Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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
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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117988 Feb 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Yeah. Ain't it great?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#117989 Feb 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So, are you telling us that there is a century-long global conspiracy in the scientific community to hide evidence of evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that there is a century-long global conspiracy to disregard the connection between the evidence and evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that only Christian cundamentalists are capable of scientific competence and integrity?

By the way, you didn't actually answer me. Try doing that, too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117990 Feb 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
For Chimmney to read:
It is well established that the accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations via genetic drift under conditions of relaxed selection can threaten the health and persistence of small populations.
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. Because C. elegans reproduces by self-fertilization, this procedure also rapidly removes heterozygosity at all other loci (see fig. 4.15 in Hartl and Clark 1997), a particularly important point for the current study.
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 by transferring agar chunks containing well over 1000 individuals to fresh plates with a sterilized scalpel every four days (equivalent to approximately one generation)(hereafter referred to as MA-R lines for mutation-recovery).
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. Henceforth, these will be referred to as C-R lines, for control-recovery.
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.
In this second assay, 30 randomly chosen pairs of MA-R and MA lines were surveyed for fitness in parallel with the ancestral control and with the C-R lines. At the time of this assay, the MA lines had reached 280 generations on average. Our results indicate that the MA-R lines had fully recovered on average for both fitness-related characters, whereas the CR lines showed no significant fitness gains compared to the ancestral control (Fig. 2, Table 3).
We show that when returned to a population-genetic environment that is conducive to efficient natural selection, mutationally degraded lines are capable of recovering original levels of mean fitness at a rate that is at least three times that of mutational degradation in the absence of selection, although there is variation in response among individual lines.
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...

Nice refutation of Sanford. Sort of beating a dead horse, but whatever.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#117991 Feb 19, 2013
HTS here's one.

The environment is split down the middle between evolutionary flux and evolutionary regression, Darwin's just another observer and conjurer of a diabolical tricks on the mind.

No string theory of biology - Darwinism is the biggest hoodwink to obsess over narrow-minded series of arbitrary social observations to be construed as fact.

Bet you would struggle to find another biological theory for mankind. Of course you can't. Just like your struggle in the nineteenth century to name any other religious text other than the bible. You wouldn't. And the point is that you would not of thought it odd that you wouldn't.

Sorry Charles we began as God's and will end up bacteria swimming in another gods DNA protein molecular cell.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117992 Feb 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text Yes, of course they recover, but they still carry all the accumulated mutations and sooner or later will hit the wall again.

LOL. Again, your noticeable lack of eduction related to evolution is showing. Selection tends to removes negative attributes and reinforce positive ones.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Notice this says nothing about macroevolution either.

Evolution is evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This is not even relevant to Sanford's genetic entropy.

Not that it matters since Sanford has long since been refuted, but this is a lie. Sanford predicts that damaging mutations are accumulative. Thus they should not recover, but rather continue to degrade.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Good stuff but not a refutation of genetic entropy, which was clearly the protagonist here!

Why would anyone want to refute genetic entropy anymore? That is sort of like refuting luminiferous aether. Its been done. Its been replicated. It is dead.

You seem to want to reincarnate genetic entropy by showing unrelated research does not refute it. Is that the way science is done in your world?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117993 Feb 19, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
HTS here's one.
The environment is split down the middle between evolutionary flux and evolutionary regression, Darwin's just another observer and conjurer of a diabolical tricks on the mind.
No string theory of biology - Darwinism is the biggest hoodwink to obsess over narrow-minded series of arbitrary social observations to be construed as fact.
Bet you would struggle to find another biological theory for mankind. Of course you can't. Just like your struggle in the nineteenth century to name any other religious text other than the bible. You wouldn't. And the point is that you would not of thought it odd that you wouldn't.
Sorry Charles we began as God's and will end up bacteria swimming in another gods DNA protein molecular cell.
As I've before stated, it is fallacious scinetific logic to challenge a skeptic of a theory to provide an alternative scientific theory in the attempt to prove evolution. Intelligent design has been philosophically rejected. Darwinism is all that is left. What has occurred is this: Intellectuals have proclaimed ID has unscientific. Therefore, NDT must be true by default.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#117994 Feb 19, 2013
I create spaceship and the machines that go inside them. Do the algebraic geometry that's the only science i know that works.

Science outside algebra seems to me to be like whose right and wrong all the figging time. Isn't about time that these religious bishops (of science) gave it arrest.

Did you know that there exists nothing in creation that cannot be worked out in algebra. Wow. Now that is science in action.

The whole point of science is that there's only facts without the argument, i think it long over due that all the politicians got out of science completely and left it to the real scientific brains like my Mensa IQ1 scored mind.

You may not like it but you can not beat it or do a fig about that.

