Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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

#163018 Jan 25, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
A great series of posts, Hillstart.
You're an evolution cheerleader! LOL!

Rah rah rah! Go go go! Give me "E"! Give me a "V"! Give me a "O"!

Aaaaaaaaaah EVO! Yeahhhhhhhhhh!

:~D

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#163019 Jan 25, 2014
replaytime wrote:
I am going to post his on several threads for I want the opinion of many. How would science describe this accident of where a child gets ran over at not only at mid body but also at neck level and then bounces up as if nothing ever happened. Give your 'scientific explanation" of how this happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0pm0GQijBEoXX
I'm going to guess that the mom took most of the force from the wheels. Watch carefully, she gets hit first and he's behind her. And when the kid finally ends up in front of her the front-right wheel was turned, so it went around his head instead of across his neck. But still, freaking awesome. Sad, it looks like the mom didn't make it.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#163020 Jan 25, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to guess that the mom took most of the force from the wheels. Watch carefully, she gets hit first and he's behind her. And when the kid finally ends up in front of her the front-right wheel was turned, so it went around his head instead of across his neck. But still, freaking awesome. Sad, it looks like the mom didn't make it.
Are you fkning blind?!?! The kid gets ran over at mid-body then again at neck level. So give your scientific explanation on how the kid just bounces back up like a boss as if nothing happened.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#163021 Jan 25, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to guess that the mom took most of the force from the wheels. Watch carefully, she gets hit first and he's behind her. And when the kid finally ends up in front of her the front-right wheel was turned, so it went around his head instead of across his neck. But still, freaking awesome. Sad, it looks like the mom didn't make it.
And btw it was his grandma and they both made it.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#163022 Jan 25, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm going to guess that the mom took most of the force from the wheels. Watch carefully, she gets hit first and he's behind her. And when the kid finally ends up in front of her the front-right wheel was turned, so it went around his head instead of across his neck. But still, freaking awesome. Sad, it looks like the mom didn't make it.
I think you are on to something. The rear wheel runs over the kids legs and then you can see the front wheel dragging the boy until he is pushed up against his mom. The height of her body at that point protects him and raises the wheel above his head.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163023 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an evolution cheerleader! LOL!
Rah rah rah! Go go go! Give me "E"! Give me a "V"! Give me a "O"!
Aaaaaaaaaah EVO! Yeahhhhhhhhhh!
:~D
Perhaps a cheerleader of a reasoned argument applying statistics properly, showing once again that the GE paradigm is flawed and superficial.

If you want to flounce around like a little girl with pompoms thats up to you, because we all know that you cannot refute any of the actual arguments or evidence for evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163024 Jan 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
I am going to post his on several threads for I want the opinion of many. How would science describe this accident of where a child gets ran over at not only at mid body but also at neck level and then bounces up as if nothing ever happened. Give your 'scientific explanation" of how this happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0pm0GQijBEoXX
I am not even going to bother looking.
If the boy's vital organs were not destroyed, he lived.
If they were, he would have died.

If you make like its a miracle, I will laugh. The reason you expected him to die is that it happens so often. God sure has "mysterious" ways of showing you His power. Kill 10,000 and let one live and our Loving God has offered us a miracle?

I doubt it somehow.
More like - in this case, the boy's vital organs were not destroyed, luckily for him.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163025 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Apparently you don't understand. If those mutant E. coli were returned to their normal environment, they would no longer be able to discern or differentiate when or which digestion is appropriate. They have lost functionality. It is as if you have a perfectly good working lock that only works with the correct key but then the lock is broken and other keys can unlock it as well.
"Kassen and Bataillon (2006)[5] took a wild-type Pseudomonas flourescens bacterium, and exposed it to an antibiotic. They obtained over 600 antibiotic-resistant strains, with an estimated frequency of 2.4 x 10-9 beneficial mutations per cell division. That seems like a tiny number, yet it was adequate to drive the evolution of fitter bacteria. These antibiotic-resistant strains were much fitter in the new environment than the parent wild-type bacteria, which could not survive at all in the presence of the antibiotic. Interestingly, even in the absence of antibiotic, at least 2.7% of the mutants were superior to the wild-type."
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...

