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.

Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116195 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Original work
By MikeF
Supported by evidence
Jim Ryan is an idiot.
QED
Bring proof moron or ya got nothing.

Oh right .... Gotcha .... Move on ... Nothing to see here.

Good of Jim to post the evidence of him being an idiot though - probably only charitable thing he has done.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116196 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Gravity
Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.
The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.
Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?
Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.
Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.
Earth fits correctly.
Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable
Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.
The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.
Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.
Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory
Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.
Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why
Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.
There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.
If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.
It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.
Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its orbit, so testing would not be so easy.
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan
So by your own admission 2 of you sample size of 8, namely mars and Neptune - don't fit your hypothesis.

So 25% of the time you supposed correlation doesn't seem to exist.

So at what point would you abandon the hypothesis ?
70% success rate
50%
25%

Don't worry you don't have to respond, this is just in case the Nobel prize selection committee are reading this - don't want them to look foolish do we?
Alien Outlaw

Overland Park, KS

#116197 Feb 6, 2013
appleby wrote:
<quoted text>
At this point it is impossible to say one way or the other. We may or may not be the most advanced civilization in the universe. We may or may not be the only civilization capable of communicating beyond our own planet. We may live on the only planet in the universe that has any life. If we survive long enough we will probably find answers.
Point taken. Now, why are humans trying to make contact with beings of advanced intelligence. Bees will come to nectar, advanced beings can not respond because they cannot receive the technology humans are sending........different dimension, different technology.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116198 Feb 6, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm starting to lean in that direction. Would you say that the posts including cryptic one-word lead-offs might be an indication of schizophrenia?

Not necessarily. Perhaps a mild case or in partial remission. I don't think psychoboy has schizophrenia, even if I cannot rule it completely out by the indirect and anecdotal evidence we see here. He has worked most of his life and even run a business (even if an unsuccessful one). That is more than what many with schizophrenia can accomplish. OTOH Delusional Disorder fits perfectly as a diagnosis with the given information. And he certainly fits the paranoid/megalomaniacal type of Delusional Disorder.

A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life as this disorder bears no relation to one's IQ,[3] and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusions.

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

Some may think psycho is dumb, but I don't think this is so. Uneducated (or perhaps miseducated would be a better term) certainly, but not really dumb. His distortions of reality are the product of as good core processor that just does not have a better program to run than Ms Pac-man.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116199 Feb 6, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Point taken. Now, why are humans trying to make contact with beings of advanced intelligence. Bees will come to nectar, advanced beings can not respond because they cannot receive the technology humans are sending........different dimension, different technology.
Specifically
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>., advanced beings can not respond because they cannot receive the technology humans are sending........
Mankind can decipher the technology used 1000s of years ago, why do you presume advanced beings can't make the same leap.

Explain what you mean by your above quoted assertion, and when you say different dimension - what exactly do you mean ?

Thanks in advance

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116200 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Seeing back in time
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 14 billion years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.
Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to that light, illuminating those entities, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.
That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light.
former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

See. Here is an example. This is not stupid. It is purely delusional.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116201 Feb 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. Perhaps a mild case or in partial remission. I don't think psychoboy has schizophrenia, even if I cannot rule it completely out by the indirect and anecdotal evidence we see here. He has worked most of his life and even run a business (even if an unsuccessful one). That is more than what many with schizophrenia can accomplish. OTOH Delusional Disorder fits perfectly as a diagnosis with the given information. And he certainly fits the paranoid/megalomaniacal type of Delusional Disorder.
A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life as this disorder bears no relation to one's IQ,[3] and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disor...
Some may think psycho is dumb, but I don't think this is so. Uneducated (or perhaps miseducated would be a better term) certainly, but not really dumb. His distortions of reality are the product of as good core processor that just does not have a better program to run than Ms Pac-man.
On your last point, whilst I accept that a virtual diagnosis is all but impossible - how would one know Jimbo isn't just a troll/Poe as UC suggests?

Not saying he dosent have mental issues, but suspect he does actually read posts and in his own way respond to them ( u notice often adds the superflorous word at the top of his posts every now and then since I pointed it out).

