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 7,584)

Showing posts 151,661 - 151,680 of168,624
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155786
Oct 1, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
From a scientific point of view I would agree. I am not compelled by scientific necessity in this case but by suchness. Neither past nor future exist; only this moment.
The fan blows.
The people talk.
Is more expected?
Okay, I think I understand suchness...Like the first Rainbow Gathering in Grandby, CO.(1970). Holding hands in a circle with about 5000 other folks, some naked, some wearing granny boots and glasses, all saying Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm as one voice, Being Here Now.

And I do get that for many, church does the same thing. It's not science, but suchness does have value.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155787
Oct 1, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if the big guy hadn't confused all the languages, we wouldn't have this problem now would we? Another failure to plan ahead.
Pax vobiscum.
Pax vobiscum,...does that refer to the little frosted mini-bites, or to the classic big ones?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155788
Oct 1, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Pax vobiscum,...does that refer to the little frosted mini-bites, or to the classic big ones?
Uhhh... Mmmm... Yes!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155789
Oct 1, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think some respect for spelling is a non optional social convention!
Must sleep.

Sleep well my friend. Just remember you are surrounded by terrorists on all sides.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155790
Oct 1, 2013
 
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I think I understand suchness...Like the first Rainbow Gathering in Grandby, CO.(1970). Holding hands in a circle with about 5000 other folks, some naked, some wearing granny boots and glasses, all saying Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm as one voice, Being Here Now.
And I do get that for many, church does the same thing. It's not science, but suchness does have value.

Very good, grasshopper.

Some naked, eh?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155791
Oct 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but technically a chimera.
I made a mistake in my last post, a tetragametic chimera is the fusion of two embryo, while a fusion of two zygotes in one embryo is also a chimera.
My distinction of a twin fusion could be either but is definite
in the latter. I see both cases as two people in one, but with
the tetragametic chimera there is no way you can view it medically as a single organism, but two twisted into one.
A chimera is a single organism, but with two sets of genetics. Some organs are of one genetic line, while other organs of of another.

Now, the definition I am using for 'organism' is 'any contiguous living system', which seems to cover what I was getting at.

One issue that happens in biology is that there are some species that are often, even typically chimeric. Marmosets are one example. Many fungi will have several genetic lines in a single individual, sometimes even having nuclei with different genetics in the same cell.
Root

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155792
Oct 1, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sleep well my friend. Just remember you are surrounded by terrorists on all sides.
Its called religion!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155794
Oct 1, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A chimera is a single organism, but with two sets of genetics. Some organs are of one genetic line, while other organs of of another.
Now, the definition I am using for 'organism' is 'any contiguous living system', which seems to cover what I was getting at.
One issue that happens in biology is that there are some species that are often, even typically chimeric. Marmosets are one example. Many fungi will have several genetic lines in a single individual, sometimes even having nuclei with different genetics in the same cell.
Then why is that you are the only source telling me that? Every other source is telling me different.

Either you are wrong , or the biology books are wrong.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155795
Oct 1, 2013
 
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A chimera is a single organism, but with two sets of genetics. Some organs are of one genetic line, while other organs of of another.
Now, the definition I am using for 'organism' is 'any contiguous living system', which seems to cover what I was getting at.
One issue that happens in biology is that there are some species that are often, even typically chimeric. Marmosets are one example. Many fungi will have several genetic lines in a single individual, sometimes even having nuclei with different genetics in the same cell.
You ARE WRONG!
A chimera is multiple organisms that make a single entity.
That's what life is anyway. But with chimeras there is a distinction that can be made in the DNA of it's parts.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155796
Oct 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Then why is that you are the only source telling me that? Every other source is telling me different.
Either you are wrong , or the biology books are wrong.
A chimera is a single organism.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155797
Oct 1, 2013
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
A chimera is a single organism.
Two or more that function as one.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155798
Oct 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Two or more that function as one.
Do you mean a single organism that has cell populations that derive from different lines?

According to what I am reading, a chimera is as you described earlier I believe. Two fertilized eggs that fuse at an early stage to form a single embryo. The different cell lines go on to form the whole individual, but different parts have different chromosomes.

