Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Read more: www.scientificblogging.com 178,491

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." Read more

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68210 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're just going to swallow the pablum...
How ironic, coming from a Biblical literalist.

Noah's ark: global event? Please remind us.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68211 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists are honest and upfront about their faith...
But not about ANYTHING ELSE.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68212 Aug 16, 2011
Hey, Urban Cowboy...in mathematics, does the value "i" fall between 0 and 10? I've got a running bet elsewhere on Topix. I've got but a lowly English BA, and I'm sure you're more mathematically knowledgeable than I. Care to weigh in?

Also, one other thing...is 1.10 greater than, less than, or equal to 1.9?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#68213 Aug 16, 2011
Chimney wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you going to try and DEFEND 6,000 year old Mitochondrial Eve?
Funny. Science puts the date at around 200,000 years ago. How are you going to magically cut that timeline by 97%?
By ignoring you and running away -- his modus operandi!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#68214 Aug 16, 2011
MichiganGEL wrote:
<quoted text>
??????
Since it is the size of the pupil that determines the amount of light entering the eyeball, I don't see what difference the color of the iris would make.
Citation?
High pigment content in the stroma blocks light from passing through the whole iris to the retina, restricting it to the pupil.(eye, human."Encyclopędia Britannica)

I didn't know either, and it took like 30 seconds to find out that the color of the stroma, the colored portion of the iris, does make a difference in the amount of light that hits the pupil and makes it through. Interesting, and I learned something -- but I suggest you might spend a minute of two checking.

“Jump in! The water's perfect:)”

Since: Oct 10

Cleveland, Honolulu, Africa

#68215 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Have to think about that. While I believe we all came out of the Middle East and you think Africa; not much controversy there. But is skin tone due soley to latitude/sun exposure and millions of years of mutations? Is this a result of mutation or expression of various genes turning on or off? What about mixed-race offspring? It seems possible to go from light to dark or vice versa in one or two generations. Could not this skin tone phenomena be built-in genetic variability and not mutation? This is more of an effect of selective breeding where certain genes are expressed more frequently in a population. If a population of blue-eyed blondes settled in Africa, would they eventually turn black? Like a deck of "gene" cards, if a third of the deck was black, the other third white, and another third asian; they get shuffled according to selection and whose to say this wasn't built-into the original design from the beginning? As the different populations spread out to populate the world the various races would have concentrated due to selective breeding. The latitude/sun exposure may have encouraged the expression of the various skin tones similar to how many animals react to seasons, climate changes. In other words, evidence of intelligent design.
Everywhere you see intelligent design I see a design that is intelligent. If there was a designer fine tuning species you would see more of a uniform adaptation to situations. What we have is unique adaptations that lead to a similar end. Flight for example. Birds, bats and bugs have developed unique ways of dealing with flight. As different as their methods are from each other they all have the same result.

If what you say is true then African Americans should be turning white at a real time measurable rate. Also they should already have the mutated gene that determines eye color as Europeans do. No evidence supports this.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#68216 Aug 16, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
Hey, Urban Cowboy...in mathematics, does the value "i" fall between 0 and 10? I've got a running bet elsewhere on Topix. I've got but a lowly English BA, and I'm sure you're more mathematically knowledgeable than I. Care to weigh in?
Also, one other thing...is 1.10 greater than, less than, or equal to 1.9?
Are you referring to the imaginary number "i"?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#68217 Aug 16, 2011
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%2...

The AiG article (and/or your website) attempts to claim that the mitochondrial evidence is that the Most Recent Common Ancestor of extant humans in the matriarchal line is 6,500 years old. The AiG article begins with a reasonable definition of an MRCA (see link for definition) but then grasps at two relatively recent papers assessing mutational rates in the mitochondrial DNA and rushes to a prematurely triumphant conclusion about them.

Conclusion

No-one in the science community thought that the Parsons et al study supported a matrilineal MRCA of 6,500 years. Nevertheless their work did result in discrepancies between the known date of human geographic dispersion (at least 60,000 years BP) and the apparently very high rate of mitochondrial mutation, which, if taken at face value, would yield a matrilineal MRCA 6,500 years ago.



Subsequent studies have shown the following:



RFLP analysis (as used by Parsons et al and Howell et al) is not a an appropriate approach to determine mutational rates; whole genome sequencing as used by Ingman et al is more accurate
There is considerable disagreement between different studies of mutational rate, as measured by pedigree analysis of near relatives, concentrating on the D-loop
Some of this variation is simply the result of stochastic variations in small sample sizes
Much of this variation is due to genuinely different mutational rates on the D-loop in different populations
The rate of fixed mutations over many generations is much lower than the instantaneous mutational rate from generation to generation as a consequence of the elimination of slightly deleterious mutations from the gene pool
The presence of mitochondrial heteroplasmy will result in an elevated mutational rate in pedigree studies
The fixed mutational rate outside the D-loop over many generations is constant across primate species and can be used as an accurate mutational 'clock'
A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years
The same humans give an X-chromosome MRCA of ~480,000 years as predicted.


