Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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

Miami, FL

#149450 Aug 30, 2013
"Different genetic variants within a species are referred to as alleles, and so a new mutation is said to create a new allele. In population genetics, each allele is characterized by a selection coefficient, which measures the expected change in an allele's frequency over time. The selection coefficient can either be negative, corresponding to an expected decrease, positive, corresponding to an expected increase, or zero, corresponding to no expected change. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations is an important parameter in population genetics and has been the subject of extensive investigation [1] Although measurements of this distribution have been inconsistent in the past, it is now generally thought that the majority of mutations are mildly deleterious, that many have little effect on an organism's fitness, and that a few can be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable changes are quickly fixed, and neutral changes accumulate at the rate they are created by mutations."

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

A. OK, so I am interested in only the "favorable" mutations - the ones that supposedly can take a microbe and turn it into a microbiologist.(There are different types of mutations but I am assuming only the basic type.) It is very interesting to note that most mutation rates you see quoted and compared with are "raw" mutation rates, i.e., including all types, negative, neutral, and positive; but even according to evolutionary geneticists, only the fixed "favorable" mutations create any change. This "favorable" mutation rate is incredibly infititely small, and cannot account for common descent or evolutionary lineages because there is not nearly enough time available.

B. The other aspect of this which cannot be ignored is this: if most mutations are mildly deleterious, is selection powerful enough to eliminate them in the required timeframe? This has been address extensively in the literature (Kimora, Lynch, Muller, etc.) and the answer seems to be an overwhelming no, it can not!

C. The final aspect is the question: Where is there evidence of a true "favorable" mutation that can create new genetic information, i.e., to lead to some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ; the kind of new proteins that explain evolutionary lineage of fish to reptile or reptile to mammal or bird?

So if either A. or B. or C. is true, and especially if all three are true, this is strong evidence that macroevolution or transmutation of species is not only very unlikely and improbable but should be a strong refutation of the entire theory of evolution and of the primary axiom.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#149451 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Different genetic variants within a species are referred to as alleles, and so a new mutation is said to create a new allele. In population genetics, each allele is characterized by a selection coefficient, which measures the expected change in an allele's frequency over time. The selection coefficient can either be negative, corresponding to an expected decrease, positive, corresponding to an expected increase, or zero, corresponding to no expected change. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations is an important parameter in population genetics and has been the subject of extensive investigation [1] Although measurements of this distribution have been inconsistent in the past, it is now generally thought that the majority of mutations are mildly deleterious, that many have little effect on an organism's fitness, and that a few can be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable changes are quickly fixed, and neutral changes accumulate at the rate they are created by mutations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
A. OK, so I am interested in only the "favorable" mutations - the ones that supposedly can take a microbe and turn it into a microbiologist.(There are different types of mutations but I am assuming only the basic type.) It is very interesting to note that most mutation rates you see quoted and compared with are "raw" mutation rates, i.e., including all types, negative, neutral, and positive; but even according to evolutionary geneticists, only the fixed "favorable" mutations create any change. This "favorable" mutation rate is incredibly infititely small, and cannot account for common descent or evolutionary lineages because there is not nearly enough time available.
B. The other aspect of this which cannot be ignored is this: if most mutations are mildly deleterious, is selection powerful enough to eliminate them in the required timeframe? This has been address extensively in the literature (Kimora, Lynch, Muller, etc.) and the answer seems to be an overwhelming no, it can not!
C. The final aspect is the question: Where is there evidence of a true "favorable" mutation that can create new genetic information, i.e., to lead to some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ; the kind of new proteins that explain evolutionary lineage of fish to reptile or reptile to mammal or bird?
So if either A. or B. or C. is true, and especially if all three are true, this is strong evidence that macroevolution or transmutation of species is not only very unlikely and improbable but should be a strong refutation of the entire theory of evolution and of the primary axiom.
A and B are not true and C is merely a question so it can't be true or false.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#149452 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Different genetic variants within a species are referred to as alleles, and so a new mutation is said to create a new allele. In population genetics, each allele is characterized by a selection coefficient, which measures the expected change in an allele's frequency over time. The selection coefficient can either be negative, corresponding to an expected decrease, positive, corresponding to an expected increase, or zero, corresponding to no expected change. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations is an important parameter in population genetics and has been the subject of extensive investigation [1] Although measurements of this distribution have been inconsistent in the past, it is now generally thought that the majority of mutations are mildly deleterious, that many have little effect on an organism's fitness, and that a few can be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable changes are quickly fixed, and neutral changes accumulate at the rate they are created by mutations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
A. OK, so I am interested in only the "favorable" mutations - the ones that supposedly can take a microbe and turn it into a microbiologist.(There are different types of mutations but I am assuming only the basic type.) It is very interesting to note that most mutation rates you see quoted and compared with are "raw" mutation rates, i.e., including all types, negative, neutral, and positive; but even according to evolutionary geneticists, only the fixed "favorable" mutations create any change. This "favorable" mutation rate is incredibly infititely small, and cannot account for common descent or evolutionary lineages because there is not nearly enough time available.
B. The other aspect of this which cannot be ignored is this: if most mutations are mildly deleterious, is selection powerful enough to eliminate them in the required timeframe? This has been address extensively in the literature (Kimora, Lynch, Muller, etc.) and the answer seems to be an overwhelming no, it can not!
C. The final aspect is the question: Where is there evidence of a true "favorable" mutation that can create new genetic information, i.e., to lead to some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ; the kind of new proteins that explain evolutionary lineage of fish to reptile or reptile to mammal or bird?
So if either A. or B. or C. is true, and especially if all three are true, this is strong evidence that macroevolution or transmutation of species is not only very unlikely and improbable but should be a strong refutation of the entire theory of evolution and of the primary axiom.
A and B are false and C can't be true or false as its merely a question.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149453 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking to me or your fellow evotards? You so chickenshit, you can't even address me directly.
Stop being a little prat. Of course I address you directly all the time and the email was a reply to you as well.