Original paper:

[5] Nature Genetics 38, 484 488 (2006)

Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria

Rees Kassen and Thomas Bataillon

Abstract: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n4/abs/n...

----------

Get that? Superior to the wild type, even with the antibiotic removed.

This makes a mockery of your claim that the bacteria could only adapt to the antibiotics by compromising their fitness in some other way.

Once again, reality mocks your defense of "GE".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163026 Jan 26, 2014
Looks like the moronic judge-it lurkers are out there again, with no argument to offer of course.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#163027 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Equivocation. I said specifically place the meatloaf in the oven at 425 degrees and bake for 45 minutes. If you did this twice it would be ruined, wouldn't it? You can't just make up some other recipe, it has to be the genetic code calls for, the exact instructions.
You have merely shown us an example of a deleterious mutation.

Making the analogy more realistic, you would have a range of environments where the meat cooked more or less slowly (different temperature ovens are the environment), and a different number of repeat instructions to "cook for another 5 minutes", and this "recipe" would then be adaptable to different oven heats.

Those recipes with the optimal number of repeats of the instruction in each different environment (oven temp) would be the ones that made the best meatloaves.

So goes speciation, step by tiny step. Eventually you would have cool oven adapted meatloaf recipe and a hot oven adapted meatloaf recipe.

Don't blame me if this analogy is starting to sound weird. You chose it.

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#163032 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
More like one paragraph that was repeated twice in a row as the sequences that duplicated are actually back to back. And this certainly doesn't explain where the sequence originated in the first place, does it?
<quoted text>
Equivocation. I said specifically place the meatloaf in the oven at 425 degrees and bake for 45 minutes. If you did this twice it would be ruined, wouldn't it? You can't just make up some other recipe, it has to be the genetic code calls for, the exact instructions.
Surely you aren't contending that that this specific sequence of DNA is exactly equivalent to a specific meatloaf recipe? Your analogy: 1. Is not applicable to this situation. 2. It doesn't even vaguely support the point you're trying to make. Your claim was that duplication is always bad, that duplicating steps in a recipe would end up ruining food. I pointed out that many recipes have duplicated steps, so duplication is not always a bad thing, and you have retorted by claiming it has to be the one meatloaf recipe you're thinking of. OK, well, I guess I'll just have to stick with the argument that the citT+ variant is nothing like a meatloaf recipe. Perhaps you can explain why you think it is?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Apparently you don't understand. If those mutant E. coli were returned to their normal environment, they would no longer be able to discern or differentiate when or which digestion is appropriate. They have lost functionality. It is as if you have a perfectly good working lock that only works with the correct key but then the lock is broken and other keys can unlock it as well.
Ah, here's the problem. You miss the point of the experiment. The point was to give these bacteria a stable environment and to observe how they evolve in response. The theory of evolution predicts that they will become better suited to live in this stable environment. An additional prediction is that they may become less well suited to live in other environments, including ones they previously lived in. That's because evolution will always favour changes that make the organism fit better into its current environment. It has no knowledge of where the species' ancestors came from.

This is a fundamental, glaring misunderstanding and needs to be cleared up. I know you don't accept evolution, but all I'm going to do here is explain this part of the theory, so you can argue against an accurate version of what it actually implies.

All life began in the oceans. At some point, life evolved to live on land. After a very long time, it had evolved to look like the life we now recognise - lizards, birds, rabbits, humans, etc. Because we live on land, we evolve to better fit a terrestrial environment. We do not continue to evolve characteristics that would make us better aquatic animals, even though that's where we came from originally. The theory of evolution says we will evolve to fit better into our current environment, and our ability to live in other environments is not directly selected for or against. However, it is likely that any specialisations we had to live in a past environment will fade, either because they are actively selected against (e.g. because they cost energy to develop) or because of random mutations that are not actively selected against.

