Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,193

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." Full Story
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117968 Feb 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Put your money where your mouth is. Find us a current textbook with the drawings. I'll sweeten the deal. From the last ten years. Better yet, from the last twenty years.
What's in it for me?
Mugwump

UK

#117969 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What's in it for me?
Credibility ?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117970 Feb 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Credibility ?
But I'm just a willfully ignorant cretard......

What if I can't answer the textbook challenge?

And........

What do I get if I do?

Where's the sweetener?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117971 Feb 19, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I suspect that the lesson learned from this experiment is that a population CAN recover fitness when natural selection is reintroduced. But I doubt if a return to fitness would be the only possible outcome. The nematodes might have gotten to a critical point where extinction would be a more likely outcome.
I agree - fitness recovery would not be inevitable.

But its POSSIBLE and its demonstrated that it happens, and that completely refutes Sanford's hypothesis.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117972 Feb 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
For Chimmney to read:
...Our experiment was initiated with 74 lines of C. elegans, each derived from mutation-accumulation lines that had been independently maintained by single-individual bottlenecks for an average of 240 generations (Vassilieva et al. 2000). These MA lines were themselves derived from a single, wildtype Bristol-N2 individual from the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN). The method of transferring single progeny each generation effectively removes natural selection, allowing mutations with mildly deleterious effects to accumulate essentially freely....

...For the current experiment, these previously bottlenecked lines were independently expanded to extremely large population sizes to test whether populations that have amassed substantial mutational loads may regain original levels of fitness by selection for new advantageous mutations.

For the current study, each line remaining after 240 generations of mutation accumulation was separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes ...To test whether any fitness gains shown by the MA-R lines could be due to a generic form of aboratory adaptation (i.e., due to unconditionally beneficial mutations), 30 lines were also enerated from the ancestral (time zero, premutation accumulation) control animals (previously stored cryogenically) and maintained in the same manner as outlined above....

....After 10 generations of large-population-size treatment, fitness of the MA-R lines was assessed in parallel with MA generation 250 (maintained by single-individual bottlenecks since the beginning of the recovery experiment) and the ancestral control. Despite this short period of time, mean fitness of the MA-R lines had rebounded substantially, approximately 11% for progeny production and 5% for survival to maturity.
....Although any mechanism of fitness recovery involving the accumulation of new mutations would be an important result, several lines of evidence suggest that fitness recovery observed in the MA-R lines was largely due to compensatory mutation accumulation.
http://www.ecologia.unam.mx/laboratorios/evol...
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.

The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.

Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.

To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!

There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
Mugwump

UK

#117973 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.
The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.
Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.
To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!
There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
To be honest the assertion that previously seperate 'fit' populations were added was too ridiculous to contemplate - it would so obviously invalidate the results.

why would anyone believe that this is what happened?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117974 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so, Bud
Yes, so. The fitness recovery of the nematodes would be impossible according to Sanford.
Are you aware of the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance??
Yes. And are you aware that contrary to the Creationist shibboleth that antibiotic resistant bacteria always show a weakness or loss of function elsewhere, making them generally weaker than the "wild type" is false?
Similarly, the Estes et al papers had the same findings
Get mono-clonal and the reversion to ancestral fitness disappears...
It is quite possible that once we are down to a mono-clonal population, or a tiny one, reversion to fitness may not be possible. But Sanford claims its a one way street towards entropy and decay no matter what the population size (only that smaller populations will decay faster). So you have refuted nothing.

What happened to the nematodes is simply not possible according to Sanford's hypothesis. But it happens.

When are you guys going to learn what falsification of a hypothesis means in science????? Well, I suppose if you understood that, you would not by Young Earth Creationists in the first place.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117975 Feb 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
To be honest the assertion that previously seperate 'fit' populations were added was too ridiculous to contemplate - it would so obviously invalidate the results.
why would anyone believe that this is what happened?
Urban Cowboy was hoping for an easy answer...remember this totally violates what he has come to believe in, almost as fervently as he believes in the Bible's infallibility. Saint Sanford HAS to be right! There must be a loophole!

There ain't. Sanford was wrong.

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117976 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Yes, so. The fitness recovery of the nematodes would be impossible according to Sanford.
Again, Sanford never said that. You have to change Sanford's claim to fit the article to debunk him but you're not debunking anything Sanford claimed! Note how the MA-R lines are produced. If you take agar chunks of of every generation and maintain large populations, of course they will recover. Sanford would expect the MA-R to recover. But this experiment says nothing about stopping altogther the slow steady accumulation of deleterious mutations permanently. All the researchers did was create genetic bottlenecks which they later removed. This says nothing about Sanford's work and nothing about macroevolution. They didn't even identify the specific mutations. They just managed to measure fitness of bottlenecked population and their degree of recovery.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117977 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.
The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.
Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.
To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!
There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
There is no escape Chimney
Your clinginess reeks of evo-desperation and it makes me quite uncomfortable

I do not want to indolently toy with you......

There is no way that Estes et al could determine that fitness reduction via mutation was universalw

They even checked for fixation of ancestral DNA markers.....found in all lines tested......

Two lines went extinct......why?

The researchers could NOT know if ancestral fitness was completely obliterated

They surmise that regained fitness was due to beneficial mutation....And other possibilities incl back mutations, which I find difficult to accept......

