Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,462

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

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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103951 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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 don't pretend to know everything Urb, like you do. That quickly leads to being proved that you are a fool. But I know how to find the answer to your question. An idiot is one who not only can't learn, but won't learn. Hey, that sounds like you!
Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#103952 Oct 8, 2012
Should our ambassador in Benghazi be dead?
Obama-Liar-Benghazi-Treason-

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103953 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish. Come up with some actual research and we'll talk.


That would be your responsibility, but I am a natural helper:

Haldane, J.B.S., "The Cost of Natural Selection", J. Genet. 55:511-524, 1957.

Van Valen, Leigh, "Haldane’s Dilemma, evolutionary rates, and heterosis", Amer. Nat. 47:185-190, 1963.

Grant, Verne & Flake, Robert, "Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma", Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 71(10): 3863–3865, Oct. 1974.

Nunney, Leonard, "The cost of natural selection revisited", Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185-194, 2003.(This paper describes computer simulations of small populations with variations in mutation rate and other factors, and produces results that are dramatically different than Haldane's low substitution limit except in certain limited situations).

Mutation rates in globin genes: the genetic load and Haldane's dilemma.

Salser W, Isaacson JS.
Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol. 1976;19:205-20.

'Haldane's dilemma' and the rate of evolution. Moran PA.
Ann Hum Genet. 1970 Jan;33(3):245-9.

"CB121: Haldane's Dilemma". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-11-03.

"Haldane's dilemma" and the rate of natural selection. O'Donald P.
Nature. 1969 Mar 1;221(5183):815-7.

"Haldane's dilemma" and the rate of evolution. Smith JM.
Nature. 1968 Sep 14;219(5159):1114-6.

Robert Williams. "Haldane's Dilemma". Retrieved 2008-11-03.

Ian Musgrave. "The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 1999". Retrieved 2008-11-03.

Merry Christmas.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103954 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all just made up to fit the theory. There isn't any evidence. You've been brainwashed.

Which theory? Which field of science? There are references from biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, anthropology, archeology, geology,....

That conspiracy theory of yours just gets bigger and bigger. Is the government in on it? There are plenty of .gov web sites that talk about evolution and evolutionary biology and a lot of grant money gets paid out by the U.S. government to fund research in the area of evolution.

Are all of the Christian universities in on it? My niece goes to a southern baptist university in Georgia and is learning evolution in her biology class. Pick a major, accredited Christian university and I bet they teach evolution.

There are scientists from all over the world and from every walk of life that acknowledge evolution. Are they all in on it? They come from every political background. They come from every religion. They come from every financial background. How did they get so indoctrinated AND how is it that, all fields of science being related, so many fields of science have found supporting evidence for it?

Is the Illuminati in on it?
The KKK?
Russia?

All you have said is just made up to fit the theology. There isn't any evidence. You've been brainwashed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103955 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.

Pot calls kettle black, story at 11.

You, however, don't have anything to look up. Notice you don't go to science pages but to fundy liar pages? 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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103956 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be your responsibility, but I am a natural helper:
Haldane, J.B.S., "The Cost of Natural Selection", J. Genet. 55:511-524, 1957.
Van Valen, Leigh, "Haldane’s Dilemma, evolutionary rates, and heterosis", Amer. Nat. 47:185-190, 1963.
Grant, Verne & Flake, Robert, "Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma", Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 71(10): 3863–3865, Oct. 1974.
Nunney, Leonard, "The cost of natural selection revisited", Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185-194, 2003.(This paper describes computer simulations of small populations with variations in mutation rate and other factors, and produces results that are dramatically different than Haldane's low substitution limit except in certain limited situations).
Mutation rates in globin genes: the genetic load and Haldane's dilemma.
Salser W, Isaacson JS.
Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol. 1976;19:205-20.
'Haldane's dilemma' and the rate of evolution. Moran PA.
Ann Hum Genet. 1970 Jan;33(3):245-9.
"CB121: Haldane's Dilemma". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2008-11-03.
"Haldane's dilemma" and the rate of natural selection. O'Donald P.
Nature. 1969 Mar 1;221(5183):815-7.
"Haldane's dilemma" and the rate of evolution. Smith JM.
Nature. 1968 Sep 14;219(5159):1114-6.
Robert Williams. "Haldane's Dilemma". Retrieved 2008-11-03.
Ian Musgrave. "The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: September 1999". Retrieved 2008-11-03.
Merry Christmas.
More of a natural con-artist. The research articles support Haldane and the rest are just Talkorigins propaganda nonsense. Talkorigins post of the month? Really?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103957 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Which theory? Which field of science? There are references from biology, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, anthropology, archeology, geology,....
That conspiracy theory of yours just gets bigger and bigger. Is the government in on it? There are plenty of .gov web sites that talk about evolution and evolutionary biology and a lot of grant money gets paid out by the U.S. government to fund research in the area of evolution.
Are all of the Christian universities in on it? My niece goes to a southern baptist university in Georgia and is learning evolution in her biology class. Pick a major, accredited Christian university and I bet they teach evolution.
There are scientists from all over the world and from every walk of life that acknowledge evolution. Are they all in on it? They come from every political background. They come from every religion. They come from every financial background. How did they get so indoctrinated AND how is it that, all fields of science being related, so many fields of science have found supporting evidence for it?
Is the Illuminati in on it?
The KKK?
Russia?
All you have said is just made up to fit the theology. There isn't any evidence. You've been brainwashed.
And they be wrong.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103958 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't pretend to know everything Urb, like you do.
Where did I claim that liar?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103959 Oct 8, 2012
Urb, you keep complaining that Talk Rational is propaganda. If that was the case you should be able to find an article of theirs that you are able to refute.

Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is. Put some work into refuting the article of your choice.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103960 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Oh, you mean you actually know about Google? I impressed!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#103961 Oct 8, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Urb, you keep complaining that Talk Rational is propaganda. If that was the case you should be able to find an article of theirs that you are able to refute.
Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is. Put some work into refuting the article of your choice.
It's garbage.
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#103962 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And they be wrong.
Well, unlike YOUR "science", the VAST majority of REAL scientist and the VAST majority of non-"fundie xristian creotards" who are aware of it, accept that the logic, reasoning, scientific research and empirical evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution are sound.

What you and your "fundie xristian creotard" cult think about it is irrelevant.

Hopefully, your cult will be extinct in a few more years.

http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/...

"Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers”(35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in”(29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science”(25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries."

Obviously, this evangelical xristian anti-science problem exists mostly here in the US, but it does seem that your evangelical xristian young people aren't as bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE blind as you are.
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#103963 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did I claim that liar?
It's part of the whole "literal and inerrant Bible is revealed knowledge, so anything we make up about it must be right" thing you "fundie xristian creotards" have going.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103964 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
More of a natural con-artist. The research articles support Haldane and the rest are just Talkorigins propaganda nonsense. Talkorigins post of the month? Really?

No, they do not support Haldane's original contention (which even he backed away from). If you are saying this I will call you a liar and begin the process of quoting from the articles.

"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."

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

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4...

http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185....

Clearly selection IS limited, but not a cost that prevents evolution of the species.

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) 10 min MikeF 117,513
Darwin on the rocks 53 min The Dude 192
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 56 min MikeF 137,390
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 13 hr Bluenose 659
Humans DID evolve from apes! 17 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 18 hr John K 3
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" Wed The Dude 14

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE