Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103931 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is that supposed to mean? You're just going to mock him simply because he doesn't agree with your beliefs? Cuozzo is a brilliant, successful doctor, author, and paleontology researcher.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bio...
No. Because he doesn't agree with the consensus of scientists who are experts on the subject. My 'beliefs' are immaterial.

And Answers in Genesis is the weakest possible support to offer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103932 Oct 8, 2012
Shakespeare wrote:
Evolution shouldn't be taught ,Period !! It has absolutely no solid foundation but is based on a few fragments of "speculation"
Creation teachings on the other hand is based on what we see.
Thanks, I needed to start off the day with a good laugh.

Yes, we never see evolution. We don't see it in the lab, we don't see it in the field, we don't see it in the fossil record. Yet we see god walking down the street every day going -poof- daisy,-poof- puppy,-poof- deadly ebola virus,-POOOOF- huge Blue Whale, God sits down and pants for a few seconds and then starts walking and poofing again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103933 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Haldane (1957) calculated that it would take 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. This is called Haldane's dilemma because it is too slow for any macroevolution to be feasible. At this rate you can only fix 1,000 unlinked nucleotide mutations in 6 million years, the supposed time humans diverged from chimps.
This simple fact was confirmed by Crow and Kimura (1970) and ReMine (1993,2005). This is less information than is in this comment (if it were 333 characters long). There is no way possible for this tiny amount of information to turn an ape into a human. And this is only for independent, unlinked mutations. Selection for 1,000 specific and adjancent mutations could not arise in 6 billion years. And the more nucleotides under selection, the slower the progress.
We know that man and chimp differ by about 150 million nucleotide positions due to at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). Therefore if man evolved from ape, there must have been 20 million nucleotide fixations. But natural selection could only account for 1,000, that means all the rest must have been fixed by genetic drift. That's 19,999,000 deleterious mutations and 1,000 beneficial ones, which of course would obviously have killed us.
This is based on Sanford's Genetic Entropy, Pages 128-130.

Haldane's Dilemma refers to a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution, first calculated by J. B. S. Haldane in 1957, and clarified further by later commentators. Creationists, and proponents of intelligent design in particular, claim it remains unresolved. Contrary to creationist claims, Haldane's dilemma is of no importance in the evolutionary genetics literature. Today, Haldane's Dilemma is raised mostly by creationists opposed to evolution, who claim it is evidence against large-scale evolution, and a supposed example of negligence on the part of the scientific community.

Were do you dredge up these old tired tidbits from yesteryear?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dile...

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. The creationist claim is based on further errors and invalid assumptions.

Game, set, match, tennis!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103934 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh noes!! Urban Cowflop has been learning debating techniques from forreal. Oh well I guess there is only one way to beat this point.
Ha! You are an even Biggier Dummy LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
Can't answer the question, can you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103935 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's put it this way. The ones who still believe in the neo-Darwinian fairy tale have either not bothered to carefully think it through, or are just incapable or unwilling to do so, which is either dishonesty or incompetence or both. There are probably many closet dissenters of which it would behoove them not to reveal their true feelings for fear of castigation. Then there are the multitudes of minions who are clueless about science but love the idea so lovingly drink the koolaid and swallow the pablum eagerly in ignorant bliss. And then there might be a few honest but stubborn and short-sighted scientists out there that accept the theory of evolution regarding origins and macroevolution must be true against all the odds, logic, facts, and evidence against it, but trully believes it is only matter of time before they find the answers. Then there are the lucky ones that not only realize it wrong but also had the courage to break the chains of Darwinian slavery and discover the true science of Creation.

You rationalize quite the invisible empire.

The fact is that evolution is proven to be true.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the environment.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the lab.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the genome.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the fossil record.
The fact is that evolution has been tested.
The fact is that evolution studies have been replicated.
The fact is that evolution is falsifiable but has never been falsified.
The fact is that evolution make predictions that are found to be true.
The fact is that evolution is supported by an array of different scientific fields.
The fact is that evolution is supported by millions of scientists.
The fact is that evolution is taught at nearly all major Christian Universities.
The fact is that evolution is based on the facts.

It is also a fact that creationism is NOT science.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT observable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT testable.
It is also a fact that creationism does not make predictions.
It is also a fact that creationism is not replicable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT falsifiable.
........

Epic crush that you never been able to address with EVIDENCE.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103936 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evotarded propaganda doesn't count as evidence.

You lose. Pick your poison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dile...

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/haldanes-dil...

http://chimerasthebooks.blogspot.com/2011/11/...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...


