Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178602 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 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.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#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.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#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?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149297 Aug 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Sorry but once again there is no logical connection between your second and third sentence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149298 Aug 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Evolution depends entirely on any mutations that affect the genes of the germ cells, in the case of sexual reproduction anyway. That does not apply to bacterial reproduction but lets go with your point....

Without mutations, a species will not evolve. Correct.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#149299 Aug 29, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying that language is becoming less complex despite an ever-expanding vocabulary that includes words from other languages from around the world, and that it is deteriorating despite more people (both as a quantity and as a proportion) being literate? I suppose that might be true among a certain population that treats words like "theory" as meaning the same thing regardless of context. Does "run" only mean "rapid movement by means of pedal locomotion," no matter the context? Is it dishonest to pretend as though that is the only definition? Can we at least get you to admit that the "just a theory" line from creationists is equally dishonest?
The Oxford Dictionary just added the word, "Twerk". Does this mean English is becoming more complex?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/a...

What about the genetic code? Does longer DNA mean it's more complex too?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#149300 Aug 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
When you begin with the assumption that it's designed, of course it's design. However, science doesn't assume design. Instead, science says "this occurs, and now we need to figure out how it occurs, and why it occurs that way." As soon as you can demonstrate that this process is designed and not merely the result of a mutation to an organism billions of years ago that allowed for sexual reproduction to occur, you will have a Nobel Prize and have proven intelligent design in some fashion. Now, all you need to do is a bunch of science, which is expensive in both time and money, and get your work published in a legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal to demonstrate that you've followed the scientific method with all due rigor and exactitude. Good luck!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#149301 Aug 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Oxford Dictionary just added the word, "Twerk". Does this mean English is becoming more complex?
Yep.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/ us/definition/american_english /twerk
What about the genetic code? Does longer DNA mean it's more complex too?
If an organism's genome is larger, the genome is more complex by definition, even if the organism is what we'd generally think of as "less complex." Of course, complexity is always relative. A larger genome is more complex than a smaller genome. An unicellular organism is less complex than a multicellular organism.

Think of it this way: Is a 50' ice sculpture of Zeus hurling a thunderbolt more or less complex than a chunk of granite that measures approximately 1' in diameter?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#149302 Aug 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
As soon as you can demonstrate a mutation-free genome, you win. Go for it!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#149303 Aug 29, 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.
False, because the entire premise of "information-creating genetic mutation" is bullshit. We've already explained to you why, many times, so I'm not wasting my time doing it again just so you can ignore it again. Quit lying and saying stupid bullshit.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#149304 Aug 29, 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!"
When someone has demonstrated that he is uninterested in learning and honesty yet declares everything he says as true because he says so, and has been shown the error in what he says repeatedly yet continues to repeat his original wrong assertions, what more is left? Mockery is a valid tool for demonstrating someone's obstinacy against learning. As soon as he decides he wants to learn and be honest with us and himself, the mockery will end full stop. He had been given more than enough respect and time and effort, and he's shat upon it over and over. He's earned every note of derision he receives.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 22 min UncommonSense2015 141,333
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 min Blitzking 163,776
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 33 min UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 16 hr Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web