Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#103444 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a capitalist if you support Obama, who is doing everything in his power to eliminate it.
If it were up to the far left liberals, every person who works for a living or earns a profit and every company with over 15 employees would be either turned over to the government or eliminated through fines, penalties, and taxes. Liberals hate entrepreneurs, CEOs, executives, investors, wall street, builders, bankers, or anyone who works hard and invests time and money to build a viable business. Small business is the enemy. Corporations are just pure evil.
People who realize that the government knows better than they do on how to run their lives from cradle to grave are the good people that should be cared for by a central governmental control. That is why they deserve free gov't housing, free food, free healthcare, free cell phones, free transportation, free education, and free internet. We're almost there already. Obama only needs 4 more years to get it done.
Is this your idea of capitalism?
Yeah, yeah, yeah....and if were up to 'Far Right Conservatives', we'd be executing homosexuals, and force the unemployed into Labor Camps.

FORTUNATELY,*BOTH* concepts are at the fringe of American politics, and the overwhelming bulk of the nation is varying degrees of MODERATE.

You're taking Fox News too seriously.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#103445 Oct 2, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a lie. We back up our statements, which you ignore and/or try to twist. You can't seem to understand basic science and you quote pseudoscience that is completely unsupported by ACTUAL RESEARCH.
All you do is repeat the dogma without any argument. You are just chanting a mantra at this point.
evolutionisnttrue
evolutionisnttrue
evolutionisnttrue
evolutionisnttrue
evolutionisnttrue
evolutionisnttrue
evolutionisnttrue
evolutionisnttrue
Oooooooommmmmmmm.
You are a sort of Darwin version of the Chatty Cathy pull-string doll.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#103446 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a capitalist if you support Obama, who is doing everything in his power to eliminate it.
If it were up to the far left liberals, every person who works for a living or earns a profit and every company with over 15 employees would be either turned over to the government or eliminated through fines, penalties, and taxes. Liberals hate entrepreneurs, CEOs, executives, investors, wall street, builders, bankers, or anyone who works hard and invests time and money to build a viable business. Small business is the enemy. Corporations are just pure evil.
People who realize that the government knows better than they do on how to run their lives from cradle to grave are the good people that should be cared for by a central governmental control. That is why they deserve free gov't housing, free food, free healthcare, free cell phones, free transportation, free education, and free internet. We're almost there already. Obama only needs 4 more years to get it done.
Is this your idea of capitalism?
AHHHH.... the old paint them with a broad brush. Where did you get these "facts"? Faux News? The American "Thinker"? It certainly does not reflect reality.
Have you book your trip East for leaf peeping? Colors are starting to look nice here in CT.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103447 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that discrete examples do not constitute an intermediate or a transitional. You would need a continuous series to show that. You don't have that. You don't have what the theory demands.
And not only that, there is no identified mechanism for this to occur. Dogen says it's not genetic mutations but doesn't say what it is. Genetic mutations, after all, are copy errors and result in losses of information. So then, what is it? You've got to have some mechanism for an organism to change from one type to the other.
Furthermore, there is nothing in nature where information increases on its own or without some superior force acting on it. Complex things left on their own disintigrate; they don't get more complex. The mutations in all living things are steadily accumulating and is evident from different perspectives; from the overall population, from aging, from death and decomposition. This is also the law with all non-living things. There is no examples in nature where something non-complex left on its own becomes more complex. It is always the case where if man builds something with his intelligence, the thing starts out new and then gets old. Simple concept but true everywhere. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes, space shuttles, air conditioners, TVs, computers, refrigerators, stoves, cameras, etc. One day shiny brand new, the next headed for the landfill. Computer programs need constant debugging, anti-virus, patches, updates, and fixes until it is no longer supported and an entire new release is required. What software version is the human genome running on? It's still version 1.0 and is in extended support mode. It is accumulating bugs and errors that has been infected with numerous viruses. Each time the source code is copied or translated into machine language there is potential for errors. The source code is getting older and worse off, not newer and better off.
A simple snowflake refutes most of what you just posted. Also, you mistakenly assume evolution calls for things to get "better". It does not.

Again, define "information". Define "complex".

Creationists are fond of the 2d Law of Thermodynamics because using that kind of language makes them sound scientific. But they forget that it is a mathematical description of heat exchanges. It is not a refutation of evolution nor does it proscribe the development of a complicated system over time. No amount of misunderstanding of physics will allow you to refute the fact of evolution or prop up the idea of magical creation.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103448 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that discrete examples do not constitute an intermediate or a transitional.
How can you say that, when you've already stated that there can be no such thing as a transitional AND that you don't even have a template for what constitutes a transitional? You can't disqualify something as X when you don't have a definition of X.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103449 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're just being ridiculous.
So, you don't think that each generation is transitional? Explain please.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#103450 Oct 2, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple snowflake refutes most of what you just posted. Also, you mistakenly assume evolution calls for things to get "better". It does not.
Again, define "information". Define "complex".
Creationists are fond of the 2d Law of Thermodynamics because using that kind of language makes them sound scientific. But they forget that it is a mathematical description of heat exchanges. It is not a refutation of evolution nor does it proscribe the development of a complicated system over time. No amount of misunderstanding of physics will allow you to refute the fact of evolution or prop up the idea of magical creation.
Snowflake formation actually supports exactly what I am saying and is perfectly consisent with the laws of physics.

