Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104643 Oct 13, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter if it is an engineered product or life. Does your knee bone need to connect to your leg bone for you to walk down the street - assuming you don't have a prosthetic leg or other device? You need to go back and think what I said through!
For most people all the proper connections are made. Most of those who don't copy DNA correctly have a far less chance at survival. But some of those who don't copy DNA correctly have a better chance at survival, and they will be more likely to produce future generations with that "error" than those who have a lessor chance at survival.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104644 Oct 13, 2012
Tyler in the Exosphere wrote:
Why do you need a goal to have a function?
It should be perfectly clear that round objects have a goal to roll downhill. So round could not happen in nature. It had to have been created.
Psychology

United States

#104645 Oct 13, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution does not have a goal. It's just that what works the best within a given environment tends to survive the best. The sloth survives as a tree dweller--it wouldn't last very long in the open plains. It does not have a goal to be faster or slower, it either survives or it doesn't.
The blind spot in every creature that has an optic nerve exists because there are no rods or cones at the intsection of the back of the eye where the optic nerve is attached. The blind spot is not "useful"--it just is. Maybe some future generation of some future species will develop a random mutation that allows for rods and cones to exist at the intersection of the optic nerve, and that species might have a slightly better survival advantage than it previously had.(But maybe this will never happen because it's not a goal.)
Does your stupidity ever quit?

The sun is not a closed system you moron.

If evolution were real, it's goal is to evolve you moron. Life's goal is to cling to life for as long as possible and work to make life better.

However, evolution does not exist, because it does not work at anything.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104646 Oct 13, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us say that you have a first mutation. You are going to need many more precise mutations to get the functioning system capable of being favored in selection. There is also a vast number of possible mutations that lead to dead ends and to loss of function. They may survive but no new systems will evolve. The probability of the many precise mutations is just too small!
It depends on population size and rate of reproduction. For example, most predators have a high mortality rate. A high percentage are just not fit enough for a variety of reasons. But they produce enough offspring to continue the species.

I remember a NOVA special from a few years ago. The lion population in (I think it was in Kenya) had been devestated by a parasitic infestation. Down to less than 25 percent of their normal population, more of their young died at the teeth and claws of other predators. They could not produce enough offspring to offset their natural mortality rate AND the increase of mortality from other predators that were not affected by the parasite. So each generation produced less offspring. The lion population in that area would eventually come back, but the original population would contribute very little to the future population.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104647 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Well Hung Taxpayer | 4 min ago
Psychology wrote:
If you listen to these Evo morons, they will have you babbling their nonsense.
The sun is an open system.
WHT wrote--
I'd venture to say that you take the prize for babbling nonsense.
I reply--
So by my post you are answering too and your words, you claim the sun is a closed system, so why don't you prove that.
If you can't, you're showing everyone here that you're just acting the cry baby you are.
Many times you don't think before running your mouth, as your own words and actions are your worst enemy, but hey, it's ok.
It's one thing to be ignorant due to lack of education or opportunity. It's quite another to remain willfully ignorant, to be content to do so, and to expose yourself as a fool through your dumb comments and ill-conceived "theories".

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104648 Oct 13, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is natural variation. This is true. There are also random errors that occur during mitosis and meiosis transcription. In the case of meiosis, which produces sperm and eggs, entirely new mutations can arise that are not attributable to natural variation found in a population.
You are correct in that many of the mutations are deleterious, but sometimes, even if it is so very rare, it's not. On the scale of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, you do get beneficial mutations. Furthermore you may have a spontaneous mutation that is deleterious by itself, but when combined with another spontaneous mutation that is deleterious by itself, produces a benefit and viable offspring. Maybe you need three or four of these things to be combined to get this result. Unlike Mendel's simple plant experiments, individual genes often times do not operate in a vacuum. It is a very complex system. Give enough time and a large enough breeding population what seems exception remote to you becomes a certainty.
For example at a certain point in evolutionary history ancestors of humans experienced massive brain growth. Maybe this mutation arose many times, but maybe it was deleterious because the cranial cavity is only so large. Maybe offspring who possessed this gene in isolation died or were mentally deficient because of this. However, suppose their was another mutation that caused ones cranial cavity to be larger. Maybe for some reason, in isolation, this was bad, for example maybe the brain could move around too much in such an individual. However when these two features were combined, by mere rate chance, maybe you had a viable and more intelligent off spring. Further maybe this didn't happen in leaps and bounds, but gradually and incrementally.
There is so much evidence for evolution. You creationists would be better off attributing it to your creator rather than arguing it doesn't exist, which is not a credible argument. It just makes you look very ignorant.
Yes, like weak jaw, bigger brain.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/107...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#104649 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If you listen to these Evo morons, they will have you babbling their nonsense.
The sun is an open system.
Technically, everything is an open system, except perhaps the universe as a whole (which we don't fully know for sure, but signs point to yes). Net entropy can increase while local entropy decreases. A single stock can rise while the stock market as a whole drops.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#104650 Oct 13, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
It may be an oversimplification to state that any belief system is "just philosophy". Even science is rooted in the "natural philosophy" that all things are rooted in materialism, and that our senses and collective intellect are sufficient to ferret out "truth". Some philospohies have millenia of history, and contend that there are unknown, and perhaps unknowable mechanisms beyond human perception. By definition, these mechanisms are beyond the scope of science as it's practiced today, much like quantum physics was beyond the scope of classical science. Even today there are fundamental "philosophical" questions in science, e.g. is nature deterministic as Einstein contended, or probabilistic as asserted by Bohr. Or, was the origin of life a cosmic accident or the result of a conscious act of an unknown agent.
If it has no real-world applications, it IS "just philosophy." And, it's bad philosophy at that, as it denies demonstrable reality and replaces it with their own. Philosophy was useful before science came about. Philosophy is now on the ash heap of history, a charred remnant of a once golden age of making shit up.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104651 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Well Hung Taxpayer | 4 min ago
Psychology wrote:
If you listen to these Evo morons, they will have you babbling their nonsense.
The sun is an open system.
WHT wrote--
I'd venture to say that you take the prize for babbling nonsense.
I reply--
So by my post you are answering too and your words, you claim the sun is a closed system, so why don't you prove that.
If you can't, you're showing everyone here that you're just acting the cry baby you are.
Many times you don't think before running your mouth, as your own words and actions are your worst enemy, but hey, it's ok.
You should first explain why you think the sun is an open system.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104652 Oct 13, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting to consider that under that model, given the probability that the human species will annihilate itself, that the same evolutionary traits of opposable thumbs and higher intellect that permitted ascension to the dominant species will ultimately result in an evolutionary dead end. In that case the human species will qualify as a spectacular evolutionary failure.
I suppose it is true that the vast majority of all the species that have ever existed ended up as evolutionary dead ends. Though the possibility of developing space travel does give us some hope of escaping the fate of other earth-bound species.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104653 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Does your stupidity ever quit?
The sun is not a closed system you moron.
If evolution were real, it's goal is to evolve you moron. Life's goal is to cling to life for as long as possible and work to make life better.
However, evolution does not exist, because it does not work at anything.
Again, you need to explain why you think that the sun is an open system in relation to the earth.
Psychology

