Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 7,405)

Showing posts 148,081 - 148,100 of168,581
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151922
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>No SCIENTIFIC evidence at all.

None.

Zip.

Nada.
For your 3 myths?

Your 3 BIG Myths:

1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.

2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.

3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.

And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.

"SNAP"

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151923
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to define "evolution"
Evolution is not just "change".
No one has ever disputed that species can change.

That is the definition of evolution dumbarse.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151924
Sep 13, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolution of man from apes would have required millions of specific mutations.
You have at most 8 million years, and each generation is 10-20 years.
Let's see the math.

Epistasis.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151925
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Perversions of statistical logic are not tolerated in a scientific discussion. Regardless of your relativistic worldview that says that complexity doesn't exist, all of nature demonstrates ORDER AND PREDICTABILITY.

No, it doesn't. You may have never hear of QM or the Standard model.

Your ignorance is consistent at least. Not that it is a good thing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151926
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is interested in your regurgitated evo-babbling.

Translation being an admission on your part that you have nothing.

Remember, Satan is the Father of lies.

I am not sure who is the father of stupid. What IS your fathers name?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151927
Sep 13, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong! A generation is 20 years. So 1000 generations would be 20,000 years. Three years to breed would be 60,000 years. Eight would be 480,000 years.

He was being nice.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151928
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence for evolution is irrefutable. If your math says evolution is impossible the answer is that your math is wrong.

I don't know what could be more obvious.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151929
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so you want to learn how to do the mathematics of mutation and selection? I hope you know something about probability theory. Let's start doing this mathematics by asking a very simple question.
If you double the size of a population, do you double the probability that a beneficial mutation can occur in that population?
Not quite. If the probability is p for a specific mutation, then doulbing the population will change the probability to 2p-p^2. This is slightly less than doubling, but for small probabilities, the difference is minute.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151930
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, perhaps I should clarify. What I am referring to when I say that is that transmutation of species never occurred; that macroevolution never occurred; that all life descended from a common ancestor never occurred. Evolution certainly occurs, but the evolutionists equivocate and define the word as simply "change". So just where do you stand in the debate? Young earth creation or old age evolutionist or somewhere in between?

Biological evolution is change in a population over time.

No equivocation. That is simply what it means.

But since that is obviously true you want to equivocate and redefine.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151931
Sep 13, 2013
 
kleinman wrote:
If you don't do this you will not understand why when single drug therapy is used for treatment of HIV gives resistant viruses in a week while combination therapy suppresses the mutation and selection process and gives successful treatment.
Those resitant forms are examples of evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151932
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
If you ever studied Haldane's theory and model carefully you would learn that his approach to natural selection was that it was a substitution process of a more beneficial allele for a less beneficial allele in a population. That is not what is happening in the physical biological situation. The beneficial allele is not being substituted into the population, the beneficial allele is being amplified by the subpopulation with the beneficial allele. And it is possible that you can have multiple beneficial alleles in a population being amplified simultaneously as demonstrated by the Weinreich experiment where he had several different variants each having a high efficiency beta-lactamase allele. In fact, Weinreich published a follow-up paper where he identified more variants of his drug resistant bacteria. It really doesn't matter what the rest of the population does as long as the subpopulation can amplify it's mutation.
Interestingly, Haldane's mathematical model which doesn't correctly model the physical situation still yielded an estimate of 300 generations to fix the new allele.

Haldane? You have to go that far back?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151933
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
I never underestimate the effects of peer pressure. Evolutionists have made a scientific blunder of the magnitude of the flat-earthers' by failing to understand the basic science and mathematics of the mutation and selection phenomenon. And there is a real cost to this blunder. This cost is multidrug resistant bacteria, multiherbicide resistant weeds, multipesticide resistant insects and less than durable cancer treatments.

You have not said anything here that is plausible or of any value.

You don't understand evolution and you misuse mathematics.

GIGO.

