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.

defender

London, KY

#110982 Dec 4, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>"Ancestry due to coming from both parents" tells us that each generation of each species is transitional. This is the vehicle of the branching of nested hierarchies.
Inside the spices yes but not transitional to completely different ones...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#110983 Dec 4, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Inside the spices yes but not transitional to completely different ones...
There is no hard border when it comes to evolution. That is a claim that creationists have never been able to defend.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110984 Dec 4, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
How true that is.
What? Wikipedia didn't say what you wanted it to say, so it was wrong?..:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#110985 Dec 4, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Florida keys coral reefs becoming dead zone, just like the mississippi river delta and beyond. The news claims the coral death is from carbon dioxide. I say it's all the fertilizer from all the farming and sugar cane plantations runoff.
You are probably right for coral around the US areas, but in the South Pacific it IS the carbon dioxide changing the acidity of the ocean.
LowellGuy

Haverhill, MA

#110986 Dec 4, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Inside the spices yes but not transitional to completely different ones...
Does nutmeg evolve into mace? This is important!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110987 Dec 4, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
In the case of the army, you can prove it by validating each of the military units but this is not possible with species because you don't know where all the direct ancestors came from.
So now you are making a false argument in favour of a stretched analogy.

1. The argument: "this is the only acceptable way to validate X claim" is immediately false unless you can show why the nested hierarchy that shows up in the fossil record and pseudogenes etc is not a valid way. Nobody has done that yet! They have made a limited case that SOME ERV's (a small proportion of the evidence that includes pseudogenes and ubiquitous proteins as well), have some function, therefore the molecular clock does not apply in those limited cases.

The genetic evidence remains a slam dunk validation of common ancestry, and you have absolutely no way to counter it apart from your point blank Orwellian tactic of insisting that 2+2=5. i.e. refusal to allow yourself to grasp the consequences of this evidence.

2. The weakness of your stretched analogy is that an Army can be arranged in a nested hierarchy, but does not have to be. Evolution by random mutation and natural selection MUST be. "Does it fail the nested hierarchy test" is not a falsification test for an Army, but it is for evolution, especially among complex animals and plants.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110988 Dec 4, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Which makes you a bigot. How can you not see that?
Kong wrote:
I feel YEC are willfully ignorant, and most wish to impose this ignorance on everyone else, despite every bit of evidence that counters their Bronze-age mentality.
I would guess you are not too sympathetic towards Fundamentalist Muslims. And you have often shown you despise anyone "left wing", or in the extreme, Communist. I bet you have a problem with Nazis too. How about pro-choice women? Are you going to try that meaningless bromide "Love the Sinner, hate the sin" to try to smooth over your vitriolic attacks on various groups in the past?

That would be hypocrisy!

By your definition, having such opinions makes you a bigot too.

So "bigot" just means anyone who for any reason dislikes the standards and mores and beliefs of another group? Then the word is now meaningless.

But its still a good victim word to sustain your persecution complex. Oh yeah, that's right. Kong forgot to mention "cultivated sense of persecution" as another good reason not to like many Fundie YECs.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110989 Dec 4, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I do believe the earth is about 10,000 years old based on the many lines of overwhelming evidence I have presented over the years.
Must have been some other forum.

All we have seen here in defense of YEC are crackpot unfalsifiable hypotheses, quote mining, deliberately ignoring the opposing arguments, misquoted and misunderstood science (2nd law, anyone?), and arguments from incredulity.

All that has overwhelmed me is the ability of some to convert whatever rational faculties they have remaining into a handmaiden to their infantile fears and hopes.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110990 Dec 4, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorance is bliss when one depends on wiki for truthful information...
Mike quoted Wiki:
"The Bible (from Koine Greek ta biblia "the books") is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity.
defender, answer: is that true or false?

And Mike quoted more Wiki:
"Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon."
defender, answer : is that true or false?

You slurred Mike and Wiki as being untruthful in this instance. Show it.

