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.

MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#103725 Oct 6, 2012
Johny wrote:
I think creationists have a long way to go to put forward a clear view of creation accounting for all the details but I do believe it is possible and will happen - if not in this world at the Second Coming of Christ the conquering warrior.
So, how much longer do we have to wait. What, 2000+ years not enough time? They've been an ABYSMAL FAILURE at producing any logic, reason, scientific research or empirical evidence in the TWO MILLENNIA they've been at it.

Heck, REAL science took mankind from horse drawn carts to trips to the moon and beyond in just a little over 3 centuries. "creation science" has NEVER produced anything of scientific or technological value in the 20 centuries it's been around.

Further, the "Second Coming of Christ" has already happened ... three days after he died. Perhaps you meant the prophesied "Third Coming of Christ".[/sarcasm]
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#103726 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're all talk Dutch.
Unfortunately for you, the REAL world knows the difference between science and you're bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALES.

That's why you "fundie xristian creotards" get laughed at so much.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103727 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the argument you want to make. Entropy in general has many interdisiplinary applications, statistical mechanics and information theory for example. Standard textbooks discuss this routinely. For example, Bromberg's Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Or read the Wiki on Entropy, Boltzmann's Entropy Formula, etc.
Each generation of each species is accumulating genetic mutations at the rate of approximately 100 - 300 new ones in humans. We all have them even if we don't show any particular disease. There are numerous recessive ones that is why it's not a good idea to marry your sister.
--Converting biochemistry to information theory is reaching for a straw. There are lots and lots of very useful mathematical equations that, when applied to proper questions, reflect accurate results. But energy and complexity are not transposable terms.(Just because Uranus is more massive than the earth does not mean that it must be more complex.)

--And yes, each generation produces new mutations. Many are harmful. And many are also neutral that may be useful or harmful in future generations. And many are helpful. The helpful and neutral mutations will produce the most offspring in future generations, and the harmful mutations will produce the least offspring in future generations.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103728 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The harmful genetic mutations continue to accumulate in the genome and can quickly surface when inbreeding so is just a matter of time when they accumulate too far and genetic meltdown occurs. We see this happen in nature often. Besides the accumulating mutations, we also age, die, and decompose.
No. The whole idea of natural selection is that the most harmful mutations tend to get weeded out. But it is true that some species are on the brink of extinction (like the cheetah) because their population size is down to the point where they lack sufficient genetic variation to offset harmful mutations. Sometimes natural selection weeds out entire species.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103729 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't provide the reference or a link. New at this I'm guessing?
I post from my phone most of the time. I confess I don't post links all the time simply because it is a pain the arse to exit the Topix app, get the link, then go back to the thread. If it is important, I do it. Otherwise I usually don't.

Here's the link I was reading at the time I made the post in question:

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

They quote a Pew poll from 2009:

"A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public.""

And another quote:

"A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists."

And this:

"An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution""

But you don't need a Wiki page to tell you this stuff. Take a look at scientists with degrees in some kind of biology. You will be hard pressed to find enough Creationists among them to rub together for a good fire.

Look, believing in God is fine. I don't care about that. The problem is when you step over the religious boundary and start making claims about the natural world. That world is the domain of science. Creationism - an overtly religious concept - is by definition UN-scientific. It doesn't matter how many problems you believe evolution has, it won't make Creationism true.

You cannot answer an unknown with an unknown. Science relies on natural explanations to answer questions, not faith.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103731 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if you weren't always concerned about your nutsacks you'd learn something for a change.
dS = k ln We/Ws
dS is the change in entropy; k is the Botzmann's constant; ln is the natural log; We is the number of equivalent micro states (possible arrangments) of the energy and Ws is the number of equivalent micro states of the system.
Here is the bottom line and think of examples in nature and you can see this is always the case:
1. Applying energy to a system in a way that is more random than the system receiving it will increase the entropy of that system.
2. Applying energy to a system in a way that is less random than the system receiving it will decrease the entropy of that system.
DNA has an extrememly low randomness, i.e., it is highly complex and consequently has very, very low Ws. So although all the machinations of a healthy, thriving living cell are doing everything they can to preserve it, and it is probably closed to balanced (if properly fed nutriants, sun, water, etc.), it is slowly deteriorating over time as a whole as shown in the population genetics and accumulating mutations, and as we see in aging, death, and decomposition.

You are confusing biological entropy over time in the biological organism with entropy of DNA.

And here is the link you always ignore.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/05/s...

I wonder why you ignore it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103732 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mendellian genetics. The built-in design of the genome allows for a tremendous amount of flexibility within species or kind. Take every human being alive today and analyze the range of sizes, shapes, and color. But there isn't anybody starting to develop feathers or scales or blowholes.

Why in the world would there be? Do you believe evolution would ever predict such a thing?
Psychology

United States

#103733 Oct 6, 2012
The total lies by science, about gravity.

Read the last sentence carefully.

The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103734 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The harmful genetic mutations continue to accumulate in the genome and can quickly surface when inbreeding so is just a matter of time when they accumulate too far and genetic meltdown occurs. We see this happen in nature often. Besides the accumulating mutations, we also age, die, and decompose.

