Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
153,521 - 153,540 of 171,489 Comments Last updated 45 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157818
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The first step could not happen because we those 3 mechanism are there to prevent it.
The only way this is possible is if two or more individuals incur the exact same multiple genetic mutations and then find each other and mate. This is not possible.
You keep saying it occurs in tiny steps but show the first step. Show the first step.
If it's a different species, the sperm will not find it's way to the ovum; the sperm will no be able to enter the egg; and the chromosome count will be different preventing cell division.
Wrong again.

Its starts at two populations of the same species, just separated.

Tiny differences in the sperm/egg etc accumulate in each population, never enough in one go to prevent fertilisation. They are spread through one population but not the other due to the isolation. Then another change. Then another. Over many generations.

Then the populations come back together. But through innumerable tiny accumulated changes, they no longer have genetic compatibility.

This is so trivial and well understood that you would not even get a Master's degree modelling it today.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157819
Nov 12, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
Its starts at two populations of the same species, just separated.
Tiny differences in the sperm/egg etc accumulate in each population, never enough in one go to prevent fertilisation. They are spread through one population but not the other due to the isolation. Then another change. Then another. Over many generations.
Then the populations come back together. But through innumerable tiny accumulated changes, they no longer have genetic compatibility.
This is so trivial and well understood that you would not even get a Master's degree modelling it today.
You completely skipped over the critical part. That's no explanation at all. How could it orginate in the first place? Any slight change change in either of the three mechanisms would prevent fertilization.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157820
Nov 12, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
OK focus on the initial mutation. Anything short of changes in all 3 mechanism I listed occurring at the same time in the same generation in the same population would not work. Mutations occur one individual at a time. If an individual were to be born with those genetic mutations that affect species-specific fecundity (1. chemotaxis, 2. fertilization (sperm/ovum compatibility), and 3. chromosome count), that individual would need to mate with another one with the *same exact* mutation. And then their offspring would have to mate with an individual with the same 3 compatible mechnisms (with who, the parents?) The orgin of such speciation...the initial...the first.
No. Many mutations are passed on to SOME of the offspring, but not all, when only one individual starts with that mutation. How fast it spreads or how soon it is eliminated depends on how helpful or harmful it is.

The form of evolution you are referring to would be called genetic drift. This is somewhat different than the kind of evolution that happens when a subgroup of a population gets separated from its originating population.

The subgroup evolution does not require any initial mutations prior to separation. The first step is, obviously, the state of being separated from the originating group. Any mutations that they accumulate cannot be shared with the originating group for as long as they are separated. And if they are separated for a long enough time they may lose the ability altogether to reproduce with the originating group.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157821
Nov 12, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So a horse, a zebra and a donkey are all the same species because they can breed and produce offspring? Or is the horse passe.
They are each subspecies, with a common ancestor. They have not been separated long enough to make a complete species break.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157822
Nov 12, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
...Any slight change change in either of the three mechanisms would prevent fertilization.
Your contention has no foundation unless you also claim that every individual within the species is identical. Is that your claim?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157823
Nov 12, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I would say that the first step likely involves proximity among different species. If two species do not encounter each other on a regular basis there is no selection pressure for more sophisticated species barriers developing.
You have found three mechanisms that block crossbreeding and mislabeled them as barriers to evolution and now you have stopped looking further. You need to dig deeper and gain a broader understanding of what you have found. Your gut wants this to be another solution to support your belief, but you need to bring this out of your gut and into your head.
In terms of natural selection, there would be no "selection pressure" for any species to avoid compatibility with any other species. They would simply be not compatible.