Whilst he seems to be deranged ( forgive me, I know it's not a medical term) how can we be sure he isn't the worlds best Edgar Allan.

Apologies If stupid question but am actually interested

One way or another

United States

#116202 Feb 6, 2013
Immunology

More original science by Jim Ryan

In the following I would suggest that science study children that rarely wear shoes or don't wear shoes at all. I would divide the study into different nations or groups of nations with basically, the same diseases.

I would divide the shoeless-- because of intense poverty, from the people and children that choose to go shoeless and those that rarely or almost never go without shoes.

I might look at the data as the mostly shoeless by desire as mentally and possibly physically, stronger and therefore, more resistant to disease, unless science finds differently.

It may be that kids and people exposed to the pathogens in the dirt, grass and mud puddles on a constant basis, build stronger immune systems, at least for those that choose to go barefoot.

Make

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116203 Feb 6, 2013
For Yankee:

The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[27] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001.[151] The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism'(and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[152] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1229 Steves as of September 24, 2012. People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[153] The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[154]

Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[155] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists, overestimating the number of US scientists that do not accept evolution according to the Discovery Institute,[156] a known creationist lobby institution. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, and an increase in public support, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.

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

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#116204 Feb 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
See. Here is an example. This is not stupid. It is purely delusional.
Like Van Gogh with a keyboard. He is an artist.
Alien Outlaw

Overland Park, KS

#116205 Feb 6, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Specifically
<quoted text>
Mankind can decipher the technology used 1000s of years ago, why do you presume advanced beings can't make the same leap.
Explain what you mean by your above quoted assertion, and when you say different dimension - what exactly do you mean ?
Thanks in advance
Humans cannot grasp the obvious. The human animal was engineered with "limits". These limits were intentionally applied to control and manipulate the human world. Aliens succeeded in their quest to appear ghostly....no evidence of their existence. Its not about contact, its about comprehension. Fight or flight........humans fear controls the mind, in turn controls reality. Aliens dont conform to human reality. How many dimesions did humans account for? They missed one.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116206 Feb 6, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Point taken. Now, why are humans trying to make contact with beings of advanced intelligence. Bees will come to nectar, advanced beings can not respond because they cannot receive the technology humans are sending........different dimension, different technology.
Detecting intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be a monumental scientific discovery. Why would we NOT try to do that? Because we're afraid of the unknown, perhaps, but nothing good ever came from hiding oneself from reality.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#116207 Feb 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
..... but nothing good ever came from hiding oneself from reality.
Well, that explains why so many religions wind up being so nasty.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116208 Feb 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, you are too uneducated to understand the concept of scientific evidence. I am too tired and it is too late for me to try to teach a dishonest person tonight.
By the way, I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong. The problem is that creationists usually use lying cretard sources and there is not too much of a chance of being wrong in that case.
The reason I call "educated" creationists "creatards" is that they either know better or should know better. They obviously lie time after time and if there is one thing that is detested in the world of science it is someone who does not tell the truth. Being wrong is acceptable. Lying is not.
For goodness sake!
Education is highly over-rated

Which "cretard", as you lovingly refer to creationists, has lied? Making bigoted statements does not endear you to the masses nor function as a "badge of honour" for "being educated"...

You're tired again?
You're half asleep all day
Whatchoo gotta sleep at night for?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116209 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
For goodness sake!
Education is highly over-rated
Which "cretard", as you lovingly refer to creationists, has lied? Making bigoted statements does not endear you to the masses nor function as a "badge of honour" for "being educated"...
You're tired again?
You're half asleep all day
Whatchoo gotta sleep at night for?
what lesson do you want today idiot?

Do you want to know why YEC's have to deny Newtonian mechanics?

Do you want to know why there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism?

Or maybe some simple math..1 = 1 = 2. Feel the blood flow through you brain, tiny as it may be.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116210 Feb 6, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Every generation of every species is in transition. There's no such thing as evolutionary stasis. Are you an exact copy of either of your parents?
When you have distinctive genomes, existing data, as it were, to use a phrase Dawkins uses a lot, "as it were", variable expression is not evolution.

