Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#103287 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
How the hell is something with all its hard-parts on the outside supposed to evolve into something with all its hard-parts on the inside. Think about THAT!
It has already been thought about and addressed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.h...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103288 Sep 29, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Various permutations of the Drake equation purport to suggest a probability that life exists elsewhere in the universe based on the large number argument, despite no evidence that life actually exists "out there". This is the same "argument from incredulity" that evolution buffs criticize god-believers for. How is "I can't believe that with so many habitable planets none of them sustain life, therefore life must exist somewhere out there" any more credible than "I can't beleive that life arose spontaneously from non-life, therefore an intelligent agent must be directing things", except that the Drake equation has a sciencey sounding appeal to logic?
The best explanation so far is that the origin of life, like the creation of the universe, was a singularity. The notion that the universe must be teeming with life appears to be no more credible than the notion that god created life on earth.

No, actually that is not an argument from incredulity. You need to reread your definition of that fallacy. The fact is we have found life on 100% of the planets, that we think are supporting life, that we have examined. We even have organic chemicals raining down on us from space (literally). Regardless of if life is rare or common, the law of large numbers suggests that there is probably a lot of it out there. There is no indication that life is not more than the sum of its physical parts and is naturally occurring. Just like everything else science has examined.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103289 Sep 29, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Dogen made that assertion. Something about matter/antimatter particle pairs spontaneously appearing from the void.

That was not an assertion. That is what science has found to be true.

I provided a reference which you apparently did not even peek at.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103290 Sep 29, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
The question of where God came from presumes that there was a time that God did not exist. Some religions claim that God exists outside of our perceived dimensions of space and time, therefore there is no "before" and "after", and the question is moot.

The question of where the universe came from presumes that there was a time that the universe did not exist. Some scientists claim that the origin of our universe exists outside of our perceived dimensions of space and time, therefore there is no "before" and "after", and the question is moot.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103291 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Macroevolution isn't happening now, it never happened in the past, and it will never happen in the future.

Macroevolution has been observed to occur in the laboratory.

Macroevolution has been observed to occur in nature.

Macroevolution has been observed to occur in the fossil record.

Macroevolution has been observed to occur in the genomic record.

I have given links that prove each one of these statements. So you are claiming something does not happen that science has shown DOES happen. Makes your argument moot.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103292 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dragons did exist. We have fossil evidence. Now we call them dinosaurs. Check out the Chinese Calendar. All the other 11 years are real animals, so why wouldn't that one be real too?

Because dragons don't exist and dinosaurs (for the most part) have not existed for 65 million years.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103293 Sep 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It has already been thought about and addressed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.h...
Doesn't that confirm that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertibrates? I see it references some of each but not the transition from one to the other.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103294 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But there was no "billion years". Why do you always get to set the rules? I was thinking, what is the oldest fossil of the shortest generation time? Or what is the most generations of any organism or the longest period of time we've have observed no macroevolution? That, along with about dozen or so others should convince you that it never happened.

Since both side can list advocates that were once on the other side that argument has no meaning for either side.

Macroevolution has been shown to be (at present) continuously occurring. We have hundreds of examples from nature, a few examples from the lab, thousands of examples from genomic studies and millions of examples from the fossil record.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#103295 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Doesn't that confirm that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertibrates? I see it references some of each but not the transition from one to the other.
It lists a number of known species with features intermediate between invertebrates and vertebrates.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103296 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But there was no "billion years". Why do you always get to set the rules? I was thinking, what is the oldest fossil of the shortest generation time? Or what is the most generations of any organism or the longest period of time we've have observed no macroevolution? That, along with about dozen or so others should convince you that it never happened.

According to Physics, geology, chemistry, archeology, astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics,.....

The universe is just under 14 billion years old.

Get used to reality.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103297 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
How the hell is something with all its hard-parts on the outside supposed to evolve into something with all its hard-parts on the inside. Think about THAT!

It is amusing the things that creotards find to invent new 'arguments from incredulity' from.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103298 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The arguments FOR macroevolution are from ignorance. And yes, I have been asking evolutionists to show me that pathway for years. And all they ever provide is either unsupported claims, pure speculation or personal ridicule. Why is that? Do you think maybe its because there is no evidence for it and the whole thing is just an ideology?

Macroevolution has been OBSERVED in the lab.
Macroevolution has been OBSERVED in the environment.
Macroevolution has been OBSERVED in the fossil record.
Macroevolution has been OBSERVED in the genomic record.

All of these claims are supported with research. All you have to do is look them up (or go back and look at the links for each I, and others, have provided to you). You are simply restating your delusions when you claim that the claims are unsupported. We are not impressed why you simply restate your delusions as you have absolutely no evidence to support them other than your wishing thing to be a certain way.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103299 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now, that's just ridiculous. Science confirms the Bible in more ways than science confirms macroevolution.

FALSE.

Macroevolution has BILLIONS (literally) of points of evidence. Only a handful of things in the bible have been researched and some have been shown to have no foundation whatsoever (e.g. global flood).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Creation is a better scientific explanation for life than evolution is.