In math terms it's like saying that "2" has a mechanism for not being "3". In reality, it just isn't.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157824
Nov 12, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Many mutations are passed on to SOME of the offspring, but not all, when only one individual starts with that mutation. How fast it spreads or how soon it is eliminated depends on how helpful or harmful it is.
The form of evolution you are referring to would be called genetic drift. This is somewhat different than the kind of evolution that happens when a subgroup of a population gets separated from its originating population.
The subgroup evolution does not require any initial mutations prior to separation. The first step is, obviously, the state of being separated from the originating group. Any mutations that they accumulate cannot be shared with the originating group for as long as they are separated. And if they are separated for a long enough time they may lose the ability altogether to reproduce with the originating group.
You are completely avoiding the origination problem. All you have done with the subgroup is kicked the can farther down the street. The subgroup has the exact same issue. If there is even a single point mutation that changes one of the three mechanisms in place, then there will be no fertilization possible.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157825
Nov 12, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I would say that the first step likely involves proximity among different species. If two species do not encounter each other on a regular basis there is no selection pressure for more sophisticated species barriers developing.
You have found three mechanisms that block crossbreeding and mislabeled them as barriers to evolution and now you have stopped looking further. You need to dig deeper and gain a broader understanding of what you have found. Your gut wants this to be another solution to support your belief, but you need to bring this out of your gut and into your head.
I just reread your post and realized it did not need any correction or addition. It says the same thing I said, just differently. Sorry.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157826
Nov 12, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are completely avoiding the origination problem. All you have done with the subgroup is kicked the can farther down the street. The subgroup has the exact same issue. If there is even a single point mutation that changes one of the three mechanisms in place, then there will be no fertilization possible.
No. As I have already stated, the subgroup does not require any mutations prior to separation. The first step, as I again have already stated, is the fact of being separated. While being separated, both the original group and the subgroup will gain mutations, sending each on different evolutionary paths. The final result, way, way, way down the evolutionary road, is speciation. Speciation is a LOSS, not a GAIN. It is the INABILITY to breed, not the ABILITY.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157828
Nov 12, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No. As I have already stated, the subgroup does not require any mutations prior to separation. The first step, as I again have already stated, is the fact of being separated. While being separated, both the original group and the subgroup will gain mutations, sending each on different evolutionary paths. The final result, way, way, way down the evolutionary road, is speciation. Speciation is a LOSS, not a GAIN. It is the INABILITY to breed, not the ABILITY.
You said the first step is separation. So logically, on day one of separation the subgroup will have the exact same 3 species-specific fertilization mechanisms as the the primary group. So the problem is exactly the same as if they never separated! For those mechanisms to change requires mutation but as soon as either one of the individual's 3 mechanisms change, that individual would not be able to breed with another member of the subgroup species. The problem has not been helped by separation at all.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157829
Nov 12, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Your contention has no foundation unless you also claim that every individual within the species is identical. Is that your claim?
Identical in what sense?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157830
Nov 12, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
Its starts at two populations of the same species, just separated.
Tiny differences in the sperm/egg etc accumulate in each population, never enough in one go to prevent fertilisation. They are spread through one population but not the other due to the isolation. Then another change. Then another. Over many generations.
Then the populations come back together. But through innumerable tiny accumulated changes, they no longer have genetic compatibility.
This is so trivial and well understood that you would not even get a Master's degree modelling it today.
The species-specific mechanism for sperm protein-egg receptor is virtually unknown.

"However, a clear understanding of the specificity of these interactions and the regulation of species specificity is not yet known (Primakoff and Myles 2002; He et al. 2003)."

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/17/20/2502....

You seem to just talk right out of your ass-all the time.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157831
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You completely skipped over the critical part. That's no explanation at all. How could it orginate in the first place? Any slight change change in either of the three mechanisms would prevent fertilization.

One word refutation:

Ligars.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157832
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are completely avoiding the origination problem. All you have done with the subgroup is kicked the can farther down the street. The subgroup has the exact same issue. If there is even a single point mutation that changes one of the three mechanisms in place, then there will be no fertilization possible.

Previously refuted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157833
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The species-specific mechanism for sperm protein-egg receptor is virtually unknown.
"However, a clear understanding of the specificity of these interactions and the regulation of species specificity is not yet known (Primakoff and Myles 2002; He et al. 2003)."
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/17/20/2502....
You seem to just talk right out of your ass-all the time.