First of all it is formed by cooling which reduces entropy. That means the energy the water received was cooler and therefore had lower entropy than the water. The lower levels of entropy moved from the energy source to the system receiving it (water) and thus became more organized - it crystalized based on the water molecule's internal order into a 6-sided snowflake. Also, it doesn't last very long as it is quickly disolved into liquid water and water vapor as soon as it is exposed to the higher entropy heat. So thank you for that clarification.

And since Creationists invented the scientific method, I guess you could say they are scientific.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103451 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And since Creationists invented the scientific method, I guess you could say they are scientific.
Still can't come up with a good answer, huh, Urb.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103452 Oct 2, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
The "law" of large numbers may apply in various statistical calculations, like the probability of a "heads" result being approximately 50% after a billion coin tosses. Assigning a "probability" of life on other planets based solely on notions large numbers and presumed pre-conditions of "habitability" is speculative at best.
Speculation is another word for probability. We base our assumptions on what is most probable rather than on what is least probable. The sun will probably not burn out in the next week, though we won't know for certain about that until next week.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103453 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, changes in allele frequencies over time will produce variety. We see this regularly and routinely in all plants and animals. But they vary within the boundaries of their own species. This is the design so that the organism can adapt and cope in different environmenets without becoming extinct.
But for a completely different organism to emerge requires a mechanism. The only possible mechanism is genetic mutation. But genetic mutation is copying errors and always result in losses of information. Genetic mutation cause disease and death. What other evidence is there?
Fossils are historical and there are plenty of them that show species have not changed from the same creature that is living. The odd extinct ones have no series of before and after to compare with. There is no, for example, fish to reptile to mammal or bird that progresses all in a row. No 100% fish/0% reptile, 75% fish/25% reptile, 50% fish/50% reptile, 25% fish/75% reptile, 0% fish/100% reptile.
So since there is no evidence that one organism has never changed into a completely different organism; and since no genetic mutation has ever been observed to create some new or nascent organ or limb that would make it into a completely different creature; macroevolution never happened.
Furthermore, the laws of physics do not allow such increasing complexity to occur. Everything else in the universe is waxing old and cooling off and information and complexity breaking down. This is also happening to genomes in all living creatures as well as observered in accumulating mutations. Entropy moves from the energy source to the system receiving it. Since the energy received by the genome is less organized than the information in the genome, entropy must increase in the genome which is what we observer with accumulating mutations.
So, all mammals are still rodents?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103454 Oct 2, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why evolution is considered a "theory". It seems to make logical sense, but it's a safe bet that the theory is just a placeholder until something better comes along. Just like every other theory.
Of course, more will be known. Every field of science is a placeholder until the next discovery. But that's not to say that the ToE is any weaker than other scientific theories.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103455 Oct 2, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I partially agree. Because space and time are considered to be part of an inextricably linked continuum, time as we understand it did not exist before the Big Bang", therefore the question of "before", and possibly "after", is moot.
Yes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103456 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that discrete examples do not constitute an intermediate or a transitional. You would need a continuous series to show that. You don't have that. You don't have what the theory demands.

No, the theory does not demand that. What you are saying is that no matter what the evidence you will not believe evolution. Isn't that correct?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> And not only that, there is no identified mechanism for this to occur. Dogen says it's not genetic mutations but doesn't say what it is.

THis is a lie. I have given you the entire list before and hav linked you to the information countless times. You just don't know anything about evolution and THIS is PROOF of that.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Genetic mutations, after all, are copy errors and result in losses of information.

No genetic mutation =/= copy error. Certainly a mutation can be the cause of a copy error, but they are not synonyms.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> So then, what is it? You've got to have some mechanism for an organism to change from one type to the other.

Judas Priest:
evolution.berkeley.edu › Home › Evolution 101
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Furthermore, there is nothing in nature where information increases on its own or without some superior force acting on it.
"Complex things"

"information" is a red herring.
[Irrational rant deleted at this point]
I DARE YOU TO ACTUALLY LEARN ABOUT EVOLUTION.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#103457 Oct 2, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Still can't come up with a good answer, huh, Urb.
Wasn't trying. I don't answer to you. Especially when your questions are loaded and insincere.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103458 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Snowflake formation actually supports exactly what I am saying and is perfectly consisent with the laws of physics.
First of all it is formed by cooling which reduces entropy. That means the energy the water received was cooler and therefore had lower entropy than the water. The lower levels of entropy moved from the energy source to the system receiving it (water) and thus became more organized - it crystalized based on the water molecule's internal order into a 6-sided snowflake. Also, it doesn't last very long as it is quickly disolved into liquid water and water vapor as soon as it is exposed to the higher entropy heat. So thank you for that clarification.
And since Creationists invented the scientific method, I guess you could say they are scientific.
Creationists did not invent the scientific method. Creationism is a modern phenomenon that arose after Darwin in response to a changing world that scared the more ardent Christians. Christians of the 17th century when proper science was born can no more be labelled Creationists than Aristotle could be called a Moonie.