Haldane was refuted by Haldane!!!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103937 Oct 8, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Because he doesn't agree with the consensus of scientists who are experts on the subject. My 'beliefs' are immaterial.
And Answers in Genesis is the weakest possible support to offer.
So you compound your error with another error. What's next? When does his actual work count? You won't even consider any information from a source unless it is sanctioned by the gatekeepers of your affinity group? It's evolution-only and no other ideas allowed, isn't that right? Alternatives are not only not allowed, they are mocked and ridiculed. That is not science, that's ideology.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103938 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't answer the question, can you?
I could look up who we descended from. So, yes, if I cared to i could answer the question. You seemed to think you were making some sort of point, instead you sounded like the current winner of the idiot race on Topix.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103939 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
What did apes evolve from? And what did that evolve from? And that? And that? And that? Ha ha ha! Dummies!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryopithecus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_evolutio...

All moot however, as we already know evolution is a fact.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103940 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Rubbish. Come up with some actual research and we'll talk.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103941 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You rationalize quite the invisible empire.
The fact is that evolution is proven to be true.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the environment.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the lab.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the genome.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the fossil record.
The fact is that evolution has been tested.
The fact is that evolution studies have been replicated.
The fact is that evolution is falsifiable but has never been falsified.
The fact is that evolution make predictions that are found to be true.
The fact is that evolution is supported by an array of different scientific fields.
The fact is that evolution is supported by millions of scientists.
The fact is that evolution is taught at nearly all major Christian Universities.
The fact is that evolution is based on the facts.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT science.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT observable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT testable.
It is also a fact that creationism does not make predictions.
It is also a fact that creationism is not replicable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT falsifiable.
........
Epic crush that you never been able to address with EVIDENCE.
Ow! Clear, concise and true. It needs to be reposted several times here.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103942 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Isn't it telling that no ape can speak a single word of language? And that's after a lifetime of learning with humans? But parrots can!

They don't have the voice box to do more than grunt. They can learn sign language, however and develop unique combinations of words and even make up signs they teach to their human trainer.

They still can't have a meaningful discussion of Plato's allegory of the cave, but most humans can't either.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103943 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
It's all just made up to fit the theory. There isn't any evidence. You've been brainwashed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103944 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No really, it makes sense. The older you get, the more you start looking like like a neanderthal. Can you imagine what we'd look like if we lived hundreds of years? This guy does brilliant research and you don't appreciate it because it threatens your ideology. Pity. Stay stupid.

He is not a scientist and not a researcher. He is a dentist an published in a creationist journal.

That about says it all.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103945 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I could look up who we descended from. So, yes, if I cared to i could answer the question. You seemed to think you were making some sort of point, instead you sounded like the current winner of the idiot race on Topix.
So you don't know? You have to look it up? Ha ha ha! And this is YOUR beloved ideology! If you're looking for a real winner of the idiot race, just look in the mirror.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103946 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is that supposed to mean? You're just going to mock him simply because he doesn't agree with your beliefs? Cuozzo is a brilliant, successful doctor, author, and paleontology researcher.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bio...

Quite a claim. You have any evidence of that? Show us his peer review papers. All I came up with is a creotard reference.

No real science.
Not a real scientist.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103947 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you compound your error with another error. What's next? When does his actual work count? You won't even consider any information from a source unless it is sanctioned by the gatekeepers of your affinity group? It's evolution-only and no other ideas allowed, isn't that right? Alternatives are not only not allowed, they are mocked and ridiculed. That is not science, that's ideology.
And that is EXACTLY what Answers in Genesis is. You have to buy into their bullshit because you have no choice.

On the road for a bit. I'll catch up with your whining later...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103948 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't answer the question, can you?

What is stopping you from looking it up yourself. Google is really quick. I gave you a couple of references a few posts back. Enough to get you started.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103949 Oct 8, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And that is EXACTLY what Answers in Genesis is. You have to buy into their bullshit because you have no choice.
On the road for a bit. I'll catch up with your whining later...
More excuses...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103950 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you compound your error with another error. What's next? When does his actual work count? You won't even consider any information from a source unless it is sanctioned by the gatekeepers of your affinity group? It's evolution-only and no other ideas allowed, isn't that right? Alternatives are not only not allowed, they are mocked and ridiculed. That is not science, that's ideology.

You get real defensive when your sources are exposed for what they are. Why can't you find real professional scientists (that have not been discredited) to support your positions?

Amateurs have done good research in the past and still do some in a few fields (most new comets are discovered by amateurs). But this was not even published in a (professional) peer review journal. It was published in a rag that will publish nearly anything.

Further the research is in a vacuum. That would be bad even for a professional scientist who needs to show his/her research in context of what is already discovered and known.

This is another instance where you would not have been so easily fooled by something like this if you really understood the scientific method.


MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Because he doesn't agree with the consensus of scientists who are experts on the subject. My 'beliefs' are immaterial.
And Answers in Genesis is the weakest possible support to offer.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min TurkanaBoy 132,424
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 499
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 3 hr Brian_G 13,616
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 5 hr Zach 4
How would creationists explain... 6 hr TurkanaBoy 314
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr positronium 2,943
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web