.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149285 Aug 28, 2013
Another key point is that evolutionary scientists have been searching relentlessly for the first true information-creating genetic mutation, but still have not found it.

Think about how important this would be for them.

And how heavily evolution depends on it as its basic mechanism for change. Random mutation plus natural selection.

Think about how extensive and sensitive this world-wide network of evolutionary scientist is, for over 100 years, searching for the very first information-creating mutation!

If someone would even discover one mutation out of a million mutations that unambiguously creates new information, the literature would be over-flowing with reports of this monumental achievement.

But still not a single, crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created new information.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149286 Aug 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Oh and Urb, calling you names is only a perk, once we have debunked your idiocy.
Trash talking is not a debunking. Sorry kiddo.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149287 Aug 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Trash talking is not a debunking. Sorry kiddo.
That is not what I said moron.

Go back and read that incredibly simple post one more time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149288 Aug 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Another key point is that evolutionary scientists have been searching relentlessly for the first true information-creating genetic mutation, but still have not found it.
Think about how important this would be for them.
And how heavily evolution depends on it as its basic mechanism for change. Random mutation plus natural selection.
Think about how extensive and sensitive this world-wide network of evolutionary scientist is, for over 100 years, searching for the very first information-creating mutation!
If someone would even discover one mutation out of a million mutations that unambiguously creates new information, the literature would be over-flowing with reports of this monumental achievement.
But still not a single, crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created new information.
No, they haven't. Why do you think that?

It seems that you are conflating evolution and abiogenesis, again.

Of course that is why we get to call you moron.

Only a few scientists are working on abiogenesis and they are not looking for the "first true information-creating genetic mutation". Urb, when you make idiotic claims like this you need to supply evidence of some sort to back up such idiocy.

Of course we know you have none.

And pointing out your idiotic lack of supporting evidence does debunk your claim, moron.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#149289 Aug 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not what I said moron.
Go back and read that incredibly simple post one more time.
Anyone that claims to be educated and knowledgeable on anything does not resort to childish name calling and ridiculing. But hey I guess in science idiot and moron and such are on the top of their vocabulary.

When people want to be taken seriously or respected for their knowledge name calling is the last way they will get either.

And to use name calling in an example "Any fool would know that!"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149290 Aug 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you and Chimney and LGuy don't need no stinking mutations. You can get from microbes to man without them. Great. A new theory. Mutations are not necessary or needed. All you need is lots of time and generations and you can go from a single cell to all the present life on the planet. Wow!
Dont talk utter tosh. We know what mutations are, such as copying errors. Base substitutions, insertions, deletions, sequence duplicatioms large and small.

We know they can becaused by chemicals, radiation, etc.

And we know they are the source of new variation as opposed to recombination of existing genes which is what the process of meiosis is all about. That is a reshuffling of existing genes, taking ay random one copy out of 2 that a parent has and forming a new genome with another parent's similarly compiled composite.

Evolution requires mitation. Period.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149291 Aug 28, 2013
Mutation. Of course.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149292 Aug 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You really should find a new analogy because you should know we creationist believe that language - similar to DNA - started out complex and error free, and over time entropy caused it to slowly deteriorate to its present mutated state. That is what the evidence suggests for both language and the genetic code. Whas up dawg.
So we need a new analogy becuase creationists hold to another fantasy they cannot substantiate?

Listen, the point of the analogy is that tiny changes can accumulate with no break point where the son is incompatible with the father, yet is incompatible with the ancestor x100 or 1000. There was no moment in history where a father spoke latin and his son spoke italian. Yet latin did change by small increments into latin.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#149293 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone that claims to be educated and knowledgeable on anything does not resort to childish name calling and ridiculing. But hey I guess in science idiot and moron and such are on the top of their vocabulary.
When people want to be taken seriously or respected for their knowledge name calling is the last way they will get either.
And to use name calling in an example "Any fool would know that!"
Sure they do. At times we have to let off steam. Urb is a perfect fool to vent at since he will never learn.

Besides it is not childish to call a moron who keeps putting himself out in public a moron. If there was the slightest chance that Urb could learn anything I would treat him with more respect. I treated him with respect in the past. That was a mistake. All he did was to disrespect me. So Urb is a living target. He is an idiot begging that others point out how idiotic he is.

Sometimes I humor him.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U will Never Know

#149294 Aug 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they do. At times we have to let off steam. Urb is a perfect fool to vent at since he will never learn.
Besides it is not childish to call a moron who keeps putting himself out in public a moron. If there was the slightest chance that Urb could learn anything I would treat him with more respect. I treated him with respect in the past. That was a mistake. All he did was to disrespect me. So Urb is a living target. He is an idiot begging that others point out how idiotic he is.
Sometimes I humor him.
But you only see him as a moron because he believes in God more than evolution which is what you believe in.

I f I believe that going 340mph through a 1/4 mile is more thrilling and fun than watching a bunch of idiots drive around a circle track 200 times at 200 am I an idiot? No I am not. It is what I like and find more appealing to me.

We are all different and we believe and find what we want appealing to us. Like the old saying goes there are some that believe fire is hot but then again there are some that have to stick their hand in the fire to find out. Now does that make the one that stuck his hand in the fire an idiot or does it now make the one that stuck his hand in the fire more knowledgeable because he has a better understanding of how hot the fire is?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149295 Aug 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
And we know they are the source of new variation as opposed to recombination of existing genes which is what the process of meiosis is all about. That is a reshuffling of existing genes, taking ay random one copy out of 2 that a parent has and forming a new genome with another parent's similarly compiled composite.
Evolution requires mitation. Period.
But you are not going near far enough! According to evolution, ALL the information in the genome is created by mutation, including the information that causes meiosis and fertilization. So what you are describing besides mutations is variation by design. That's my point.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149296 Aug 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont talk utter tosh. We know what mutations are, such as copying errors. Base substitutions, insertions, deletions, sequence duplicatioms large and small.
We know they can becaused by chemicals, radiation, etc.
And we know they are the source of new variation as opposed to recombination of existing genes which is what the process of meiosis is all about. That is a reshuffling of existing genes, taking ay random one copy out of 2 that a parent has and forming a new genome with another parent's similarly compiled composite.
Evolution requires mitation. Period.
Genetic mutations can occur only during the following three processes: 1. Meiosis (independent assortment and recombination), 2. Spontaneously (by whatever cause) during the lifetime of the gametes (sperm/ovum), or 3. Random fertilization.

Does macroevolution/transmutation of species therefore depend 100% ENTIRELY on random mutations that occur during one or more of these three genetic processes? Yes or No?

Barring any mutations, will offspring in an isolated population remain a similar species as their parents regardless of ancestry or time? Yes or No?

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) 49 min Gary Coaldigger 20,499
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Paul Porter1 171,598
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 3 hr Paul Porter1 27
Darwin, Marx, and Freud 3 hr Paul Porter1 4
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr DanFromSmithville 142,483
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 6 hr Paul Porter1 213
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 13 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
More from around the web