No. Creation has no scientific evidence. Creation is not a scientific theory. Creation cannot be falsified. Creation fails the law of parsimony. Creation makes no predictions,.........
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>, Why? Because there is no mechanism for macroevolution to occur

FALSE

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>because we have never seen a genetic mutation lead to macroevolution even after extensive experiments.

False. We HAVE seen EXACTLY this.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Why? Because the fossil record points to all the various plants and animals staying the same kind throughout their history with some of the "oldest" fossils looking the same as current.

False, all forms of life for which we have a good history have show evolution over time.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Why? Because DNA contains information which only comes from intelligence.

Unproven unlikely. DNA appears to be a naturally formed chemical compound.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Why? Because the laws of physics say that entropy moves from the energy source to the system receiving it.

This has been refuted so many times it is not worth addressing again.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> (And dozens of other key reasons.) Don't get me started.

We have seen your sense of humor,... I mean "reasons".

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103300 Sep 29, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
The question of where God came from presumes that there was a time that God did not exist. Some religions claim that God exists outside of our perceived dimensions of space and time, therefore there is no "before" and "after", and the question is moot.
God is not a nothing, he's a something and thus has to be explained.
Just spouting some nonsense about him being outside of time and space hardly proves God as I can just as easily make the same claim for a supernatural quirk of physics that just exists without explanation and caused the Big Bang.

You can't use the unexplainable to explain away the unexplained.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#103301 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on now, that's just ridiculous. Science confirms the Bible in more ways than science confirms macroevolution.
This would be a LIE!

Science does NOT confirm that the Cosmos and Earth are only 6000 years old. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that the first human was magically conjured up out of a pile of dirt. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that the first female human was magically created out of rib ripped out of the first human male. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that snakes can talk. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that magic fruit can make an eater really smart of immortal. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that there was a global flood 4400 years ago. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that all of the terrestrial organisms died off 4400 years ago in that global flood except for the passengers aboard a wooden barge. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes cures his leprosy. In fact, it contradicts it.

Science does NOT confirm that allowing livestock to copulate in front of painted sticks produces offspring with stripped and polka dot coats. In fact, it contradicts it.

In fact, science (and history) contradict the majority of "events" in the Bible and demonstrate that the Bible SUCKS a s a scientific or historical reference.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103302 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't that confirm that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertibrates? I see it references some of each but not the transition from one to the other.
Chordates, members of the phylum Chordata, are deuterostome animals possessing a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail for at least some period of their life cycles. Taxonomically, the phylum includes the subphyla Vertebrata, including mammals (and thus humans), fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds; Tunicata, including salps and sea squirts; and Cephalochordata, comprising the lancelets.

The phylum Hemichordata including the acorn worms has been presented as a fourth chordate subphylum, but it now is usually treated as a separate phylum. It, along with the echinoderm phylum, including starfish, sea urchins, and sea cucumbers and their kin, are the chordates closest relatives. Primitive chordates are known from at least as early as the Cambrian explosion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#103303 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends on your frame of reference. If you are referring to the Creator God, he could have created our universe and also exist in a different one.
"it" could also have "created" our Cosmos 13.75 billion years ago, the Earth 4.5 billion years ago and humans through evolution, because that's what all of the SCIENCE says happened.

But of course, you "fundamentalist christian creationist" do NOT think God is omnipotent or omniscient enough to do it that way.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103304 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't that confirm that there are no transitionals between invertebrates and vertibrates? I see it references some of each but not the transition from one to the other.
I think you only read the first line which is just the claim being refuted.
Here's the rest.

Response:

There are Cambrian fossils transitional between vertebrate and invertebrate:
Pikaia, an early invertebrate chordate. It was at first interpreted as a segmented worm until a reanalysis showed it had a notochord.
Yunnanozoon, an early chordate.
Haikouella, a chordate similar to Yunnanozoon, but with additional traits, such as a heart and a relatively larger brain (Chen et al. 1999).
Conodont animals had bony teeth, but the rest of their body was soft. They also had a notochord (Briggs et al. 1983; Sansom et al. 1992).
Cathaymyrus diadexus, the oldest known chordate (535 million years old; Shu et al. 1996).
Myllokunmingia and Haikouichthys, two early vertebrates that still lack a clear head and bony skeletons and teeth. They differ from earlier invertebrate chordates in having a zigzag arrangement of segmented muscles, and their gill arrangement is more complex than a simple slit (Monastersky 1999).

There are living invertebrate chordates (Branchiostoma [Amphioxus], urochordates [tunicates]) and living basal near-vertebrates (hagfish, lampreys) that show plausible intermediate forms.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.h...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#103305 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
This guy, Antony Flew, changed his mind. And he was pretty good at logic.(Credited with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Flew
Isn't Flew the guy who admitted he was suffering senile dementia when he signed off on the creationist comments ?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#103306 Sep 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends on your frame of reference. If you are referring to the Creator God, he could have created our universe and also exist in a different one. I would think that our thinking is restricted to our universe. So yes, I could see that there could be things that don't exist in our universe but do exist in another even though we have no knowledge of it.
If God exists in a different universe why would anyone in this one give a damn what He does?

BTW, your comment bears all the hallmarks of made-up shít.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Truth is might 222,761
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr River Tam 32,582
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr replaytime 79,965
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Regolith Based Li... 163,763
What's your religion? 9 hr Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web