Man, this one takes the cake. Your rationality meter has dipped to zero. You sound like a teengage boy who thinks someone insulted his girlfriend.

"Is she just the most beautiful wonderful gorgeous thing in the whole world?"

"Yeah, she's not bad looking"

"You bastard, I will kill you for insulting her like that!!"

Hilarious.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149454 Aug 31, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You did not you frukin liar.
Being the post.
Just to be clear, if you accuses me of being a liar, but it turns out I was telling the truth, that makes YOU the liar.

So, I said:

"That is why I said IF some dude did the good things I listed, I would respect that."

And you as above accuse me of lying about that. So lets see...

Post #149389
Chimney1 wrote:
Let me make it simple then.
You think the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I don't. It should be easy enough for you to work out the rest from there. I do not accept that every word or action attributed to Jesus is factual. In fact probably very little.

But if some dude went around suggesting we be nice to each other, to treat the poor and the sick well, and to stand agianst corruption in the Jewish institutions at the time, then I respect that.
Read the second paragraph and eat your words, you moronic little fool. Three years and counting, and you still have not established a single lie I have ever made on this forum. But as we all know, that wont stop a little turd like you from continuing to slander good people.

Have you noticed that 90% of what you write is completely ignored by me these days? I step over dogshit, and I generally step over your posts.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149455 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You think very little about Jesus is factual yet you respect him? For what? The idea of a man preaching good things? How did you decide that was the factual part? Because that's the part you like? Hogwash! Picking and choosing only aspects of Jesus that happen to fit your politically correct (PC) needs but disbelieving/rejecting the non-PC parts that don't? You're as wishy-washing about this as you are about science. You live in a PC, suck-up, evotard world where the only thing that matters is to feel good and nothing makes sense. That goes for the rest of you retards, too.
Wow, you are the first person in the world ever to accuse ME of being PC. That's funny.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149456 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Quit feeding them and they'll learn to get their own food.
What verse of the New Testament is that one? Strangely I cannot find it.

On the other hand...

Matthew 25:35 ESV

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,

Isaiah 58:10 ESV

If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.

Proverbs 28:27 ESV

Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.