Regarding the snowflake, I was merely pointing out that complicated structures can and do emerge from nature. Creationism claims that the 2d Law won't allow this. Yet here we are, all of us walking around all grown up from being babies. We have increased our complexity over time.

Unless you want to redefine terms like complexity, order, and information to suit the very specific needs of refuting evolution based on physics while preserving God under the exact same conditions.

God is the ultimate defiler of the 2d Law, given the way Creationists use it.

Then again...he's magic.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103459 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that discrete examples do not constitute an intermediate or a transitional. You would need a continuous series to show that. You don't have that. You don't have what the theory demands.
And not only that, there is no identified mechanism for this to occur. Dogen says it's not genetic mutations but doesn't say what it is. Genetic mutations, after all, are copy errors and result in losses of information. So then, what is it? You've got to have some mechanism for an organism to change from one type to the other.
Furthermore, there is nothing in nature where information increases on its own or without some superior force acting on it. Complex things left on their own disintigrate; they don't get more complex. The mutations in all living things are steadily accumulating and is evident from different perspectives; from the overall population, from aging, from death and decomposition. This is also the law with all non-living things. There is no examples in nature where something non-complex left on its own becomes more complex. It is always the case where if man builds something with his intelligence, the thing starts out new and then gets old. Simple concept but true everywhere. Cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes, space shuttles, air conditioners, TVs, computers, refrigerators, stoves, cameras, etc. One day shiny brand new, the next headed for the landfill. Computer programs need constant debugging, anti-virus, patches, updates, and fixes until it is no longer supported and an entire new release is required. What software version is the human genome running on? It's still version 1.0 and is in extended support mode. It is accumulating bugs and errors that has been infected with numerous viruses. Each time the source code is copied or translated into machine language there is potential for errors. The source code is getting older and worse off, not newer and better off.
The theory does not demand generation by generation examples of species transition. The fossil record shows change over vast periods of time. And change over vast periods of time is precisely what you attempt to deny.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103460 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't trying. I don't answer to you. Especially when your questions are loaded and insincere.
Oh, boo-hoo. Poor baby.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#103461 Oct 2, 2012
Psychology wrote:
It's pretty bad when science makes the claim that man came from nothing, but then science can't even tell us where dirt came from.
So what's one more lie on your immortal soul, right jimmie?

Oh wait, that counts as two. Science never claimed Man came from nothing and Science has explained the formation of soil quite handily. In fact one of the common elementary school experiments, like making an electromagnet, growing a potato in the bottom part of a milk container, and forming crystals -- was creating soil capable of supporting plant life. It wasn't hard, as long as you gather up the right ingredients. Success was determined by how well a transplanted plant survived the school year.

It's been a long time since I remember doing that experiment, but it I remember right, it involved crushed rock of several sizes, including rock dust, wood shavings, saw dust, and water. Wasn't tough and worked well.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#103462 Oct 2, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Science has no evidence of where man or rocks or any of the elements came from and yet, science pretends there can be no god.
If there was not the first grain of sand, there could be no rocks, moron.
How foolish science proves to be.
So you are claiming rocks grow from grains of sand? You're kidding right?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103463 Oct 2, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not a capitalist if you support Obama, who is doing everything in his power to eliminate it.
If it were up to the far left liberals, every person who works for a living or earns a profit and every company with over 15 employees would be either turned over to the government or eliminated through fines, penalties, and taxes. Liberals hate entrepreneurs, CEOs, executives, investors, wall street, builders, bankers, or anyone who works hard and invests time and money to build a viable business. Small business is the enemy. Corporations are just pure evil.
People who realize that the government knows better than they do on how to run their lives from cradle to grave are the good people that should be cared for by a central governmental control. That is why they deserve free gov't housing, free food, free healthcare, free cell phones, free transportation, free education, and free internet. We're almost there already. Obama only needs 4 more years to get it done.
Is this your idea of capitalism?
Every business struggles for market share. In capitalism big business competes with and often eliminates small business. Big business often lobbies for regulations that make it more difficult for small businesses to survive. In the battle between big business and small business, both seek help from the government through regulations to gain advantage. While big business complains the most about regulaltions, they tend to generate most of the regulations...but want to keep what is most to their own advantage.

Pure capitalism does not work; and pure socialism does not work. What we need is a balance that serves the most amount of people. Right now Wall Street is doing very, very well at the expense of everyone else. So we need to level the playing field a bit.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 min Genesis Enigma 157,785
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 22 min Amused 24,892
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 35 min ChromiuMan 1,215
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 44 min Ian 513
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 45 min Ian 52,241
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr ChromiuMan 218,831
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web