And while you are at it, let that mimicking poodle Psychology AKA Jimbo AKA the Carpet Whisperer AKA Ashley try to back you since he mindlessly agreed. I am sure you can use the help.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#110991 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Must have been some other forum.
All we have seen here in defense of YEC are crackpot unfalsifiable hypotheses, quote mining, deliberately ignoring the opposing arguments, misquoted and misunderstood science (2nd law, anyone?), and arguments from incredulity.
All that has overwhelmed me is the ability of some to convert whatever rational faculties they have remaining into a handmaiden to their infantile fears and hopes.
Absolute opposite is true. Yes, the the 2nd Law. Think about it. We see it play everywhere. Everywhere. But according to your theory, it is the only one rare exception? Come on Chimney boy, wise up. Nothing plus nobody equals everything? Yeah, right. There's no fine tuning or design...of course not. The water in the puddle fits the hole. LOL! Hello? You're the crackpot!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#110992 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I would guess you are not too sympathetic towards Fundamentalist Muslims. And you have often shown you despise anyone "left wing", or in the extreme, Communist. I bet you have a problem with Nazis too. How about pro-choice women? Are you going to try that meaningless bromide "Love the Sinner, hate the sin" to try to smooth over your vitriolic attacks on various groups in the past?
That would be hypocrisy!
By your definition, having such opinions makes you a bigot too.
So "bigot" just means anyone who for any reason dislikes the standards and mores and beliefs of another group? Then the word is now meaningless.
But its still a good victim word to sustain your persecution complex. Oh yeah, that's right. Kong forgot to mention "cultivated sense of persecution" as another good reason not to like many Fundie YECs.
So your argument is that if I'm a bigot towards murderers, that makes me hypocrite. Good job Chimney. Actually, Darwinists are murderers as they caused the holocaust (and would do it again if given the chance) and promote the killing of millions of innocent children still.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#110993 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you are making a false argument in favour of a stretched analogy.
1. The argument: "this is the only acceptable way to validate X claim" is immediately false unless you can show why the nested hierarchy that shows up in the fossil record and pseudogenes etc is not a valid way. Nobody has done that yet! They have made a limited case that SOME ERV's (a small proportion of the evidence that includes pseudogenes and ubiquitous proteins as well), have some function, therefore the molecular clock does not apply in those limited cases.
The genetic evidence remains a slam dunk validation of common ancestry, and you have absolutely no way to counter it apart from your point blank Orwellian tactic of insisting that 2+2=5. i.e. refusal to allow yourself to grasp the consequences of this evidence.
2. The weakness of your stretched analogy is that an Army can be arranged in a nested hierarchy, but does not have to be. Evolution by random mutation and natural selection MUST be. "Does it fail the nested hierarchy test" is not a falsification test for an Army, but it is for evolution, especially among complex animals and plants.
A soldier cannot just move to another company if he feels like. There is a strict chain of command. The nested hierarchy a an army can be validated and confirmed. But you could never prove a dino fossil was a direct ancestor of a feathered bird with an avian lung because first of all macroevolution never happened and second of all it's impossible even if it did. You got nothing.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110994 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolute opposite is true. Yes, the the 2nd Law. Think about it. We see it play everywhere. Everywhere. But according to your theory, it is the only one rare exception? Come on Chimney boy, wise up. Nothing plus nobody equals everything? Yeah, right. There's no fine tuning or design...of course not. The water in the puddle fits the hole. LOL! Hello? You're the crackpot!
No, you only see your erroneous caricature of the 2nd law violated.

Tell me, is an egg about to hatch, with a live chick inside it fully developed, more or less complex than an egg at the moment of fertilization? And which of these two is in a higher entropy state according to the second law, the just fertilised egg, or the about to hatch egg?

If you can answer that correctly, your false understanding of the second law might be on the mend.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110995 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So your argument is that if I'm a bigot towards murderers, that makes me hypocrite. Good job Chimney. Actually, Darwinists are murderers as they caused the holocaust (and would do it again if given the chance) and promote the killing of millions of innocent children still.
No, my argument is that if you say you dislike a group for some reason, e.g lefties, then you are being just as "bigoted" as you claim Kong is being. He stated exactly what he did not like about Fundie YECs as a group. That is not bigotry, any more than you saying what you don't like about Democrats.