Luke 3:11 ESV

And he answered them,“Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149457 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Different genetic variants within a species are referred to as alleles, and so a new mutation is said to create a new allele. In population genetics, each allele is characterized by a selection coefficient, which measures the expected change in an allele's frequency over time. The selection coefficient can either be negative, corresponding to an expected decrease, positive, corresponding to an expected increase, or zero, corresponding to no expected change. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations is an important parameter in population genetics and has been the subject of extensive investigation [1] Although measurements of this distribution have been inconsistent in the past, it is now generally thought that the majority of mutations are mildly deleterious, that many have little effect on an organism's fitness, and that a few can be favorable. As a result of natural selection, unfavorable mutations will typically be eliminated from a population while favorable changes are quickly fixed, and neutral changes accumulate at the rate they are created by mutations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate
A. OK, so I am interested in only the "favorable" mutations - the ones that supposedly can take a microbe and turn it into a microbiologist.(There are different types of mutations but I am assuming only the basic type.) It is very interesting to note that most mutation rates you see quoted and compared with are "raw" mutation rates, i.e., including all types, negative, neutral, and positive; but even according to evolutionary geneticists, only the fixed "favorable" mutations create any change. This "favorable" mutation rate is incredibly infititely small, and cannot account for common descent or evolutionary lineages because there is not nearly enough time available.
B. The other aspect of this which cannot be ignored is this: if most mutations are mildly deleterious, is selection powerful enough to eliminate them in the required timeframe? This has been address extensively in the literature (Kimora, Lynch, Muller, etc.) and the answer seems to be an overwhelming no, it can not!
C. The final aspect is the question: Where is there evidence of a true "favorable" mutation that can create new genetic information, i.e., to lead to some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ; the kind of new proteins that explain evolutionary lineage of fish to reptile or reptile to mammal or bird?
So if either A. or B. or C. is true, and especially if all three are true, this is strong evidence that macroevolution or transmutation of species is not only very unlikely and improbable but should be a strong refutation of the entire theory of evolution and of the primary axiom.
A/ The favorable rate cannot be "infinitely small" or things like bacterial resistance and the recovery of unfit populations eg recovery of nematodes, brought to your attention some months back. These things happen, therefore positive mutations exist.

B/ Yes. And Kimura would not only disagree that he showed otherwise, he would also point out to you that he helped solve Haldane's dilemma and that Sanford's (and now your) quote mining of his work is merely creatard lying.

C/ You mis-characterise the process, and so attack only a strawman. Is the conversion of a lobe fin by tiny degrees into a leg and foot a "new limb or organ" or is it a succession of tiny modifications that lead to a "new" structure by degrees? Which particular mutation is supposed to be "the one"? False question. A multitude of tiny mutations add up to a different result over time.
One way or another

United States

#149458 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just to be clear, if you accuses me of being a liar, but it turns out I was telling the truth, that makes YOU the liar.
So, I said:
"That is why I said IF some dude did the good things I listed, I would respect that."
And you as above accuse me of lying about that. So lets see...
Post #149389
<quoted text>
Read the second paragraph and eat your words, you moronic little fool. Three years and counting, and you still have not established a single lie I have ever made on this forum. But as we all know, that wont stop a little turd like you from continuing to slander good people.
Have you noticed that 90% of what you write is completely ignored by me these days? I step over dogshit, and I generally step over your posts.
Oh gosh, hmmm, that post was after the fact, you lying moron.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#149459 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What verse of the New Testament is that one? Strangely I cannot find it.
On the other hand...
Matthew 25:35 ESV
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
Isaiah 58:10 ESV
If you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday.
Proverbs 28:27 ESV
Whoever gives to the poor will not want, but he who hides his eyes will get many a curse.
Luke 3:11 ESV
And he answered them,“Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”
But according to you, none of that is factual. And then take some good scripture out of context and quote-mine the Bible for your own benefit. What a two-faced moron you are.
One way or another

United States

#149460 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney, you're just like dogshit, you lie and swear to it. Your deceit is all you have, because you're not smart enough to have a thought all your own. If I'm wrong, answer the thought experiment all by your widdle self.

O J thought experiment

You Evo morons are the proof that all schools fail.

Here's the 5th grade thought experiment for you morons.

In the OJ Simpson trial, the prosecutor asked that OJ put on the glove found at the scene. That was a huge mistake. What should the prosecutor have done, after such a stupid mistake?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#149461 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A/ The favorable rate cannot be "infinitely small" or things like bacterial resistance and the recovery of unfit populations eg recovery of nematodes, brought to your attention some months back. These things happen, therefore positive mutations exist.
Then show with peer-reviewed research a "favorable" mutation and based on that calculate their rate per generation. It appears that they are so rare that it's not even measurable. But I am willing to be very generous so throw me a bone. You already know whatever you come up with will have not have a snowball's chance in hell of ever being any where near sufficient for any possible evolutionary lineage. And that's just point "A"!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#149462 Aug 31, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Chimney, you're just like dogshit, you lie and swear to it. Your deceit is all you have, because you're not smart enough to have a thought all your own. If I'm wrong, answer the thought experiment all by your widdle self.
O J thought experiment
You Evo morons are the proof that all schools fail.
Here's the 5th grade thought experiment for you morons.
In the OJ Simpson trial, the prosecutor asked that OJ put on the glove found at the scene. That was a huge mistake. What should the prosecutor have done, after such a stupid mistake?
Some possibilities:

1. OJ's hands are arthritic and swell up when he doesn't take his medicine. OJ purposely did not take his medicine during the trial.