You make a random reference to a paper written 12 years ago. Nothing in that paper demonstrates your point, INCLUDING your quote.

Have you blown a gasket? You have gone from delusional to full blown psychotic. What is the deal? Is making sense no longer an issue for you?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157834
Nov 12, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>If mutations are accumulated within a genome, they would either be neutral or beneficial. Negative mutations would be lethal or they would be weeded out by selection. There is no genetic entropy.
Sofar. Entropy.
A measure of the disorder of a system.

A measure of the amount of energy in a system that is available
for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the
universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity.

Differentiation of Heat (Q), dQ, is not an exact differential and
therefore cannot be integrated. Therefore we introduce an
integration factor (1/T) such that dQ/T can be integrated. And this
dQ/T is called entropy.

So even though Log W=o the amount of energy expended could differ.

Establish the link between statistical entropy and physical
entropy.
Without additional information about the die, the most unbiased distribution is such that all outcomes are equally probable.

P(X =1)= P(X = 2)=...= P(X = 6)=1/ 6
Shannon’s Measure of Uncertainty
Shannon [1948] suggested the following measure of uncertainty, which is commonly known as the statistical entropy
1. H is a positive function of p1, p2,…, pn.
2. H = 0 if one outcome has probability of 1.
3. H is maximum when the outcomes are equally likely.
In the case of the die, you will find the maximum entropy to be
H = ln6
Stirling approximation: ln(N!)= N ln N - N, for very large N
Conclusion:
ln omega=NH
ln omega is linearly proportional to H. Therefore, maximizing the
total number of possible outcomes is equivalent to maximizing Shannon’s statistical entropy.
Statistical Entropy-> H = Const X ln omega <-# of possible outcomes

Entropy in Statistical Physics
Definition of physical entropy:

S = const X ln omega, omega =# of possible microstates of a close system.
A microstate is the detailed state of a physical system.
Example: In an ideal gas, a microstate consists of the position and velocity of every molecule in the system. So the number of microstates is just what Feynman said: the number of different ways the inside of the system can be changed without changing the
outside.
Principle of maximum entropy (The second law of thermodynamics)
If a closed system is not in a state of statistical equilibrium, its macroscopic state will vary in time, until ultimately the system reaches a state of maximum entropy.
Example:
S = Const x ln (# of Velocity States X # of Position States)
# of velocity states does not change.
# of position states does change

delta S = S2-S1 = const x {ln(2V)^N - lnV^N}= const X Nln2
Moreover, at equilibrium, all microstates are equally probable.
Temperature:
Temperature T is defined as

1/T = dS/dE . The temperatures of bodies in equilibrium with
one another are equal.
Since T is measured at a fixed number of particles N and volume V, a more stringent definition is

T =(dE dS)N,V .
Thus far, S is defined to be

S = const X ln (omega).
If S is a dimension-less quantity, T has the dimensions of energy (e.g. in units of Joules (J)).
But J is too large a quantity. Example:
Room temperature = 404.34 x 10-23 J !
What is the physical unit of T?
It is more convenient to measure T in degrees Kelvin (K). The conversion factor between energy and degree is the Boltzmann’s constant, kB = 1.38 X 10-23 J / K. Hence we redefine
S and T by incorporating the conversion factor.
S = kBln omega and T = T/ kB
Using the Boltzman factor:
Same change in entropy, but more energy is given away by the system initially with higher T. Hence temperature is a measure of the tendency of an object to spontaneously give up
energy to its surroundings.
cont.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157835
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

