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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111003 Dec 5, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You know, they can have "macroevolution", I do see the point.

Directly observable adaptation does not prove large scale evolution in itself, merely shows that such a thing might be possible.

What really demonstrate evolution are the fossil and genetic evidence.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111004 Dec 5, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorance is bliss when one depends on wiki for truthful information...
Schmuck.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

And if you took the time to notice (which you are probably too freaking lazy to do) you would have noticed the extensive source references at the bottom of each Wiki article.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111005 Dec 5, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
How true that is.
Wrong again, village idiot. See my last post.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111006 Dec 5, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Schmuck.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
And if you took the time to notice (which you are probably too freaking lazy to do) you would have noticed the extensive source references at the bottom of each Wiki article.
And that article is 7 years old. If anything Wikipedia is more accurate today than it was then.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111007 Dec 5, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
And Darwinists caused the holocaust ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_...

You'll note Darwin was on the list.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111008 Dec 5, 2012
Ah! Here it is. The source documents. And Darwin *IS* on the list.

http://speccoll.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/...

You have to be a real dope to not realize the difference between natural selection and artificial selection.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111009 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
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?
1. Maybe there is some and it's ignored?

2. Those animals don't normally live on the ocean floor.

3. If a flood were coming, they would head for higher ground.

4. I wouldn't expect them to be found with trilobites.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111010 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111011 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.
I've already posted the documentation as to why you are wrong.
defender

London, KY

#111012 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.
Umm no it's a claim evolutionist have never proven... Ever...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111013 Dec 5, 2012
I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding my position on social darwinism and the holocaust. The German scientist did measure prisoners "fitness" with their laboratory instruments and sterilize and kill them by the millions; however, this was pseudoscience. It was social darwinism, or racism masquarading as science.

Just consider this when you are so quick to criticize me for judging other "Christians" who reject the word of God. Christians who reject Jesus Christ and His Word are about as legitimate as the German "scientist" in lab coats at Auschwitz.
defender

London, KY

#111014 Dec 5, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>Does nutmeg evolve into mace? This is important!
You try sooo hard to be funny... But only end up as pathetic ....

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111015 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Maybe there is some and it's ignored?
Fat chance. Controversial and exciting finds would be trumpeted.
2. Those animals don't normally live on the ocean floor.
No, that is too simplistic. Miacids did not live on the ocean floor, do share many characteristics found in later carnivores, more closely resembled the Fossa mentioned above...and there are no cat or dog fossils in those strata. There is fossil convergence with Miacids as we go back from the present to the 35 m year old strata. Funny that.
3. If a flood were coming, they would head for higher ground.
Even you know this is one of the most feeble and senseless of the creationist defenses. Did the modern grasses (a relatively recent form of life) run with them, leaving the slower ferns and mosses behind?
4. I wouldn't expect them to be found with trilobites.
Neither would I. Though perhaps one might have expected to see the odd sardine, shark, whales, or seal down there with them, since they supposedly all coexisted back then...and there are NONE. Not even a lobe finned fish!

There are, however, some very primitive jawless fish, the early representatives of the later chordate line.

hmmmmm. Exactly what evolution would predict, and creationism has no answer for. I do note that the more you get to understand the arguments we present, the more you are leaning on conspiracy explanations as per (1) above! Give it up man! The more obvious explanation is that you are wrong!

What is faster...a tyrannosaurus or a giant sloth? Whadya reckon?
defender

London, KY

#111016 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.
True...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111017 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.
Nobody had heard of selective breeding until Darwin! Those Spartans (also admired by Hitler), that is just propaganda made up by the notorious Darwinists Herodotus and Thucydides!

All those farmers breeding Clydesdales and Jersey Cows, never heard of selective breeding!
The US Holocaust Museum tell this story of scientists measuring racial features and those with deficiencies,
Yes. Farmers have been doing the same thing for millennia. Noooo it all Darwin's fault!
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.
Hatred of the Christians? No buddy, this time it was YOUR lot doing the persecution. God is With Us, on the belt buckles of the murderous Gestapo. If anything, Christians used perverted versions of Darwinism to justify the Final Solution to their centuries of irrational hatred towards the Jews!

Perhaps you might be getting a glimmer of how stupid this argument is, whichever way you look at it. Hitler used whatever was to hand in a maniacal fashion. Christianity, race theories, Germanic folklore.

Get real.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111018 Dec 5, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding my position on social darwinism and the holocaust. The German scientist did measure prisoners "fitness" with their laboratory instruments and sterilize and kill them by the millions; however, this was pseudoscience. It was social darwinism, or racism masquarading as science.
Just consider this when you are so quick to criticize me for judging other "Christians" who reject the word of God. Christians who reject Jesus Christ and His Word are about as legitimate as the German "scientist" in lab coats at Auschwitz.
Now you accept that trying to present a perversion of darwinism as an argument against darwinism is no more valid than others presenting perversions of christianity as arguments against "the real thing"? Good, there's a start.

Hitler's experiment was not social darwinism either! The latter just says - capitalism should be left unhindered by social welfare because the weak should be left to die if they cannot foot it by their own efforts. That has a familiar ring to it....aren't you a staunch republican BTW?
defender

London, KY

#111019 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
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...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111020 Dec 5, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you accept that trying to present a perversion of darwinism as an argument against darwinism is no more valid than others presenting perversions of christianity as arguments against "the real thing"? Good, there's a start.
Hitler's experiment was not social darwinism either! The latter just says - capitalism should be left unhindered by social welfare because the weak should be left to die if they cannot foot it by their own efforts. That has a familiar ring to it....aren't you a staunch republican BTW?
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.

“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.

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
How would creationists explain... 15 min Chimney1 451
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 17 min Chimney1 13,644
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 19 min Al the Scot 1,000
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 min Chimney1 134,833
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 17 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 17 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 21 hr spiderlover 77
More from around the web