Hopefully, you now understand that, although you might consider there to be a "normal" environment for these bacteria, they have no concept of that. They only experience their current environment. The observations made throughout this experiment strongly support the theory of evolution.

Since: Jan 14

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#163033 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Amused? You don't think bacteria has flagella?(A limb) You don't think bacteria has any organelles?(A ribosome) You don't think bacteria can have any tissue?(Two or more connecting cells) But I wasn't even referring to existing parts; I was talking about the possibility of developing a new one! Of course that is pretty far fetched as you well know!
Yes, I am extremely amused by the idea of a single-celled bacterium having these multi-cellular structures. A flagellum is not a limb, an organelle is not an organ and, yes, I don't think the single-celled E. coli contains two or more connecting cells.

Look, I'm not having a go at you for making a simple mistake like this. Everyone makes mistakes. It's OK for you to just laugh and say "oops, I chose the wrong words there"!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163034 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
More like one paragraph that was repeated twice in a row as the sequences that duplicated are actually back to back. And this certainly doesn't explain where the sequence originated in the first place, does it?

Not the issue being addressed, was it?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Equivocation. I said specifically place the meatloaf in the oven at 425 degrees and bake for 45 minutes. If you did this twice it would be ruined, wouldn't it? You can't just make up some other recipe, it has to be the genetic code calls for, the exact instructions.

You don't read very well. Go back and reread the original and try to understand the authors point.

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Apparently you don't understand. If those mutant E. coli were returned to their normal environment, they would no longer be able to discern or differentiate when or which digestion is appropriate. They have lost functionality. It is as if you have a perfectly good working lock that only works with the correct key but then the lock is broken and other keys can unlock it as well.

They GAINED functionality in their ACTUAL environment. That is what evolution is!!! That is now their "NORMAL" environment. Don't you get that?

Sometimes I want to smack you for being so stupid.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163035 Jan 26, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:

Very nice. And some good stuff coming up. The rite of spring is a personal favorite. I have not listened to the Planets in years. I will have to dust off the CD and give it a listen.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#163037 Jan 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
I am going to post his on several threads for I want the opinion of many. How would science describe this accident of where a child gets ran over at not only at mid body but also at neck level and then bounces up as if nothing ever happened. Give your 'scientific explanation" of how this happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0pm0GQijBEoXX

The soft and flexible overcome the ridged and the strong.- Lao Tzu , Tao Te Ching.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#163038 Jan 26, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you fkning blind?!?! The kid gets ran over at mid-body then again at neck level. So give your scientific explanation on how the kid just bounces back up like a boss as if nothing happened.
Ah, so you are saying that the laws of physics just took a short break?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#163039 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Kassen and Bataillon (2006)[5] took a wild-type Pseudomonas flourescens bacterium, and exposed it to an antibiotic. They obtained over 600 antibiotic-resistant strains, with an estimated frequency of 2.4 x 10-9 beneficial mutations per cell division. That seems like a tiny number, yet it was adequate to drive the evolution of fitter bacteria. These antibiotic-resistant strains were much fitter in the new environment than the parent wild-type bacteria, which could not survive at all in the presence of the antibiotic. Interestingly, even in the absence of antibiotic, at least 2.7% of the mutants were superior to the wild-type."
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...
Original paper:
[5] Nature Genetics 38, 484 488 (2006)
Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria
Rees Kassen and Thomas Bataillon
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n4/abs/n...
----------
Get that? Superior to the wild type, even with the antibiotic removed.
This makes a mockery of your claim that the bacteria could only adapt to the antibiotics by compromising their fitness in some other way.
Once again, reality mocks your defense of "GE".
I'm sure Urb will contend that there is still a loss because the mutant strain can no longer play the piano.
Anonymous

Craigavon, UK

#163040 Jan 26, 2014
Liam R wrote:
It's evolution. It's not like it is rocket science...
Evolution is not science at all, my friend. There is absolutely not evidence that it ever happened. If you have some, I'd like to see it.
Anonymous