Again you are trying to mesh genetic entropy (which has been proven not to exist) with entropy (sic) or decay of individual organisms over time.

You can't be this ignorant, so you must be disingenuous.

Try fighting science with science and not bad analogies.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103735 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you are mistaken.

Nope, I am quite correct as can be shown:

Dogen wrote:
Sorry but false. There are multiple mechanism for evolution. Try googling "mechanisms of evolution"

***PROOF: Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection for starters:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Mechan...
***

<quoted text>
The world is replete with transitionals.

*** Proof***
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...

You lose again.

You love to make assertions that you cannot support.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103736 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Until there are no more healthy ones, then genetic meltdown and extinction.

Evolution keeps this from happening.

If there were no evolution this is EXACTLY what would happen.

So, the evidence actually is another support for evolution. Most species could not continue for 600 years, much less 6,000 and much, much less than millions.

Thank you for refuting creation/IDism.

We will add that to our list of 36,794 refutations for creationIDism.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103737 Oct 6, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
You wouldn't want folks to think you're full of shít. Would you?

You mean we don't already think he is full of shit?
Psychology

United States

#103738 Oct 6, 2012
Scientists end up becoming so stupid, because they are afraid, just like most of you. School is still in session and the teachers prejudice, and copy and paste, still rule.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103739 Oct 6, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It would seem likely that the Neandertals were originally from the same ancestory as the Africans, and were the first to migrate north. They would have had to have been isolated for a very long time (X thousands of years) to have become a sub-species, but not quite a new species. They would have likely been re-absorbed into the original genome in subsequent migrations.

It is interesting. We see Genetic drift and gene flow at work here in the process of evolution.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#103740 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The total lies by science, about gravity.
Read the last sentence carefully.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
The total rubbish posted by Jimbo

Don't think this site may be somewhat biased do you - oh man of science ?

'It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.'

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103741 Oct 6, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that wild animals are doing fine.
If your argument was true then the animals with the shortest life cycle and thus the most generations should go extinct first.
Bacteria with their life cycle of days should all be dead by now.
Flies with a life cycle often of just weeks should also be in real trouble, yet they are thriving.
Something's keeping them healthy. Could it be natural selection?

I just made this point, too. I could have saved myself the time by reading ahead and seeing your post.

Another great creationist idea shot down by the cold, hard, scientific facts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103743 Oct 6, 2012
Johny wrote:
The Flood - Many in geology would discount the idea that the flood did occur. They assume that everything is pretty much like it is today but that assumption I believe is flawed. We use carbon dating with the assumption that the amount of C14 in the air is the same as today. Is this assumption accurate? Or is the decay rate constant? A special creation would total wipe out our naturalistic assumptions of uniformity. But I should mention the art in C14 dating, which requires the user to have some understanding or else false results will be had. I think that C14 dating after the flood is probably accurate but before the flood I would really question it. Many held to the belief of Creationism early on in Geology and the other sciences but they too quickly dropped it when some things did not match the then believed picture of creation. I think creationists have a long way to go to put forward a clear view of creation accounting for all the details but I do believe it is possible and will happen - if not in this world at the Second Coming of Christ the conquering warrior.

Not some geologists... nearly all geologists. All your other assumptions are flawed. You might want to read some basic geology sites and learn about geology. For example C-14 dating is not really used in geology as most things are too old for C-14 which is only good to 60,000 years (with new techniques dating up to about 100k with a large clean sample).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103744 Oct 6, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
--In an open system, there is no known limit to complexity.

We should force UC to write the above 100 times before we read another of his demented entropy posts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103745 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The total lies by science, about gravity.
Read the last sentence carefully.
The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this? According to natural law and homeopathy, everything exists in opposites: good-evil; grace-sin; positive charges-negative charges; north poles-south poles; good vibes-bad vibes; etc. We know there are anti-evolutionists, so why not anti-gravitationalists? It is clearly a matter of the scientific establishment elite protecting their own. Anti-gravity papers are routinely rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and scientists who propose anti-gravity quickly lose their funding. Universal gravity theory is just a way to keep the grant money flowing.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

Clearly you know nothing about gravity, you know nothing about publishing scientific papers, and nothing about what you need to get a patent.

Not that you will understand it, but here is an article talking about gravity, dark energy and (maybe) negative gravity.

Is Dark Energy Really "Repulsive Gravity"?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103746 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Scientists end up becoming so stupid, because they are afraid, just like most of you. School is still in session and the teachers prejudice, and copy and paste, still rule.

Did you read and understand that gravity falls off as a function of the distance from the center of mass to where gravity is being measured from?

It explains what is missing from you "hypothesis" (actually more like a "notion" and a rather sucky one at that).

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) 2 min DanFromSmithville 40,338
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr Joel Gen Y 10,585
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 3 hr A Vet 57
How to use iphone backup extractor to recover l... 5 hr chanleen 2
News Lots of Wheat But Not Enough Protein Sends Buye... 7 hr PILASERs PANACEA ... 6
Complete Guide to Remove DRM from iBooks 16 hr salarri 2
News How robot, explosives took out Dallas sniper 21 hr Bangal 7
More from around the web