You lost and I am bored with you.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151934
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument that I've gotten from evolutionists is if you add up lots of microevolutionary changes, you can get a macroevolutionary change. Evolutionists fail to properly describe a microevolutionary change. The example of HIV's failure to evolve or at least stifled evolution shows that even the accumulation of 2 beneficial mutations in a subpopulation is inhibited when selection is acting at only two genes at a time. The only way the theory of evolution could be mathematically rational is if selection could act a multiple genetic loci simultaneously. But natural selection doesn't work that way because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. In other words, the theory of evolution is a crock and a harmful crock to boot.

Previously refuted.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151935
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no concept of radiometric C-14 dating.
If the bones are in fact 67 millions years old, you have noting to worry about. There will be no C-14 left in them.
Dispense with the BS Dude.
YOu are afraid of science. It is your worst enemy.
Actually, there would be a minimal amount of C14 in them due to other sources than from the atmosphere. For example, a nitrogen atoms in the material can interact with local radioactivity and, in a very few cases, produce C14. This background level is well below the levels produced in the usual fashion and so the dating method works well for 50-100,000 years, depending on the process used. past that, the background becomes significant.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151936
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument that I've gotten from evolutionists is if you add up lots of microevolutionary changes, you can get a macroevolutionary change. Evolutionists fail to properly describe a microevolutionary change. The example of HIV's failure to evolve or at least stifled evolution shows that even the accumulation of 2 beneficial mutations in a subpopulation is inhibited when selection is acting at only two genes at a time. The only way the theory of evolution could be mathematically rational is if selection could act a multiple genetic loci simultaneously. But natural selection doesn't work that way because of the multiplication rule of probabilities. In other words, the theory of evolution is a crock and a harmful crock to boot.

Oh and you are too much of a coward to actually answer Urbs question.

You did the same cowardly act when Jimbo asked you several questions.

Coward.


Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, perhaps I should clarify. What I am referring to when I say that is that transmutation of species never occurred; that macroevolution never occurred; that all life descended from a common ancestor never occurred. Evolution certainly occurs, but the evolutionists equivocate and define the word as simply "change". So just where do you stand in the debate? Young earth creation or old age evolutionist or somewhere in between?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151937
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

HTS wrote:
It didn't recently "appear".
It was described only recently due to improvements in detection.
You're such a silly little religious fanatic.:)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151938
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
With respects to evolutionary processes, survival is not really the most important point....


Until you correct the errors that have been pointed out to your (which you seem to have no intention of doing) you have nothing to add.

Ignoring them and denying them do not make your errors go away.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151939
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the evolutionist claim. You've got a few assumptions in this claim. First, you are assuming each of the eight genes require only a single mutation to transform the reptile scale to a feather. So if you would post the evidence that would justify your assumption. Second, you have not given us the selection pressures which would target each of the genes in a sequential manner because the HIV example should clearly show you that selection acting at multiple gene loci simultaneously is suppressed. And if it is a simple as you say, why don't we see reptiles today in the intermediate stages of this process today or doesn't cold weather still exist. The plausometer just hit zero for your claim.

Dumbass.

All previously refuted.

Deal with your errors.

Oh, you can't!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151941
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

kleinman wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists are such mathematically incompetent bunglers. Selection reduces the diversity of populations by removing variants not fit enough to reproduce under the given selection conditions. Mutations increase the diversity of populations by creating new variants.

Moronic.

EVERYONE please read the above CAREFULLY!

LOL.

incompetent bungler.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151943
Sep 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Please elucidate us how a scale can go to a feather in "8 mutations".
What a load of tripe!
Are you aware of the nucleotide sequences that code for a scale and a feather?

They are similar.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 148,081 - 148,100 of168,581
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

36 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 1 hr positronium 4,825
China says 1/5 of its farmland polluted 2 hr Prince George 4
Is the galaxy full of Earths? 4 hr PDX Dave 3
In this Saturday, April 5, 2014 file photo, sin... 13 hr Miley Cyrus 1
Online Shopping Across Borders Offers Growth Op... Fri Philip Cohen 2
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) Fri When iStealing Legal 124
How Social Media Overload Can Lead to Break-Ups Fri Airtime 1
•••
•••
•••
•••