It seems to be the nature of creationist apologists to misrepresent and misuse scientific work. The fact that so many creationists and creationist websites latch on to the Parsons et al paper ,and claim that it is proof for a biblical Eve living 6500 years ago,(even though Parsons et al claim no such thing), demonstrates two things:

They do not understand or they deliberately misrepresent the concept of the matrilineal Most Recent Common Ancestor which does not point to the only female human ancestor
They ignore the fact that subsequent research has largely resolved the issues that the Parsons et al paper raised.

<<more info at link at top of page>>
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#68218 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists are honest and upfront about their faith...
This would be a LIE!

Anyone who has ever been involved with or in "debates" with "creationists" know that "creationists" LIE more than anyone in these SCIENCE vs. bronze age FAIRY TALE "debates".
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>evolutionist hide behind their ideology and hide under the skirt of a dressed up "science".
This would be a LIE!

The Theory of Evolutions has a VAST amount of logic, reason, research, empirical evidence and sound science in support. BILLIONS of bits of information, data and empirical evidence, collected over the past 200 years, studied and researched by TENS OF MILLIONS of scientists and technicians and students, from EVERY scientific discipline, form EVERY religious denomination, in TENS OF THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, observatories, research hospitals, etc. all around the world, including (but not limited to) the following:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

http://www.nature.com/

http://www.popsci.com/

http://scienceblogs.com/

http://www.physorg.com/

http://www.newscientist.com/

http://www.livescience.com/

http://www.nasa.gov/

http://www.noaa.gov/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/

http://www.dmns.org/

http://www.ansp.org/

http://www.carnegiemnh.org/

http://www.fieldmuseum.org/

http://www.si.edu/

http://www.amnh.org/

http://www.museumoftherockies.org/

http://www.nhm.org/site/

http://www.nps.gov/dino/index.htm

http://www.tarpits.org/

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/

http://www.naturalsciences.be/

http://www.kahaku.go.jp/english/

http://www.lsa.umich.edu/biology/

http://biology.nd.edu/

http://golgi.harvard.edu/biolinks.html

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/

http://biology.stanford.edu/

http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/

http://www.biology4all.com/biosci_depts.asp

http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/lifesciences

http://dps.plants.ox.ac.uk/plants/

http://www.gla.ac.uk/faculties/fbls/eeb/

http://www.studeren.uva.nl/msc_general_biolog...

http://www.biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/english/index...

http://www.bio.pku.edu.cn/english/

List of Biology Organizations: http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Biology/Organizat...

List of Biology Systems Research Groups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_systems_...

List of Natural History Museums: http://www.lib.washington.edu/sla/natmus.html

List of universities, colleges and junior colleges in the United States: http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/state/

List of Biotechnology Companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biotechn...
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>They're not getting away with it anymore.
And the Theory of Evolution is "dying even as we speak", blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Stick to the issue at hand. What would be the best way to estimate the age of Mitochondrial Eve? Using observed mutation rates that everyone can agree on and repeatably test? Or untestable "just so" assumptions for unrelated estimates designed specifically to fit in with evolutionary theory? I have answered your questions why can't you answer mine?
Good thing that that no one really cares what you think, huh?

BTW why do you "creationists" LIE so much (as evidenced by your LIES coming right after your assertion about how "honest" "creationists" are)? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion? I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#68219 Aug 16, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
Hey, Urban Cowboy...in mathematics, does the value "i" fall between 0 and 10? I've got a running bet elsewhere on Topix. I've got but a lowly English BA, and I'm sure you're more mathematically knowledgeable than I. Care to weigh in?
Also, one other thing...is 1.10 greater than, less than, or equal to 1.9?
Why are so many evolutionists into pro wrestling? Is it the fakeness that is so appealing?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68220 Aug 16, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you referring to the imaginary number "i"?
Indeed. I'm being told by someone that i is between 0 and 10.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68221 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are so many evolutionists into pro wrestling? Is it the fakeness that is so appealing?
You could have just said you don't know anything about numbers.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#68222 Aug 16, 2011
No scientific support for Bible literalist's Eve

"Conclusion

There is a vast preponderance of scientific evidence against the notion that the first humans lived as recently as 6,500 years ago. In fact the evidence is that they lived 200,000 years ago (20)

Creationists everywhere, including Carl Wieland, have used the Parsons et al work in isolation to support their biblically determined views and have failed to acknowledge more recent work that reconciles the basic discrepancy. The fact is that Wieland is ignorant of the basic science and misrepresents its results.

