Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178700 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.

HTS

Williston, ND

#117724 Feb 17, 2013
Researchers in multiple scientific fields of are abandoning Darwinism in large numbers because the theory contradicts laws of science. Biologist Dr. Egbert Leigh of the Smithsonian institute, observed that the evolutionary hypothesis is falling out of favor because it's claims cannot be reconciled with science...

"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and anti-Darwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation."

*(Leigh, Egbert G., Jr.[Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecologyt and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495).
HTS

Williston, ND

#117725 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HTS if you really want help for us you need to first admit that you have been totally clueless and have acted like a jackass. A simple apology will open a world of learning to you.
Why do you refer to me as a "jackass" when your worldview holds that I have no self-determination.... that I am nothing more than a peculiar assemblage of molecules?
HTS

Williston, ND

#117726 Feb 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Dr. Gerald Crabtree of Stanford says we're all getting dumber and dumber due to genetic mutations. This supports Dr. John Sanford's Genetic Entropy theory.
Here is the news story, the articles, and his bio:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/...
http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics//retrieve...
http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics//retrieve...
http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/cr...
Sanford's observations are a death blow to Darwinism, and his scientific credentials are impeccable. He started out as an atheist. After over two decades of research in plant breeding, he concluded that NDT is utter BS.

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117727 Feb 17, 2013
Dr. Gerald Crabtree's research indicates that we peaked intellectually about 3,000 years ago. I say that's pretty darn close to when things really started to go downhill. Life span was greatly reduced, incest made illegal, etc. His research is 100% consistent with a perfect creation/genome 6,000 years ago with a slow decline ever since. Perfectly consistent with creation science and Genetic Entropy.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#117729 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You'll blindly swallow anything that fits your atheistic paradigm. You have no proof of any of your claims.
Is rotation the cause of gravity? This is important.

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117730 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanford's observations are a death blow to Darwinism, and his scientific credentials are impeccable. He started out as an atheist. After over two decades of research in plant breeding, he concluded that NDT is utter BS.
Yes, I have his book, Genetic Entropy. It's a classic.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117731 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
Researchers in multiple scientific fields of are abandoning Darwinism in large numbers because the theory contradicts laws of science. Biologist Dr. Egbert Leigh of the Smithsonian institute, observed that the evolutionary hypothesis is falling out of favor because it's claims cannot be reconciled with science...
"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and anti-Darwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation."
*(Leigh, Egbert G., Jr.[Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecologyt and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495).
Another worthless quote by a creatard. No link, no quote. You lose.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117732 Feb 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Another worthless quote by a creatard. No link, no quote. You lose.
Another worthless retort by a DarwinBot. No rebuttal. I provided a reference. What more do you want?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117733 Feb 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have his book, Genetic Entropy. It's a classic.
Urb bought a book that was debunked before it was published? Now that is rich!
One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#117734 Feb 17, 2013
Even if you get the answer you want, everyone has an opinion. Even as my theory changed somewhat, the fact remains, that science has no answer at all.

Your try at splitting is just more deceit. It won't work, but I don't expect a moron like yourself would understand.

Lol
HTS

Williston, ND

#117735 Feb 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is rotation the cause of gravity? This is important.
Not that I know of...
One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#117736 Feb 17, 2013
In addition to my above post,--what a merry-go-round.
One way or another

United States

#117737 Feb 17, 2013
I don't make things obvious in this case, because a truthful answer is worth all the tea in china, for without the absolute truth, the mind is splintered and cannot pass through the veneer of monkey see, monkey say, of the American school system.

Ask anyone that went through this school system, to prove how the system taught them to think for themselves.
One way or another

United States

#117738 Feb 17, 2013
This school system never taught anyone to think for themselves. However, if it did, now is anyone's chance to explain exactly how.

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117739 Feb 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Thanks for the post, it looks like a sincere attempt - but it seems you cannot quite "get" the point that its possible to have no commitment to a viewpoint when there is simply insufficient information to deserve it. Its not a party line - its just plain old rational skeptical thinking.
So again I can only repeat that I have no idea why there is anything rather than nothing and that would INCLUDE "God" if God exists. Your answer may be satisfying to you, but it really just begs the question rather than answering it, and is no more satisfying than saying "there was always a universe (multiverse, inflaton field, whatever...always "something" rather than "nothing").
Please stop telling me what "science" says. I want to hear what you say. I suppose it is possible that even at this stage of your life you have yet to think this through but I doubt it. I think you're holding back. Also, it is contradictory to leave the door open to God "setting in motion" the origin of the universe but incapable of providing His word (the Bible)? Or that all of Jewish and Christian history is man-made fiction but there could be some God that is so powerful that He is ultimately responsible for everything? That doesn't make sense. You see, I am trying to pin you down one way or the other and don't really expect any luck but you can see what my point is that the only logical outcome is a creation by God. I explained why to us He is eternal - because He from another universe and is not of this universe (of course it's His universe now) and created this..."our" universe. He created the first cell, and every cell that ever lived came from that first cell...Adam's cells. This is exactly what we have always observed with no exceptions. Life only comes from life. Cells only come from cells. God created the first cells and He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent; eternal because to this universe, which He created, He has always been "I Am". I now you don't like it, but my "Nothing and nobody plus billions of years equals everything" bromide is to illustrate the inherently falacious nature of evolution. As far as I can tell, all the science (with some minor gaps and problems) supports a fecund, purposeful Creation, and this is the only thing that makes logical sense.