Please do not ignore that M-AR was derived from MA an already severely mutated population but a heterogeneous one

The rubber met the road in their follow up study in 2011

And then, the single genetic mutant clone DID NOT DISPLAY REVERSAL to ancestral fitness

Because regaining fitness is not possible once deleterious mutations occur

Unaffected portions of a population, eg C difficile, can demonstrate rapid expansion when the opportunity arises

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117978 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad you read it closely enough to see that I was right.
The degraded populations were "separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes". SEPARATELY. No admixture with healthy outside populations.
Outside populations were also included in the study (revived from cryogenic freezing, but kept separate, meaning that improved fitness in the degraded group could ONLY come from the genetic material already within the group.
To repeat: Accumulated loss of fitness due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the absence of natural selection is reversible when natural selection is reintroduced!
There is no way around it. Sanford's hypothesis is falsified.
No, sorry. It doesn't even come close.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117979 Feb 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have done, expecting a different outcome.
You mean like when you keep posting your 'new science' crap over and over? I agree. It is insane.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#117980 Feb 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
No, sorry. It doesn't even come close.
You should learn to be a more gracious loser. As you continue to in insert yourself into discussions of Life Scince, that will be the usual result. Just accept that you were mistaken, try to learn from the experience and move on to another silly hypothesis.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#117981 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
What's in it for me?
The better question is, why does an old scientific error, or even the gravest of all possible frauds, matter more than everything else we've learned?

And, beyond that, do you recognize that science has a self-correcting mechanism that works, and that new evidence informs, if not outright changes, how we understand reality? Or, do you think science is monolithic and eternally cemented into certain understandings of how things work?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117982 Feb 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read up on Haeckel in a recent article you will find that his "cheating" was not clear cut. Some people have accused him of cheating but there is no record of formal charges. In fact now there is some argument that it may have been only personal battles that fueled the charges.
Still I know what he was accused of. The losers don't and can't find it.
If he wasn't formally charged, then that reflects poorly on his peers. He was guilty of fraud. His drawings were grossly inaccurate, and were embellished expressly for the purpose of convincing the public of evolution, not of establishing scientific truth. YOu're continuting to justify his actions and minimize his exaggerrations. You're proving my point.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117983 Feb 19, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sketches never look exactly like the drawn object. You still have no clue what he did wrong.
Why don't you use Google and look it up. Here is a hint, you won't find the answer on a creatard site. Haeckle's claims were not that far off. That is why they use photographs to illustrate his claims today.
Don't worry, I will let you know what Haeckle did wrong after your next failure.
There you go again... justifying scientific fraud. Haeckle was a professionial scientific illustrator. I don't need to google anything. I've seen dozens of three week old human embryos in my practice, and they look nothing like Haeckle's drawings. Why do you continue to defend him when they are widely criticized by embryologists? How far off do they have to be to be condemned. Are you denying that he had ulterior motives for his embellishments?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117984 Feb 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The better question is, why does an old scientific error, or even the gravest of all possible frauds, matter more than everything else we've learned?
And, beyond that, do you recognize that science has a self-correcting mechanism that works, and that new evidence informs, if not outright changes, how we understand reality? Or, do you think science is monolithic and eternally cemented into certain understandings of how things work?
Ever since 1859 Darwinism has been progressively been invalidated by scientific research. When DNA was described in 1953, Darwinism should have been dead. There is simply no way that coded information can be randomly changed with a progressively positive result as is required by NDT. However, the cherished tradition of gradualism was too strong for a major paradigm shift. Instead, biologists continued to cling on to a theory which could not be supported by scientific observation.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117985 Feb 19, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like when you keep posting your 'new science' crap over and over? I agree. It is insane.
Mike, you have not contributed one constructive intelligent point to this forum in the several months that you've been contributing. You're a spineless DarwinBot, mindlessly swallowing whatever BS you are fed by the MSM.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117986 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That antibiotic resistance
C difficle
Estes et al with the C elegans
C elegans pesticide resistance...
ALL>>>
Number One:--->Are not EVOLUTION
Number Two:---> Do not refute Sanford
The C elegans population was heterogeneous and contained the genetic variability to re-express the ancestral fitness
SINCE THE ANCESTRAL FITNESS WAS NEVER LOST FROM THE POPULATION...not entirely
When the mutant genotype was tested...NO REVERSAL
Every time someone brings up bacterial mutants as "evidence" of evolution, I am reminded how flimsy the Darwinian hypothesis is. Trillions of trillions of organisms to work with, involving tens of thousands of generations that reproduce ASEXUALLY, and the DarwinBots get excited over a mutant that can catabolize citrate through the deregulation of a PRE-EXISTING citrate utilization system. Armed with that "evidence", they expect us to believe that millions of positive mutations, each imparting a survival advantage, occurred in a populations of about 10,000 humans over about 350,000 generations to result in the transmutation from ape to man. They think that the higher faculties of man, such as mathematical ability, aesthetic appreciation, complex emotions, etc., sprung into existence in an analogous manner. They call this "science".

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#117987 Feb 19, 2013
All very interesting stuff, not. Subduction Zone should i thnk keep these pages to her professional interest in science and not some kind of morose infidel bastard form of current affaires.

i too had big brave ideas about blogging on this chat room, and my handiwork when it is revealed is not exactly what you might call for human consumption, nor is it of interest to most of us. In fact to put it mildly, it about as interesting on the written page as Picasso on canvas.

HTS leavr the girl alone, are you some kind of lesbian.

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) 2 hr Osmius 5,969
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Dogen 14,458
The Koyal Group Info Mag Review: Life of Profes... 4 hr risselepaige 1
Updating Dell Inspiron 1501 Drivers 4 hr Tessa053 1
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 9 hr IBdaMann 28,059
Spike In eBay Shares On Q4 Earnings Puts These ... 11 hr Philip Cohen 1
Future Growth Prospects For Costco 11 hr jose concepcion 1
More from around the web