2. The glove became soaked in blood and when it dried caused the glove to shrink.

3. The defense team altered the glove's inner liner preventing OJ's hand from going all the way in.

4. They should have had a leather and glove expert testify possible reasons why the glove no longer fits.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149463 Aug 31, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh gosh, hmmm, that post was after the fact, you lying moron.
Even when the facts are laid out straight that does not assist your twisted little brain. I posted the number and you are free to check it and the posts that follow. Not my problem if your dementia has reached a point where even providing you with the correct post number doesnt help you.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#149464 Aug 31, 2013
Concerned Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know what truth is to me? How would you know what experiences I have had that have brought me to faith in God? What makes you think I am being dishonest? Because I believe in the God of the Bible, you say I am being dishonest?
If you say you disagree and think I'm stupid, that is fair. To say I am being dishonest is not fair! But, God never said life would be fair
Truth is not opinion, feeling, belief or faith. I was told as a child that George Washington truly chopped down a cherry tree. Later I found out it was a story invented by Parson Weems. If I >choose< to continue to believe George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, that doesn't mean it happened or make it a "personal truth", it just means that I am lying to myself.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#149465 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop being a little prat. Of course I address you directly all the time and the email was a reply to you as well.
Man, this one takes the cake. Your rationality meter has dipped to zero. You sound like a teengage boy who thinks someone insulted his girlfriend.
"Is she just the most beautiful wonderful gorgeous thing in the whole world?"
"Yeah, she's not bad looking"
"You bastard, I will kill you for insulting her like that!!"
Hilarious.
Projection meter at redline.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149466 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But according to you, none of that is factual. And then take some good scripture out of context and quote-mine the Bible for your own benefit. What a two-faced moron you are.
Shifting the goal posts again Urb? I am not claiming the verses are factual or otherwise. You on the other hand are claiming that you live by these verses without picking and choosing, then claim that we should not feed the hungry cos they'll soon learn to feed themselves if we dont.

Sorry bud, you can believe Jesus' words or that last pearl of yours but you cannot believe, or practice, both.
One way or another

United States

#149467 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even when the facts are laid out straight that does not assist your twisted little brain. I posted the number and you are free to check it and the posts that follow. Not my problem if your dementia has reached a point where even providing you with the correct post number doesnt help you.
All you will ever be is a lying piece of shit, because you have nothing else and you're not even as smart as a fifth grader.

O J thought experiment
You Evo morons are the proof that all schools fail.

Here's the 5th grade thought experiment for you Evo morons.

Oh I'm sorry, none of you were ever taught to think for yourselves. Lmao---you morons, you have no business on a website for science.

In the OJ Simpson trial, the prosecutor asked that OJ put on the glove found at the scene. That was a huge mistake. What should the prosecutor have done, after such a stupid mistake?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#149468 Aug 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Shifting the goal posts again Urb? I am not claiming the verses are factual or otherwise. You on the other hand are claiming that you live by these verses without picking and choosing, then claim that we should not feed the hungry cos they'll soon learn to feed themselves if we dont.
Sorry bud, you can believe Jesus' words or that last pearl of yours but you cannot believe, or practice, both.
The point being (which you seem to miss every time) is you shouldn't use as a rebuttal something you don't even believe is true but much worse, you don't (and can't) have any level of understanding.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#149469 Aug 31, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection meter at redline.
so projection is another concept you dont understand. Ok.

Lets say I claom to respect Socrates.

In reality we dont know ecactly what Socrates said and did. We only have the well constructed dialogues of Plato, his student. We know that Plato's dialogues are as much Plato's views as Socrates'.

And yet nobody on earth would have a problem understanding me if I say "I respect Socrates".

Jesus no different even in principle. But clearly your rational mind chokes up and righteous indignation takes over at the mere suggestion that Jesus was merely a good man. How dare we even compare him. How dare we even suggest the the unauthorised biography cum mythology known as the new testament ever got a single thing wrong.

So full circle. As I said from the start, the bible to me is just another book written by men. And if Jesus asked that people care for the weak, and yes, feed the hungry, then I respect this man Jesus.

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 Chimney1 201,047
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 min Chimney1 40,266
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 23 min Aura Mytha 15,753
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 4 hr ChristineM 84
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr DanFromSmithville 151,414
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 11 hr One way or another 6
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 21 hr Fear-God 8
More from around the web