Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

Mugwump

Sunderland, UK

#150192 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin said, for example, that observations in nature are inconsistent with a model of creative design.
All evolutionary biologists use the same twisted logic.
They insist that evolution occurred because they disbelieve in God.
That is a RELIGIOUS argument.
Hah , how did I know you would come up with :

A (unreferenced) quote
A blind assertion that all supporters of evolution think the same (Francis Collins ?)

But as always you have dodged the other two points I asked you to defend:- don't worry won't make them again - it is tiresomely obvious that you know you have made some fundemental logical brain-farts and will keep avoiding having to admit it - you are like Jimbo in that respect.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150193 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin said, for example, that observations in nature are inconsistent with a model of creative design.
All evolutionary biologists use the same twisted logic.
They insist that evolution occurred because they disbelieve in God.
That is a RELIGIOUS argument.
I suspect Francis Collins, an Evangelical Christian, would be happy to point out that you're full of crap.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150194 Sep 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to the card game huh. Then let’s go this route. A royal flush will insure a win. The things that happened to ensure our survival
1. sun - royal flush
2. air mixture - royal flush
3. water - royal flush
4. atmosphere - royal flush
5. plants - royal flush
6. animals - royal flush
7. wind - royal flush
8. rain - royal flush
9. moon – royal flush
10. seasons – royal flush
There are more but I think you get the point. Now the odds of just one royal flush are 649,739:1
I don't recognise your calculation.

That's because you had none.(shrug)

Again, I can quite easily explain why, but you won't respond to that either because again it will all go over your poor little head.
replaytime wrote:
so the odds of getting 10 or more are too high to figure.
Actually they go down quite a LOT when you take into account the ENTIRE frakking universe. Even if the chances are one in a bazillion that still means there's a bazillion planets out there with life.

Oh and uh, I guess you just "forgot" about the fact of life being around when the environment was VERY different many many years ago. In fact it was life that ultimately CHANGED the environment completely, leaving us with an Earth with free oxygen. Oxygen is quite poisonous and corrosive by the way, and life had to adapt to IT, not the other way around.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150195 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Try thinking for yourself instead of parroting regurgitated atheist kool-aid.
No one keep bringing up atheism except for you. No one is trying to push atheism on you. So why do you keep pissing and moaning about it?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150196 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a load of BS.
You merely ASSUME that those that survive are genetically superior, even though any increase in genetic fitness is not measurable.
You ASSUME that if a population flourishes, that the 100-300 mutations, which are invisible to NS, were magically swept away by the evo-fairy.
Chimney, your base ignorance of fundamental principles of population genetics is astounding.
It is obvious that you are desperately trying to salvage what's left of your failed religion.
No bud.

In the experiment, genetic loss of fitness was measured by gradual reduction in fecundity (fertility) and life span.

With natural selection removed, these markers declined by 1-3% per generation.

Then after several generations, in this isolated and now significantly degraded population, natural selection was reintroduced.

These same markers gradually improved, achieving normal levels after several generations.

If there are no markers, no measure of "genetic superiority or inferiority" possible, then the whole Sanford hypothesis collapses in a mass of meaninglessness anyway. Sanford specifically claimed that the deterioration would be apparent over time. If not, then what does his theory mean anyway? That genes metaphysically degrade? NOPE. He talked about genetic ENTROPY, an increase in disorder that would be apparent in real, visible markers.

So, these markers are chosen as meaningful markers of overall genetic fitness.

And, like it or not, they recover.
And, like it or not, Sanford claimed that this cannot happen.

Of course, this experiment alone does not PROVE evolution. But is DOES disprove Sanford's Genetic Entropy hypothesis.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150197 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "huge body of evidence to support evolution" is founded on attempts to falsify ID, as I've demonstrated.
Homology and imperfections of nature are two examples.
No you haven't.

IDC is non-falsifiable.

Evolution does not depend on it. It's IDC which depends on evolution. Without evolution they'd have nothing to talk about.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150198 Sep 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No one keep bringing up atheism except for you. No one is trying to push atheism on you. So why do you keep pissing and moaning about it?
OMG!!! He's still ranting about atheism even when nobody mentions atheism??

Shocked. Shocked I say.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#150199 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "huge body of evidence to support evolution" is founded on attempts to falsify ID, as I've demonstrated.
Homology and imperfections of nature are two examples.
No. ID is simply not an issue. Evolution also does not address the notion that all existence is just a dream. It cannot be proven to be right or wrong.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150200 Sep 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG!!! He's still ranting about atheism even when nobody mentions atheism??
Shocked. Shocked I say.
Sorry, Dude. Didn't mean to freak you out.

;-)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#150201 Sep 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And now you disclose that you haven't read Behe either? How can you expect to comment on Sanford or Behe if you have never read their work?
Simple. I have read Sanford and his book fails. Easily. In multiple ways.

I have not read Behe's book because even the premise is so misguided that it does not really matter how many examples of ID he thinks he has found, he can prove none of them. Even in principle. So do I really need to labour through his book? Nope, this would be a waste of time.

Actually its a good idea for you to go back to Sanford's references. Especially Kimura. If you had an ounce of objectivity, you would read Kimura etc and actually become angry that Sanford could provide such a misleading take on what they actually did.

Frankly I lose patience with your creationist liars continually quote mining aspects of biology and geology and shamelessly distorting them. And continuing even after the original authors make it quite clear that they have been quote mined or misunderstood.