Craigavon, UK

#163041 Jan 26, 2014
z3dsdead wrote:
Amazing! People just continue to buy into the crap the gop and conservatives are useing to dumb down the kids these days. But it's even more astounding that a grown up human in 2008 in America can still be so incredibly ignorant that they'd buy the intelligent design garbage. Evolution may not account for 100% of the human process, but 0% can be proven by the theories that Iron Ranger, Dolphin girl and sadly, many others presume to be facts based on nothing substatiated beyond ignorant BELIEFs indoctrinated into them buy thievess who made them pay cash to be lied to week after week.
Religion is a money making business. Nothing else. Fear based mind control for the massess who believe that they are too stupid to think for themselves and are happily content to proclaim their ignorance.
1 - Evolution accounts for nothing. Macro evolution never happened, now will it. If you've proof it did, or have anything to support your faith-based -not fact-based- theory,t hen show me it.
2 - Learn to spell/type
3- Don't be a hypocrite. You say we are happy to proclaim our 'ignorance'? We Christians aren't the ones whose 'theory' or 'ignorance' is being taught to innocent, suggestible children who do not deserve to be taught lies, never mind from the get-go.

"In your ignorance YOU will perish"!!
"Be not decieved"
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#163043 Jan 26, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Kassen and Bataillon (2006)[5] took a wild-type Pseudomonas flourescens bacterium, and exposed it to an antibiotic. They obtained over 600 antibiotic-resistant strains, with an estimated frequency of 2.4 x 10-9 beneficial mutations per cell division. That seems like a tiny number, yet it was adequate to drive the evolution of fitter bacteria. These antibiotic-resistant strains were much fitter in the new environment than the parent wild-type bacteria, which could not survive at all in the presence of the antibiotic. Interestingly, even in the absence of antibiotic, at least 2.7% of the mutants were superior to the wild-type."
http://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/st...
Original paper:
[5] Nature Genetics 38, 484 488 (2006)
Distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations before selection in experimental populations of bacteria
Rees Kassen and Thomas Bataillon
Abstract: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v38/n4/abs/n...
----------
Get that? Superior to the wild type, even with the antibiotic removed.
This makes a mockery of your claim that the bacteria could only adapt to the antibiotics by compromising their fitness in some other way.
Once again, reality mocks your defense of "GE".
Will, yeah. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria? Of course. The bacteria are not evolving, they are adapting. They either mutate or swap DNA through horizontal gene transfer. Then the bacteria population share the resistant genes. This is just simple adaptation or microevolution. We accept this. I called it intra-speciation. It happens all the time as this ability is built-in to the design so that organisms can adapt to changing environments. I make three points: 1. None of this activity has any explanatory powers regarding how those genes actually originated. 2. This is not a viable mechanism for the subject bacteria to ever become anything other than the same bacteria. 3. The altered/mutant bacteria is less fit than the original wild bacteria in an environment without the antibiotics, i.e, if it were returned to an environment that did not have the antibiotics. The development of the resistance comes at a cost every time. Whatever is the logical fact pattern that the antibiotic uses to kill the bacteria is broken, for example, say the antibiotic binds to a particular protein to stop a critical biological function for survival of the bacteria. Now bacteria that have a mutation related to that same protein comes along and is resistant to the antibiotics because it can no longer bind to the mutant protein, so it survives the attack. However, the resistant bacteria that survives in the environment of the antibiotics no longer has that particular good working protein; which means it is less fit when compared to being in an environment that doesn't have the antibiotics. That protein that the antibiotics can no longer bind to kill the bacteria but the protein is defective and can no longer perform its normal function.

Again, this says nothing about how the genes originated in the first place and is not instrumental for any type of macroevolution or inter-speciation to occur. This is just bacteria being bacteria. It is actually testimony of the fearfully and wonderfully made and evidence of purposeful and intelligent design.

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) 5 min Regolith Based Li... 67,287
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 16 min King Carrot 925
What does the theory of evolution state? 33 min pshun2404 173
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr pshun2404 374
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 28,677
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Dogen 221,264
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 3,537
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr wondering 160,962
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 19 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web