Other, less scrupulous creationists do so more blatantly and more dishonestly than he. I predicted in my original paper that " both ill-informed creationists and those who should know better will be using this discredited argument 20 years from now".

I have had cause to remember this prediction many times since then, as I frequently come across creationists claiming that mitochondrial DNA has proved that we are descended from one woman who lived about 6,000 years ago. Wieland's somewhat more sophisticated argument is no less erroneous and does nothing to discourage this irrational nonsense. <<end cut/paste>>

Full article here: http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mteve_not_bibli...

“Jump in! The water's perfect:)”

Since: Oct 10

Cleveland, Honolulu, Africa

#68223 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Creationists are honest and upfront about their faith...evolutionist hide behind their ideology and hide under the skirt of a dressed up "science". They're not getting away with it anymore.

Stick to the issue at hand. What would be the best way to estimate the age of Mitochondrial Eve? Using observed mutation rates that everyone can agree on and repeatably test? Or untestable "just so" assumptions for unrelated estimates designed specifically to fit in with evolutionary theory? I have answered your questions why can't you answer mine?
You may be honest and upfront about your faith but that says nothing for science other than you will make a somewhat valid claim and then turn a blind eye to the rest of the puzzle.

I remember seeing a YEC website that claimed that the decay rate of Thorium-230 on the moon proved a young Earth. It does have a short decay period but comes from the decay of Uranium-238 which has a long VERY LONG decay period.

Creationists read the whole story of magic but when it comes to the science they stop at the point were evidence hurts the validity of their 2-3000 yo story. Why is that?

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#68224 Aug 16, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. I'm being told by someone that i is between 0 and 10.
i is defined as the square root of -1 ("imaginary"), but there's an interesting mathematical relationship between i, pi, and the natural number e. e^(i*pi)+ 1 = 0. It's interesting because i is "imaginary", but it's related to two actual numbers.

When you do the math, taking the natural log of both sides, you wind up with a trivial answer, i*pi = i*pi. Because i is defined as the square root of -1, which is impossible because any number squared is always positive, i cannot be defined as being within any group of real numbers.

“Jump in! The water's perfect:)”

Since: Oct 10

Cleveland, Honolulu, Africa

#68225 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>Why are so many evolutionists into pro wrestling? Is it the fakeness that is so appealing?
Geeks and the physical/mental misfortunate are the clear majority into pro wrestling. It is a platform where they can identify with characters that portray strength, courage and sexual icons. They use these characters to emulate a persona that is greater than the cards life has given them. As a matter of fact most of the fan base comes from areas where religious fundamentalism is the social standard.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#68226 Aug 16, 2011
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
i is defined as the square root of -1 ("imaginary"), but there's an interesting mathematical relationship between i, pi, and the natural number e. e^(i*pi)+ 1 = 0. It's interesting because i is "imaginary", but it's related to two actual numbers.
When you do the math, taking the natural log of both sides, you wind up with a trivial answer, i*pi = i*pi. Because i is defined as the square root of -1, which is impossible because any number squared is always positive, i cannot be defined as being within any group of real numbers.
*I* know it's irrational,*YOU* know it's irrational. Someone elsewhere on Topix insists it's got a value greater than 0. Feel like lowering the mathematical boom on the guy?:)

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#68227 Aug 16, 2011
Nikki Tranny wrote:
<quoted text>
Geeks and the physical/mental misfortunate are the clear majority into pro wrestling. It is a platform where they can identify with characters that portray strength, courage and sexual icons. They use these characters to emulate a persona that is greater than the cards life has given them. As a matter of fact most of the fan base comes from areas where religious fundamentalism is the social standard.
Pro wrestling is like watching Looney Tunes, Nascar, or sports in general. It's an amusing mindless diversion that gets boring rather quickly.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#68228 Aug 16, 2011
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationists are honest and upfront about their faith...evolutionist hide behind their ideology and hide under the skirt of a dressed up "science". They're not getting away with it anymore.
....
If your were 'honest' and 'upfront' you wouldn't be hiding your little god behind a mountain of claptrap.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#68229 Aug 16, 2011
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
*I* know it's irrational,*YOU* know it's irrational. Someone elsewhere on Topix insists it's got a value greater than 0. Feel like lowering the mathematical boom on the guy?:)
Just refer him to one of the thousands of books and articles on complex numbers. Or ask him to prove it. I'd be interested in knowing his logic.

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,432
News Giant galaxies die from the inside out 15 hr minog 1
News American Documentary Filmmaker Says Cuban Autho... 20 hr Orlando Zapata 1
Recover data from the formatted hard disk Fri Lora_14 6
News Conference of space experts hopes to find a way... Thu little notice 1
Need a legitimate Blu-ray player software for m... Thu AmberBeda 1
News TEPCO abandons robot inside Fukushima plant Thu SoE 6
More from around the web