*** Reasons Why Evolution Never Happened ***(Part 1)

YOUNG AGE INDICATORS: Spiral galaxies young and not yet “wound up”; Type III Supernova remnants “missing”; Comets (Jupiter Family) maximum lifespan 10,000 years; Moon orbit recession rate limits Earth’s maximum age; Saturn ring / moon system upper age limit 10 million years; Absence of Pop. III stars refute BB theory; Discovery of blue stars in Milky Way Galaxy refutes old age; Faint Young Sun Paradox; Polonium-halos in granite rock; C14 in “ancient” samples; Youthful age of cavern speleothems (Carlsbad, Sequoyah); Natural gas seepage rate; The Dead Sea and it’s salt clock max 13,000 years old; Net sodium increase/Ocean salt clock; Amount/depth of ocean floor sediments; Manganese sea nodule size, growth rate, and depth; Rate of diminishing earth geo-magnetic field strength; Atmospheric helium buildup rate; World population growth rates; The world’s oldest living thing; Oldest historical records 5,000 years; Biblical genealogy of the patriarchs; Mitochondrial Eve 6,000 years ago; Insufficient time/generations to account for 60 million (98%) mutations selected makes human-chimp evolution impossible; Tree ring dating upper limits supports young earth; Missing accumulation of fulgurites given “long-age” evolutionary timescale ; Dinosaur soft tissue refutes Ma claim; etc.

FINE TUNING/DESIGN INDICATORS: Fine tuning of solar system and earth-moon system; Sun’s perfect size, mass, temperature, & distance; Solar eclipse perfect, unique; Moon perfect size and distance for tides / seasons; Perfect placement of solar system in galaxy (Goldilocks Zone); Physical laws, constants, and parameters fined-tuned; Atomic design; Perfect expansion rate of universe; Perfect amount of strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, & force of gravity; Neutron vs. proton mass; Neutral atoms electrons equals protons; Atmosphere has correct mixture of gases; Perfect tilt of earth; Perfect amount of surface gravity; Properties of water (H2O); Metamorphosis; Origin of photosynthesis; DNA-RNA-Protein code and programming same in all cells in all living things from the beginning shows that none or more or less primitive or advanced than any other; Genetic programming code exactly same set of rules in every cell on earth; Irreducibly complex biological systems (bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade); Designed complexity (giraffe neck, bombardier beetle & trilobite eye); No intermediates between different kinds; Genetic entropy and genetic deleterious mutation rate; Beneficial symbiotic relationship between plants and animals; Navigational/migrational capabilities of animals, i.e., loggerhead turtle, salmon, hummingbird, Monarch butterfly; Biological symmetry/design patterns of plants and animals, Biological anatomical homologies exhibit variation on a theme by supreme intelligence; Very limited variation in DNA sequence in Y Chromosome worldwide; ATP Synthase has no possible forerunner; Biosynthesis/ DNA-ATP-helicase-mRNA-ribosome -tRNA-polymerase: a vicious circle for evolution; Origin of (protein/DNA) homochirality; Redundant organs (lungs, kidneys); Complex defense mechanisms (Giant African Crested Rat); All cells on earth, DNA-mRNA-Protein machinery work the same; DNA error checking & repair process prevents genetic change; Specified complexity; Complimentary food (fruit/vegetables) designed perfectly (size, shape, nutritional content, flavor) for animals/humans; 15. Fractal geometry in nature; 16. Savantism –(math, music, memory) evidence of over-design and running counter to natural selection; 17. Mathematics in nature (Fibonacci sequence, golden ratio, e, Pi); etc.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157836
Nov 12, 2013
 
Boltzmann and Gibbs Distribution used.
Goal: Describe the probability distribution of a molecule of interest, with energy Ea , in equilibrium with a macroscopic thermal reservoir with energy Eb.

The second law says that at equilibrium, or
maximum entropy, all microstates are equally
probable, with a probability P0.

The first-order Taylor’s expansion is used to approximate SB(EB) because EB is very near
Etotal.
IMPORTANT: The probability distribution of the molecule of interest in equilibrium with its surrounding depends only on the temperature of the surrounding.