United States

#104654 Oct 13, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
It's one thing to be ignorant due to lack of education or opportunity. It's quite another to remain willfully ignorant, to be content to do so, and to expose yourself as a fool through your dumb comments and ill-conceived "theories".
Yea, while idiots like you that claim a higher education, regurgitate your copy and paste educations, contributing nothing new to science or society.

You can't even defend your own words and meanings. Stay stupid, it suits you. You imply the sun is a closed system. That makes you an idiot.
Psychology

United States

#104655 Oct 13, 2012
The sun radiates heat, light, cosmic rays and other radiations, while it can receive light, radiation from other sources, asteroids and even comets, if they happen to hit the sun.

Nothing about the sun is a closed system.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104656 Oct 13, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If it has no real-world applications, it IS "just philosophy." And, it's bad philosophy at that, as it denies demonstrable reality and replaces it with their own. Philosophy was useful before science came about. Philosophy is now on the ash heap of history, a charred remnant of a once golden age of making shit up.
That comment is remarkably simple-minded and one dimensional. Philosophy has profound influence in all areas of life, including science. To wit, just today there was an AP news article describing the "philosophical" issues related to mapping the human genome and privacy rights. The answer to that question is outside of the realm of science as you think you understand it.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104657 Oct 13, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point is well taken, but it might be an oversimplification to state that everyone of religious faith is in "the realm of fantasy". There are plenty of well respected scientists who manage to find a balance between scientific pursuit and religious faith.
No doubt. But they aren't selling Creationism. There's a huge difference between being religious and being Fundamentalist.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104658 Oct 13, 2012
There was another article about a group of scientists who resigned from the largest privately funded cancer research center over "philosophical" differences with management over the commercialization of research findings. Philosophical issues abound everywhere, including science.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104659 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say that. Deciet is for people that have nothing else.
This guy is starting to sound like a bad fortune cookie.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#104660 Oct 13, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
For function to happen you DO need a goal....
No, you do not.
Psychology

United States

#104661 Oct 13, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
This guy is starting to sound like a bad fortune cookie.
I have written quite a lot to this thread. You and everyone else have had the chance to rebutt what I've said, but you offer no evidence of your childish claims.

I can only wish there was someone here that was smart enough to press my mind. There may be,but they aren't speaking.

Do get a brain, I'd appreciate it.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104662 Oct 13, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The sun radiates heat, light, cosmic rays and other radiations, while it can receive light, radiation from other sources, asteroids and even comets, if they happen to hit the sun.
Nothing about the sun is a closed system.
I suppose you think this is a new idea that nobody else thought about. But everyone else already knows that the solar system is a sub system of the universe. The universe (if it could ever actually be defined) is the ultimate closed system. We use "closed" in reference to the sun because that's the source of most of earth's energy. Everyone else except you understood that we are speaking in relative terms.

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) 1 hr Subduction Zone 70,264
News If FBI wants to talk to Jared Kushner about Rus... 1 hr Jeff Brightone 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 2 hr 0smius 14,152
DVDFab Passkey 9.1.1.8 Updated! 18 hr dvdlover 1
Desire Mad Dog RDTA Mech Kit, Luxury Design, Se... 19 hr luckyluckyluke 1
Dark Millions : Private Carding Forum (Feb '15) 19 hr blackrose 12
News City Of Stillwater Hacked For Resident's Person... Thu theyroll 1
More from around the web