Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
108,141 - 108,160 of 171,504 Comments Last updated 5 hrs ago

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110996
Dec 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110997
Dec 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111002
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossa_ (animal)

Check out Fossa kind!

This creature lives in Madagascar and genetic analysis suggested a divergence from other carnivores about 18-20 million years ago.

Quite beautiful, in a bizzarro "what do you get if you cross a kitty with a ferret" kind of way.

As the lemur is to the anthropoids, so too is the Fossa to many modern carnivores.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111010
Dec 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••