But thats all you have, so I guess you will keep doing it forever. And real scientists will laugh it off and get on with the job of learning how the world really works, while you trip off to your la-la land.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#150202 Sep 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I have some around me. I've gotten them - over time - to take Nilla Wafers out of my hand. That took quite a while.
Ah, of course! I've tried to offer them bits of grass and leaves, but they look at me like asking me, what kind of shit am I trying to pull. They already have all the grass they need. Now Nilla Wafers don't just grow out of the ground.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#150203 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin said, for example, that observations in nature are inconsistent with a model of creative design.
All evolutionary biologists use the same twisted logic.
They insist that evolution occurred because they disbelieve in God.
That is a RELIGIOUS argument.
No, you just made that up. Darwin was a christian for most of his life. He became an agnostic near the end of his life. He did not claim to know how or why life started, whether it just happened or was created, but only maintained that once life started it was subject to natural selection.
One way or another

United States

#150204 Sep 5, 2013
Evo children and science prove to be very stupid.

another thought experiment.
Science, by all its claims and innuendo, state that light photons never cease, so the question is, how can you prove its a lie or true, depending on the available data.

I claim that light photons are constantly winking out of existence, due to their loss of heat. Natural light is generated through some form of heat and without that heat, that light can no longer sustain its existence.

If I am right, sciences claims of light coming here from galaxies billions of light years away, will be proven ignorant. It will also prove my point that light speed can only last for very short distances, by comparison

What proof is there , that science is correct?

Can any here defend sciences claims?

The answer follows.

If light were to go on forever,--that would mean that the lights intensity would have to go on forever, especially as science claims that the light and galaxies we see from about 13 billion light years ago, is just now getting to us.

But oh my goodness, if that's true, then shouldn't our sunshine and its warmth reach Pluto? Oh gosh, our sun looks like a street lamp from Pluto and only 0.15 of the suns light reaches Pluto.

Isn't it strange how science claims that light goes on forever, or at least, the 13 billion light years from our distant galaxies and yet, as close as our sun is and the temperature of the photons and waves of light are 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit at the suns surface BUT, when those photons and light waves reach earth, they are less than 100 degrees.

Don't think Evo children, because science likes you just as dumb as you are.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#150205 Sep 5, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, of course! I've tried to offer them bits of grass and leaves, but they look at me like asking me, what kind of shit am I trying to pull. They already have all the grass they need. Now Nilla Wafers don't just grow out of the ground.
Chuck some in their direction. Shorten the distance as they get more comfortable. After a bit they will be looking at you like "Where's my damn cookie???"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150206 Sep 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Dude. Didn't mean to freak you out.
;-)
Nah, I'm chilled man.

In fact I'm gonna go get me a beer.

Cheers.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#150207 Sep 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Evo children and science prove to be very stupid.
Ah shaddap Jimbo.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150208 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a "simple fact"
That's twisted logic founded on the perverted mindset of atheism in which no absolutes exist
Wrong again Hows' That for Stupid. And that reason is exactly why all creatrard "odds arguments" fail.

We know that logic is not one of the tools you have in your toolbox.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#150209 Sep 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
But in a sense you are putting a goal on life itself. The goal being evolution.
No, evolution is a process, not a goal.

Just as gravity is a process. It is a force that can build planets and make stars. Evolution simply describes what happens to life once it exists.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150210 Sep 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No bud.
In the experiment, genetic loss of fitness was measured by gradual reduction in fecundity (fertility) and life span.
With natural selection removed, these markers declined by 1-3% per generation.
Then after several generations, in this isolated and now significantly degraded population, natural selection was reintroduced.
These same markers gradually improved, achieving normal levels after several generations.
If there are no markers, no measure of "genetic superiority or inferiority" possible, then the whole Sanford hypothesis collapses in a mass of meaninglessness anyway. Sanford specifically claimed that the deterioration would be apparent over time. If not, then what does his theory mean anyway? That genes metaphysically degrade? NOPE. He talked about genetic ENTROPY, an increase in disorder that would be apparent in real, visible markers.
So, these markers are chosen as meaningful markers of overall genetic fitness.
And, like it or not, they recover.
And, like it or not, Sanford claimed that this cannot happen.
Of course, this experiment alone does not PROVE evolution. But is DOES disprove Sanford's Genetic Entropy hypothesis.
It's obvious that survival does not correlate with genetic superiority on a molecular level.
An organism with a few incorrectly copied nucleotides will, in the vast majority of cases, be no less likely to reproduce than an organism with a perfectly copied genome.
Your statement that fertility is a measure of genetic fitness is baseless. You missed Sanford's entire argument.
Sanford explicitly stated that 100-300 mutations per generation are invisible to NS in a given generation...
Unless you can demonstrate through DNA sequencing that those 100-300 mutations per generation were actually removed from the genome through NS, you are merely telling more stories.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#150211 Sep 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, evolution is a process, not a goal.
Just as gravity is a process. It is a force that can build planets and make stars. Evolution simply describes what happens to life once it exists.
The complexity of life is in no way comparable to gravity.

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) 3 min thetruth 52,443
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 9 min thetruth 542
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 min thetruth 24,927
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr marksman11 157,826
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Aura Mytha 1,223
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Richardfs 218,841
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web