Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111021 Dec 5, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
How true that is.
At least wiki is based on evidence. Unlike what you say, which is based solely upon your own baseless assertions and psychological malfunctions.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111022 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Social Darwinism's worst manifestations were artificial selection (sterilization and extermination) of human beings as happened at Auschwitz. You can see this presented in the Smithsonian Holocaust Museum.
But, Darwin had nothing to do with any of that, and Darwin's theory had nothing to do with that. It's a perversion of a term coined by Darwin that was used as a pseudonym for a program of torture and murder. By the way, remind us all what religion Hitler was, and whether the writings of Martin Luther in any way influenced German anti-semitism.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111023 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Yet they find a 47 million year old cat, study it in secret for two years name it Ida then try to pass it off as the great missing link....
2) How do you know the Miacidae didn't die out altogether and modern day cats and dogs didn't evolve from slugs or ancient crawfish?... Why not? In this goofy theory anything goes...
Cats are primates? Fascinating. Tell us more of this "science."

Also, DNA and ERVs are a major way of determining lineage. Unless you're saying DNA paternity tests don't work...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111024 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, genetic entropy IS bogus. It's about time you admitted it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111025 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Maybe there is some and it's ignored?
Ah, right...the global conspiracy theory. That's probably it.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
2. Those animals don't normally live on the ocean floor.
But, we should find them all in the same stratum, because they're all of similar mobility.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
3. If a flood were coming, they would head for higher ground.
But, we don't find evidence that supports this. And, the flood STILL doesn't explain shells INSIDE mountaintops (not ON mountaintops...do you understand the difference between inside and on?).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
4. I wouldn't expect them to be found with trilobites.
Let me get this straight: you'd expect the more mobile animals to go to higher ground, but you wouldn't expect to find them in the same stratum as mollusks, which we find buried inside mountaintops. Mountains ARE higher ground, which is where we should expect to find the most mobile animals (according to you), and which is exactly where we shouldn't expect to find mollusk fossils. Yet, we find mollusk fossils INSIDE mountaintops, and we don't find any of the more mobile animal fossils in (or on) mountaintops. How do you expect the exact opposite of what we find, and then declare yourself the victor? Please, explain.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111026 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Nazi scientists embraced Darwinism as promoted in Germany and applied those racist principles. There is no other explanation. The US Holocaust Museum tell this story of scientists measuring racial features and those with deficiencies, i.e, anything that deviated from German purity to sterilize and murder because of Darwinism and natural selection and survival of the fittest. This was all mixed up with religious hatred of the Jews and Christians and whether you were ugly or disabled or sick or anything significantly deviating from the pure race. Sterilized and murdered. It is a fact Mr. Holocaust denier-wackjob.
Why burn Darwin's books when they were the alleged centerpiece of the Nazi strategy? If anything, you'd think they'd want it spread further! Sorry, but your story doesn't make any sense. You don't hide the information you're using to justify your actions (unless it actually undermines them, such as by claiming that we're all equally human, which contradicted the "Jews aren't fully human" claims made by the Nazi party). Now, do you have something sensible to say, or are you going to continue your lies? As though we don't already know the answer...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111027 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm no it's a claim evolutionist have never proven... Ever...
Oh, so there IS a hard border to evolution. Great. Just demonstrate this, and claim your Nobel Prize.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111028 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
You try sooo hard to be funny... But only end up as pathetic ....
Hey, I'm not the one talking about evolution of spices.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111029 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.
What "kind" is a panda? What about a lemur? Sea urchin? Porcupine? Mudskipper? Archaeopteryx? Ostrich? Hummingbird? Megatherium?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111030 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Yet they find a 47 million year old cat, study it in secret for two years name it Ida then try to pass it off as the great missing link....
2) How do you know the Miacidae didn't die out altogether and modern day cats and dogs didn't evolve from slugs or ancient crawfish?... Why not? In this goofy theory anything goes...
No cat had characteristics anything like Ida. On the other hand, primates do.

Nope, cats evolving from crawfish would violate the nested hierarchy. What "goes" in evolution is tightly constrained by the nested hierarchy. Unlike the unconstrained imaginations of creation fantasists.

You are talking pure Shyt. Enough said.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#111031 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Inside the spices yes but not transitional to completely different ones...
It's microevolution all the way. Homo Erectus is an ancestor of Homo Sapiens. Sapiens is the same genre as Erectus, but new species. There's no need to even use the term "macro" because evolution does not take giant steps from one generation to the next. It's all micro, with mutations plus genetic drift.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111032 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No cat had characteristics anything like Ida. On the other hand, primates do.
Nope, cats evolving from crawfish would violate the nested hierarchy. What "goes" in evolution is tightly constrained by the nested hierarchy. Unlike the unconstrained imaginations of creation fantasists.
You are talking pure Shyt. Enough said.
Did you know a lion can mate with tiger or cheetah or a cougar or a puma or a panther? Ligors and tions, etc. Similarly, wolves can mate with coyotes or beagles or german shepherds.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111033 Dec 5, 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.