I did see a reference that marmosets produce a lot of chimeras.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155799
Oct 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Two or more that function as one.
This happens with what would have been fraternal twins and I suppose could happen to identical twins as well, but you might never know it.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155800
Oct 1, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
Two or more that function as one.
Here's the description from Wiki: "A chimera or chimaera is a single organism (usually an animal) that is composed of two or more different populations of genetically distinct cells that originated from different zygotes involved in sexual reproduction."

Now you can put up something that supports YOUR opinion.

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155801
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Max, I came down on you hard because you displayed the unmistakable signs of someone who thinks he is about to surprise us all with his arguments. They are old and dead. If you are going to turn up here and say daft things like evolution = atheism and believe that errors in a C14 date make any difference to evolution it tells me two things.
One, you really know very little about evolution. And
Two, you are already overloaded with the dimwitted babblings of various creationist sources.
You began your run with the ridiculous declaration that a theory accepted by over 99% of trained biologists is a LIE. Don't be surprised if such ignorant arrogance is shot right back at you when you do it first.
Now if you want a reasonable and amicable discussion about any particular point of evolution that you have a disagreement with, i am happy to do that. But calling your opponents liars from the outset dows not win points.
"Pigeon chest arrogance". Ooh boy, that's a good one! Perfect description of you Chimney.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155802
Oct 1, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This happens with what would have been fraternal twins and I suppose could happen to identical twins as well, but you might never know it.
Yes it happens to both, the difference is identical twins share the same, of very nearly the same dna, while fraternald have completely different dna. It becomes one organism, but has parts of two or more distinctly different ones. Such as the mother who has her twin sisters reproductive system. Her children have her sisters dna and not hers. It's pretty weird and is something we are just recently able to define accurately. I suppose when saying that her twin sister has parts is a jaded description, as her twin doesn't really exist. Except within her, but the parts of her that are her sisters dna would have been her sister, had they have had separate amniotic sacs.

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155803
Oct 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Pigeon chest arrogance". Ooh boy, that's a good one! Perfect description of you Chimney.
No, calling 99.85% of biologists and the vast majority of scientists liars and govt stooges when they have a massive body of evidence to support their position and no credible falsifications is arrogant. Especially when some doofus who has obviously read a bit of creationist drivel but cannot even get YOUR sides arguments straight.

Ahhh yeah but he knows better. That is unmitigated, ignorant, foolish arrogance.

I can back what I say. You know that by now.

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155804
Oct 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Pigeon chest arrogance". Ooh boy, that's a good one! Perfect description of you Chimney.
Btw have you retracted your claims based on Creager's flawed paper? It should never have made it through creationist peer review.

Since: Mar 12

UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155805
Oct 2, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sleep well my friend. Just remember you are surrounded by terrorists on all sides.
I am probably safer from terrorists here than you are. Also safer from mugging and any form of violence. Except the driving. They are maniacs.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#155806
Oct 2, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You ARE WRONG!
A chimera is multiple organisms that make a single entity.
That's what life is anyway. But with chimeras there is a distinction that can be made in the DNA of it's parts.
In a chimera, there is a fusion at an early stage of development (usually the blastocyst) between two developing organisms. But that fusion makes them now a single organism with two genetic lines. Because none of the organs had developed at the point of fusion, or ordinary course of development means that the organs in the subsequent organism will derives from both of the cell lines, often with some organs solely from one line, but also often with organs from both.

So, the question is one of definition: what constitutes and organism? The standard definition is 'a contiguous living thing'. That applies to a chimera. But more importantly for *human* chimeras, there is only one personality (unlike conjoined twins). That, to me, makes them *one person*. There isn't another person inside of them, there is simply multiple genetics inside of them.

And, like I said, this is an issue that is much more pronounced in other species. Marmosets are one example where chimerism is quite common. Also, many fungi are prone to a type of chimerism where even the cells can have nuclei from multiple lines *in a single organism*.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 151,661 - 151,680 of168,624
|
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.

38 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
ACKme Networks Releases First Product in Family... 3 hr Mick 1
Aussie battler ahead of time 5 hr Eucalyptus 4
Probe could complicate Rick Perry's prospects 5 hr libertarius magnus 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 5 hr nanoanomaly 4,831
How do I know if my crush likes me? (Jan '08) 7 hr Nice 1,100
Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 11 hr TruthHurts2 605
Invention Could Herald Interactive Revolution 12 hr mrniceguyuc4 1
•••
•••
•••
•••