It's like a collection of video clips on a data base and the selection of one or another, chosen via by some internal decision making process, does not constitute a creative process....even if the video clip has never been seen before...

For evolution innovation is needed
Darwin's little engine is incapable of providing the genetic leaps required for the invention of new structures.

A quote from an evolutionary biologist:

"Multicellularity is widely viewed as a unique attribute of eukaryotes, somehow made possible by the origin of a more complex cellular architecture and, without question, with the assistance of natural selection. However, it is difficult to defend this assertion in any formal way. Complex, multicellularity has only arisen twice, once in animals and once in vascular plants. One might add fungi to the list, although the number of fungal cell types is not large, and there is some question as to whether multicellularity was ancestral to the phylogenetic group that contains animals, fungi, and slime molds. In any event, the probability that two or three origins of multicellularity simply arose by chance within eukaryotes as opposed to prokaryotes is somewhere on the order of 1/4 to 1/2, well below the general standards of statistical validity. Of course, many other eukaryotes are capable of producing a few different cell types, but the same is true for prokaryotes, some of which produce radically different cell morphologies.

Nevertheless, King (45) states that “this historical predisposition of eukaryotes to the unicellular lifestyle begs the question of what selective advantages might have been conferred by the transition to multicellularity;” and Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements."

BUT WHERE IS THE DIRECT SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT COMPLEXITY IS ROOTED IN ADAPTIVE PROCESSES?(My emphasis)

"But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48)."

Michael Lynch, "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity", PNAS, May 15, 2007, Vol 104, Suppl 1.

He also states in Table 1 in this same paper in realtion to natural selection being a directional force in gaining complexity:

"There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity."

In relation to genetic drift, also Table 1:

"By reducing the efficiency of selection, random genetic drift imposes a high degree of directionality on evolution by increasing the likelihood of fixation of deleterious mutations and decreasing that of beneficial mutations."
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116211 Feb 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
what lesson do you want today idiot?
Do you want to know why YEC's have to deny Newtonian mechanics?
Do you want to know why there is no scientific evidence supporting creationism?
Or maybe some simple math..1 = 1 = 2. Feel the blood flow through you brain, tiny as it may be.
I think I am a bit beyond tech school "science", Bud
Thanks for the kind offer of trying to teach me ...anything....
It just won't happen...

And, no
Evolution is a non-entity in EVERY DOMAIN of science
Science progressed nicely before 1859 and still does despite it
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116212 Feb 6, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
For Yankee:
The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[27] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001.[151] The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism'(and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[152] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1229 Steves as of September 24, 2012. People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.
The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[153] The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[154]
Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[155] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists, overestimating the number of US scientists that do not accept evolution according to the Discovery Institute,[156] a known creationist lobby institution. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, and an increase in public support, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
Give it up, Kong

Good effort tho'

Your time is better spent doing other things...

Ne hao

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116213 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up, Kong
Good effort tho'
Your time is better spent doing other things...
Ne hao
Don't put down Yankee that way. He is new to this part of the forum. He may not be an idiot, he might be able to learn yet.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116214 Feb 6, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Specifically
<quoted text>
Mankind can decipher the technology used 1000s of years ago, why do you presume advanced beings can't make the same leap.
Explain what you mean by your above quoted assertion, and when you say different dimension - what exactly do you mean ?
Thanks in advance
You are way too polite...
Aliens....for heaven sake...

By the way

You have not commented on the papers I had provided after your long suffering persistence for a reference that 100's of proteins would be involved in the first replicating "life"

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
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 3 min 0smius 13,826
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min IB DaMann 67,581
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... 17 min True Christian wi... 11
microsoft doesn’t know a solution 23 hr grillingf 2
Hot Sell-Vandy Vape's GOVAD RDA Fri vapecigs 1
Joyetech eVic Basic 60W with CUBIS Pro Mini $28.99 Fri ecigvape1205 1
Easy access No spill Top filling system, Kanger... Thu Vapesourcing1 1
More from around the web