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117740 Feb 17, 2013
"Although the multiple usage of genes could slow the rate of accumulation of mutations in intellectual fitness genes, if the estimates for
the number of genes required and mutation rate are correct, and selection is only slightly relaxed, one would still conclude that nearly all of us are compromised compared to our ancient ancestors of 3000–6000 years ago."

-Dr. Gerald Crabtree

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S016895251200159X/1-s2....

Wow! Almost perfectly in line with the Bible.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117741 Feb 17, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Although the multiple usage of genes could slow the rate of accumulation of mutations in intellectual fitness genes, if the estimates for
the number of genes required and mutation rate are correct, and selection is only slightly relaxed, one would still conclude that nearly all of us are compromised compared to our ancient ancestors of 3000–6000 years ago."
-Dr. Gerald Crabtree
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S016895251200159X/1-s2....
Wow! Almost perfectly in line with the Bible.
Nope, you misunderstood his article since you read only the abstract. His reasoning is that now we have removed the environmental pressures that weeded out the bad mutations in the past.

He is an evolutionist and you are attempting to quote mine his article. For more information on what he was saying you can go here:

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-featu...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117742 Feb 17, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
   For example, University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne :
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary PREDICTION that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
I asked for a prediction that junk DNA was somehow essential to evolutionary theory, and you gave me a good response here. Broken genes are a likely corollary of evolution.

But, considering that only 1.5% of the genome is for actively coding gene sequences, what would an evolutionary prediction of pseudogenes be? As many pseudo- as active genes? You still are nowhere near to justifying your claim that a massive proportion of the DNA being junk was ever a NECESSARY prediction of evolution.

There are many examples of pseudogenes. Of the 1000 or so olfactory receptor genes, at least 300 are useless in humans, and all 1000 are useless in whales. It still looks pretty weird from a design perspective.

You claim most geneticists now believe that all of DNA is useful?

Even the claims of ENCODE only KNOW of 8% necessary function, and predict 20% necessary function, possibly rising to 50%. Most of the "biological activity of any kind" they reported as occurring in 80% of the genome was considered to be useless activity.

So I just take this whole approach of yours as typical of creationist distortions.

Find one or two ERVs that do something vaguely useful, and you claim that all tens of thousands of ERVs, constituting about 8% of the genome, are necessary!

Find one residual function in some pseudogene, and suddenly all pseudogenes are necessary!

The mythical notion that biologists simply assumed that all non-coding DNA was completely functionless - was NEVER true. Over the last 30 years, a great deal of research was conducted by those biologists (not by "creation scientists", of course)on what possible functions could be residing in portions of the genome outside the genes themselves.

The whole thing is a veritable army of straw men all attacking the air and each other, a series of compound distortions...but it wont work. 10 years from now, we will have a picture of the genome that shows a great deal more function than the active gene coding areas, and a whole lot of junk that is well established as junk by then.

But being the straw man argument that it all is, your brand of hyperbole will blow around ID/creation circles like a whirlwind, get them all writing blogs on the evo conspiracy, etc, and continue to be ignored by real scientists as deserved.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117743 Feb 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I have his book, Genetic Entropy. It's a classic.
And falsified by experiment.

Fitness is restored when natural selection is reintroduced. This is impossible under Sanford's theory - a fundamental, testable prediction.

So Sanford is falsified. Not only for the many logical reasons already given to you for the last two years, repeatedly, but by the true and final arbiter of all real science: observation does not match his predictions. Not even close.

RAPID FITNESS RECOVERY IN MUTATIONALLY DEGRADED LINES OF
CAENORHABDITIS ELEGANS
SUZANNE ESTES
1,2
AND MICHAEL LYNCH
3
1
Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97
http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...

These worms were subject to rapid fitness loss of 1-3% per generation by the elimination of natural selection over many generations. So far for Sanford, no problem, but...

Then, still within this isolated population, natural selection was allowed to reassert itself. Fitness recovered fully in about 80 generations. Utterly impossible, according to Sanford!

He, and you, should heed these words...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Richard P. Feynman

(So far, of course, evolution has been confirmed in every experiment and observation recorded. A 150 year track record of success)
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#117744 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Not that I know of...
Is mass what determines a thing's gravitational pull?

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 Soyuz carrying 3-man crew blasts off for orbiti... 48 min Kid_Tomorrow 1
News 20 kilometer high space elevator tower planned 52 min SpaceBlues 1
New Messaging App Creates Timeline of Your Life... 4 hr convergx 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 4 hr SoE 7,465
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr said 20,899
PowerPoint 2010 7 hr TomHowe 1
workable VPN that could unblock GFW China (Jan '13) 11 hr geek170 6
More from around the web