Rational for your belief?
Tyler Across the Galaxy

Battle Creek, MI

#111034 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know a lion can mate with tiger or cheetah or a cougar or a puma or a panther? Ligors and tions, etc. Similarly, wolves can mate with coyotes or beagles or german shepherds.
Did you know that fertile offspring between all of these are vanishingly rare?

Were you aware that no cross-species hybrid, ever, in the history of the world, has been observed to produce fertile offspring?

Did you know that ligers, mules, etc. don't even have taxonomic designations because their lineage is not capable of surviving more than a generation?

I'm rather curious what kind of point you're trying to make, because I can't seem to find any. I hope you weren't trying to tell us that the tree of life is totally unconstrained and free to mix and match critters as whimsy dictates, because you must surely see where the flaw in that is when such hybrids--the result of species that have diverged only recently--are incapable of contributing to the gene pool.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#111035 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Yet they find a 47 million year old cat, study it in secret for two years name it Ida then try to pass it off as the great missing link....
2) How do you know the Miacidae didn't die out altogether and modern day cats and dogs didn't evolve from slugs or ancient crawfish?... Why not? In this goofy theory anything goes...
(1) The "missing link" is an idea that has been out of date for a very long time. Only creationists hang on to the term. Why do you do this?

(2) There's no reason to propose a different ancestory for the Miacidae. If modern cats and dogs had some characteristics associated with slugs or ancient crawfish, then it would be reasonable to make that connection, but of course that connection cannot be made. You have to follow the evidence.

The ToE recognizes that successful adaptations tend to be conserved and are passed on to future generations, and are modified in one form or another across species and genre. So that is why we can see common ancestry from fish to humans in parts of the structure.(vertabrate, and bones of the arm--one bone in the upper arm, followed by two bones, followed by five bones.)

In previous branches we can identify what DID happen, but in future branches you might have a point in saying that "anything goes" because there's no way to determine what modifications will follow, other than that those modifications will be built upon previous modifications.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111036 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know a lion can mate with tiger or cheetah or a cougar or a puma or a panther? Ligors and tions, etc. Similarly, wolves can mate with coyotes or beagles or german shepherds.

It is interesting you would draw attention to this as it is what is fully expected by evolution but is inexplicable to creationism. Why would God make different species that are able to produce. And why lion and tigers and not lions and great white sharks? Or why not a puma and a wolf? Evolution explains it, and explained it even before genetics was known.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111037 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Social Darwinism's worst manifestations were artificial selection (sterilization and extermination) of human beings as happened at Auschwitz. You can see this presented in the Smithsonian Holocaust Museum.

You seem confused about history. The people killed at Auschwitz were killed by Nazi Germans. Nazi Germans were not "social darwinist's", they were the people who burned darwin's books.

Your revisionist history will not play to anyone but the very gullible.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111038 Dec 5, 2012
Tyler Across the Galaxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you know that fertile offspring between all of these are vanishingly rare?
Were you aware that no cross-species hybrid, ever, in the history of the world, has been observed to produce fertile offspring?
Did you know that ligers, mules, etc. don't even have taxonomic designations because their lineage is not capable of surviving more than a generation?
I'm rather curious what kind of point you're trying to make, because I can't seem to find any. I hope you weren't trying to tell us that the tree of life is totally unconstrained and free to mix and match critters as whimsy dictates, because you must surely see where the flaw in that is when such hybrids--the result of species that have diverged only recently--are incapable of contributing to the gene pool.
Not true. There is documented cases of offspring from tions and tigers and also ligers and lions. They are importing mountain lions and cougars into the Everglades to help the Florida Panther rebound from genetic meltdown.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#111039 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The Nazi scientists embraced Darwinism as promoted in Germany and applied those racist principles. There is no other explanation. The US Holocaust Museum tell this story of scientists measuring racial features and those with deficiencies, i.e, anything that deviated from German purity to sterilize and murder because of Darwinism and natural selection and survival of the fittest. This was all mixed up with religious hatred of the Jews and Christians and whether you were ugly or disabled or sick or anything significantly deviating from the pure race. Sterilized and murdered. It is a fact Mr. Holocaust denier-wackjob.
http://speccoll.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/...

From the list in above link:

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H&#65533;ckel)."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#111040 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Yet they find a 47 million year old cat, study it in secret for two years name it Ida then try to pass it off as the great missing link....
2) How do you know the Miacidae didn't die out altogether and modern day cats and dogs didn't evolve from slugs or ancient crawfish?... Why not? In this goofy theory anything goes...

You are very misinformed. IDA was not a cat. It was the forerunner of modern mammals. The lineage of major taxonomic groups is well known and based on modern genetics as much or more than the fossil record. The fact that genetics and the fossil record agree completely should be a concern to you and other reality deniers.

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) 2 min One way or another 48,568
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min Aura Mytha 216,723
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 42 min marksman11 154,697
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 13 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web