Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103307 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.
Probability is about probability, not certainty. The real issue that "evolution buffs", as you call them, have with "god-believers" is that god-believers tend to believe that the universe was created for the sole purpose of man. However, the current evidence shows that there is a reasonable probability of life existing beyond earth. And the probability of religious teachings being anything more than fairy tales is extremely low.

There is very little in life that can be proven to an absolute 1000 percent certainty, but we reasonably act on what we think is most highly probable. We look for life beyond earth because we think it is a reasonable search.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#103308 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.
Until you learn what a "transition" is, you will never see it.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103309 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.
Yes, the question is moot, and so is the answer. There is no evidence to support a belief for any existence outside of the universe.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103310 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.
Well of course, every individual generation is microevolution. If you look at evolution comparing it to a light scale, starting out with black, then you would see a very long succession of grey-scale before seeing white. From the first rodent-like mammals to the present day zebras and tigers and elephants and anthropoids and humans, each generation is microevolution. Microevolution is the PROCESS of macroevolution. Every generation is in transition.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103311 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.
The rules are set by the preponderance of evidence. No scientific evidence points to a young earth.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103312 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!
Bingo! You've hit on evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103313 Sep 29, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't Flew the guy who admitted he was suffering senile dementia when he signed off on the creationist comments ?

On April 8, 2010, the British philosopher Antony Flew passed away after a long life in academic philosophy, having taught at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities. For most of his career Professor Flew was one of the world’s most outspoken and prominent atheists, until he changed his mind in the closing years of his life, apparently impressed by the arguments from Intelligent Design creationists, most notably with regard to the complexity of DNA. In 2004, Flew co-authored a book entitled There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. The co-author was Roy Abraham Varghese, who became the center of controversy when the New York Times published an article alleging that Flew was in serious mental decline and that the book — and by implication the conversion itself — was perhaps contrived or highly influenced by Varghese.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103314 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?
I think perhaps you did not understand my post. It has nothing to do with whether or not dragons exist. The point is that if you believe something that cannot be falsified by any conceivable test then it is not science.
LowellGuy

Rahway, NJ

#103315 Sep 29, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't Flew the guy who admitted he was suffering senile dementia when he signed off on the creationist comments ?
They'll take 'em any way they can get 'em.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#103316 Sep 29, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
From a singularity. We don't know where the singularity came from, but some research has suggested that it came from a previous universe.
<quoted text>
Tell it to the Fundamentalist Christians who belief is that god created the universe 'ex nihilo' or from nothing.
<quoted text>
The universe was the first thing to pop into the universe, by definition. As of yet we do not know what existed before the universe popped into existence. But, for certain, science will know before religion does.
Render unto science that which is sciences
And unto god that which is gods.
Why don't you just admit that nobody knows what caused the existence of our universe?

You seem to be a little confused about who claimed what regarding "something from nothing".



I've never seen where a Christian or the bible ever claimed that we merely arose from nothing.

Man may never learn what caused existence. When the last man dies there will be no science.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#103317 Sep 29, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You exist on a different plane of awareness than an earthworm.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#103318 Sep 30, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I think perhaps you did not understand my post. It has nothing to do with whether or not dragons exist. The point is that if you believe something that cannot be falsified by any conceivable test then it is not science.
Lucretius believed in the existence of atoms long before they were "falsifiable". Science has its roots in philosophy.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Endofdays 69,983
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 36 min CBU 1,767
News Evolution 'not established truth' (May '08) 59 min Yidfellas v USA 9,178
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 30,113
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr ChromiuMan 161,438
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 12 hr Subduction Zone 95
G-d versus Evolution? 13 hr 15th Dalai Lama 12
More from around the web