That's real science the facts speaking for themselves without all that fancy speak.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117995 Feb 19, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, are you telling us that there is a century-long global conspiracy in the scientific community to hide evidence of evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that there is a century-long global conspiracy to disregard the connection between the evidence and evolutionary theory's falsehood? Or, are you saying that only Christian cundamentalists are capable of scientific competence and integrity?
By the way, you didn't actually answer me. Try doing that, too.
Call it whatever you want. The history of science is one of the overwhelming "scientific" consensus being overthrown time and again, with popular theories supported by intelligent scientists completely collapsing. If you want another example, I'll give one to you... the AID/HIV hypothesis. Just because thousands of scientists say that HIV causes AIDS doesn't make it so. AIDS is not transmitted sexually. It is not an infectious disease. You heard it on this thread. It's not a conspiracy theory. Physicians are not deliberately trying to deceive anyone. Intelligent people are mislead because they're mired in a false paradigm.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117996 Feb 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Again, your noticeable lack of eduction related to evolution is showing. Selection tends to removes negative attributes and reinforce positive ones.
<quoted text>
Evolution is evolution.
<quoted text>
Not that it matters since Sanford has long since been refuted, but this is a lie. Sanford predicts that damaging mutations are accumulative. Thus they should not recover, but rather continue to degrade.
<quoted text>
Why would anyone want to refute genetic entropy anymore? That is sort of like refuting luminiferous aether. Its been done. Its been replicated. It is dead.
You seem to want to reincarnate genetic entropy by showing unrelated research does not refute it. Is that the way science is done in your world?
No one on this thread has intelligently refuted genetic entropy. All that is given are arrogant proclamations that the debate is over. No one has logically explained how 100+ mutations per generation can be neutralized by natural selection. How about a logical explanation, rather than canned statements that Sanford has been "debunked"?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117997 Feb 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree - fitness recovery would not be inevitable.
But its POSSIBLE and its demonstrated that it happens, and that completely refutes Sanford's hypothesis.
Explain logically how 100+ random mistakes in coded information can be "corrected" in one generation through "fitness recovery.
Mugwump

UK

#117998 Feb 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Call it whatever you want. The history of science is one of the overwhelming "scientific" consensus being overthrown time and again, with popular theories supported by intelligent scientists completely collapsing. If you want another example, I'll give one to you... the AID/HIV hypothesis. Just because thousands of scientists say that HIV causes AIDS doesn't make it so. AIDS is not transmitted sexually. It is not an infectious disease. You heard it on this thread. It's not a conspiracy theory. Physicians are not deliberately trying to deceive anyone. Intelligent people are mislead because they're mired in a false paradigm.
As always - I will ask you to backup your claim re: HIV/AIDS.

As always you will refuse

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#117999 Feb 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>As I've before stated, it is fallacious scinetific logic to challenge a skeptic of a theory to provide an alternative scientific theory in the attempt to prove evolution. Intelligent design has been philosophically rejected. Darwinism is all that is left. What has occurred is this: Intellectuals have proclaimed ID has unscientific. Therefore, NDT must be true by default.
No but evolution is lousy at creation. Evolution (i have little or no doubt at all) explains everything about creational change over time inside eco-biological environments. No problems at all period.

But Darwin was a sound researcher who had a tendency to leap to wild conclusions. Of course the real darwin was taking monkey enhancer drags at the time he came up with his notorious (and sometimes ludicrous) string theory.

First law of Thermodynamics is a pure fiction. Split the atomic nucleoli and your left with depleted uranium. Another words a cultured monucular nature that is evolving but regressing over time.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#118000 Feb 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Explain logically how 100+ random mistakes in coded information can be "corrected" in one generation through "fitness recovery.
Simple.

If the organism with the "100+ random mistakes" is handicapped by those "mistakes" (i.e.: "mutations") to the point that that organism is unable to procreate, he/she will not pass on those traits to his/her offspring.

Otherwise if those mutations are minor (eye color, etc), and there is no hindrance to bear offspring, then this 'mistake' may be passed on to the next generation of that organism.

Evolution 101, buddy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118001 Feb 19, 2013

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#118002 Feb 19, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
No but evolution is lousy at creation. Evolution (i have little or no doubt at all) explains everything about creational change over time inside eco-biological environments. No problems at all period.
But Darwin was a sound researcher who had a tendency to leap to wild conclusions. Of course the real darwin was taking monkey enhancer drags at the time he came up with his notorious (and sometimes ludicrous) string theory.
First law of Thermodynamics is a pure fiction. Split the atomic nucleoli and your left with depleted uranium. Another words a cultured monucular nature that is evolving but regressing over time.
WTF?!?!?

RPG, maybe?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#118003 Feb 19, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
<quoted text>
Chimney's paper falsified NOTHING
Clostridium difficile remains when other bacteria are wiped out by antibiotics
It reproduces rapidly to fill a vacant environmental niche
It NORMALLY causes no issues when it is maintained in small numbers...
But in larger numbers, when the suppressive effects of the competing microbes are removed, its toxins can cause death in the hapless individual
;
;
;
;
IT AINT EVOLUTION, BUD
;
;
;
;
That's precisely what was observed with the Estes et al studies
The mutational load was not fixed in every organism
They had a heterogeneous population
Hence the non-mutants ALREADY RETAINED the wild type fitness
This is EXACTLY why the bugs recovered ancestral fitness because it was never lost in the first place!
This is borne out sweetly in their 2011 study where the mutant genotype DID NOT provide the same results as in 2003
SINCE THE TEST POPULATION ALL-----UNDERLINE ALL--- had the same mutations
And so were unable to regain fitness
Stanford still stands....
....if that is all you have
What a brilliant couple of papers to illustrate NON-EVOLUTION

Stanford was refuted years back.

And it is evolution. Evolution incorporates mutation. Or didn't you know that?

In all you put forth a very emotional rant that falls short of both science and reasonable argumentation.

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
We'll Find Alien Life in This Lifetime, Scienti... (May '14) 14 min Johnny45 21
Police Blotter: Porch package snatcher arrested... 41 min One way or another 5
Hackers pry into websites using 'portals of entry' 1 hr One way or another 2
Sam's Club Launches Electronic Medical Record (... (Apr '09) 1 hr One way or another 3
For all you have been given, what can you give ... 1 hr One way or another 10
Why Japan has bet its revival on humanoid robots 3 hr DRUGDAEGUTHAIDEBD... 24
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 18 hr Bored n Broke n 186
More from around the web