High energy barriers would require specific high energy pathways (catalyst)

The pain VR1 receptor, reacting on raising of temperature is a slow system.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~cperring/Perrings,... (2005).pdf

Markov and invasions

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157837
Nov 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

*** Reasons Why Evolution Never Happened ***(Part 2)

ASTRONOMY/COSMOLOGY: Universe had beginning; No ET life found; No radio signals detected from outer space (SETI); Inhomogeneity of (bounded) universe; The Horizon Problem; High dispersion velocities of stars in galaxies; etc.

FLOOD GEOLOGY/FOSSILS: Polystrate fossils; Cambrian explosion; Lack of soil layers & lack of erosion between layers; “Missing” age layers; Soft sediment deformation (bent rock);; Non-existent geologic “age” column; “360 Ma” Shrimp (decapods) with no change since; Living fossils from pre-Cambrian (600 Ma Horseshoe Crab); Abrupt appearance of fossils and stasis exhibited in geologic column; Soft/still rotting T.Rex tissue in “old” fossils;; H. Erectus, Neanderthal, H. Habilus, etc., were fully man; Closed-shelled mullusks; Shells found in mountains worldwide; Location of Gold deposits (Au) inconsistent with evolution of molten earth; etc.

BIOLOGY/GENETICS: Extinction of numerous species; Life comes only from (same species) life/biogenesis; Woman from man (X/Y Chromosomes); Chromosome count fixed within species; Chromosome errors cause sterility (mules); No possible evolutionary path of bird from reptile (scales/feathers, bellows lung/avian lung, crawling/flying); Unique properties of humans vs. animals; Telomeres system tightly engineered/extreme sequence conservation and no intermediate/evidence of gradual transition; Single-cell to multi-cell gap; Gene pool (male & female) fixed at parent’s birth/no environmental effect occurs during life of parents; Resistance, i.e., antibiotic or pesticide, does not yield any de novo genes or any complex new functions; Chromosome 2 Fusion Model refuted; All known life only on Earth; Evolution cannot explain origins of sexual reproduction; The myth of vestigial organs; Cold-blooded vs. warm-blooded; Placental vs. marsupial; Egg bearing vs. live birth; Lenski’s E.coli long term Research proves no vertical/forward progress evolution after 50,000 generations; Cytochrome-C percent sequence difference equidistant from all eucaryotes to bacteria; C-Value Paradox; Epigenetics effects much larger than any possible mutation/selection; No true positive mutations that create new or nascent limb, tissue, organ ever observed; miRNA contradicts evolution; Statistical entropy and dS = k log We/Ws proves abiogenesis and forward progress/vertical evolution violates SLoT; Species-specific mechanisms (chemotaxis, sperm/protein-ovum/receptor combination, chromosome count/cell division) prevents speciation.

OTHER/MISCELANEOUS: Bible, Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, Christ; Duality/human consciousness; Law of cause and effect violated (nothing + nobody = everything premise illogical); Information theory in DNA; Language -unique to humans - became less complex over time in opposition to evolution; Beauty of nature (peacock tail), art, music; Second Law of Thermodynamics (universe & everything in it is “waxing” old (“closed system” myth); Mathematical odds against abiogenesis, left-hand protein, prokaryote to eukaryote, sexual reproduction; Preconditions of intelligibility: laws of logic, absolute morality, & the uniformity of nature; The non-physical, non-material world of literature, art, music, humor, logic and mathematics; Near-death experience data; Organ transplant memory transfer; Placebo, nocebo effect; Altruism contradicts evolution; Historical basis for prohibiting incest; etc.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#157838
Nov 12, 2013
 
http://www.public.asu.edu/~cperring/Perrings,... (2005).pdf

Mitigation and adaptation strategies for the control of biological invasions
Charles Perrings*

For the following cases:
(a) An introduced species fails to establish, naturalise and spread.
(b) The probability that an introduced species
succeeds in establishing naturalising and spreading
is positive, and is independent of the control
regime.
(c) The probability that an introduced species
succeeds in establishing naturalising and spreading
is positive, but has different effects in
different states of nature.
(d) The probability that an introduced species
succeeds in establishing naturalising and spreading
is positive, but it does not converge to a
stable population size.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••