Nice try on the Darwinists caused the holocaust baloney. Wont wash with anyone intelligent. Especially as we can trace virulent German anti-semitism to that paragon of Protestant Christianity, Martin Luther, and before. Darwinists did not invent the blood libel, and Nazis were not Darwinists either. Hitler did not discriminate in exploiting science, folklore, or religion to achieve and justify his ends. Time you gave up on this cliched old canard, before we have to resort to calling you a bare faced liar.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#110996 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no hard border when it comes to evolution. That is a claim that creationists have never been able to defend.
BS! Dog kind. Cat kind. E.coli after 50,000 generations still 100% E.coli. The living fossil record. Wide genetic variation within the Created kind. Look at the range of everything from HIV virus (which is really not a complete living species) and the range of humans. Humans range from under 4 feet to over 7 feet and come in all shapes and sizes. Nothing has ever "macro-evolved" into some different kind.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#110997 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you only see your erroneous caricature of the 2nd law violated.
Tell me, is an egg about to hatch, with a live chick inside it fully developed, more or less complex than an egg at the moment of fertilization? And which of these two is in a higher entropy state according to the second law, the just fertilised egg, or the about to hatch egg?
If you can answer that correctly, your false understanding of the second law might be on the mend.
We've been over this several times. The chick and the egg are still alive because and due to the information in the DNA which is deteriorating slowly due to mutations. THis is the same argument about growth and development and is bogus. Wise up already.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110998 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
A soldier cannot just move to another company if he feels like. There is a strict chain of command. The nested hierarchy a an army can be validated and confirmed. But you could never prove a dino fossil was a direct ancestor of a feathered bird with an avian lung because first of all macroevolution never happened and second of all it's impossible even if it did. You got nothing.
Of course a soldier can move or be transferred to another company. Don't you think you are stretching your analogy past its abused by date?

So, one creationist vehemently argues that archaeopteryx was really just a bird, while another argues just as vehemently that it was really a therapod dinosaur.

Its hugely funny to see you guys tripping over yourselves PROVING the actual point! There is no magic line, there IS a convergence in structure going back in time to the point where even creationists cannot agree which of their "eternally separate" categories an intermediate should be put into. That says it all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#110999 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
BS! Dog kind. Cat kind. E.coli after 50,000 generations still 100% E.coli. The living fossil record. Wide genetic variation within the Created kind. Look at the range of everything from HIV virus (which is really not a complete living species) and the range of humans. Humans range from under 4 feet to over 7 feet and come in all shapes and sizes. Nothing has ever "macro-evolved" into some different kind.
You don't get to call BS when you are using pure bullshit.

Creationists have no working definition of "kinds". And yes, we have observed "macro evolution". And look, there is another bullshit creatard term, there is no such thing as "macro evolution" it is all merely evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111000 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
BS! Dog kind. Cat kind. E.coli after 50,000 generations still 100% E.coli. The living fossil record. Wide genetic variation within the Created kind. Look at the range of everything from HIV virus (which is really not a complete living species) and the range of humans. Humans range from under 4 feet to over 7 feet and come in all shapes and sizes. Nothing has ever "macro-evolved" into some different kind.
If you go back far enough in the fossil record, there are no dogs and no cats. Just a creature that has cat like and dog like characteristics, called a Miacid.

Remember:

1. divergence from modern forms as we go back in time.
2. convergence with closely related forms as we go back in time.

"The superfamily Miacoidea can be divided into two families: the Miacidae and the Viverravidae. The Miacidae evolved into the caniforms (dogs, bear-dogs, bears, raccoons and weasels), while the Viverravidae evolved into the feliforms (cats, hyaenas and mongooses)."

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action...

Question Mr Creationist:

1. Why are there no cats and dogs (or bears, hyenas, raccoons, mongooses) in strata dated at more than 30 million years? Even ignoring our dating, why none in the lower strata?

2. Why ARE there creatures that conform to evolution's view of what a common ancestor to this large group would look like? Where did it go?

3. Why does even this critter, the miacid, show links to even earlier placental mammals etc. Where did they go?

4. Why don't we see any dogs before miacids in the strata?

Too funny.
Mugwump

Glasgow, UK

#111001 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So your argument is that if I'm a bigot towards murderers, that makes me hypocrite. Good job Chimney. Actually, Darwinists are murderers as they caused the holocaust (and would do it again if given the chance) and promote the killing of millions of innocent children still.
And ToE had WHAT to do with abortion legalslation exactly ?

And Darwinists caused the holocaust ?

You ain't making stuff up again are you?

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 2 min replaytime 1,914
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 min replaytime 30,008
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 min Subduction Zone 69,612
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 16 min pshun2404 80
was te mythical eve a clone? 3 hr Paul Scott 1
I came from a rib not a creek. 3 hr Paul Scott 24
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr Paul Scott 3,763
More from around the web