Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113570 Jan 5, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>
So it only relies on that very first gene mutating, but doesn't care where it came from? Even though knowing where it came from would solve a huge mystery
Yes, it would solve a big mystery. But there just is not enough information at hand to solve that mystery. It's not that we don't care where it came from, it's more like we don't know where it came from or how it came about.
LowellGuy

United States

#113571 Jan 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree evolution caused some speciation. But speciation is the grey area between kinds. For example, Dogs-wolves-coyotes have not even reached it yet but horses-donkeys have begun to. But these are all still within their own kind. Actually on balance, there is quite a lot of evidence pointing to creation/against macroevolution. I am sure you've seen my 99 Reasons. In fact I believe the evidence is much stronger for creation. The evidence hand fits creation like a glove. But NDE is one gap or contradiction after another. I know I know, but all the scientist disagree. I don't follow the crowd. I seek my own answers. I used to believe in evolution 100% but after many years of study I changed my mind entirely. No one influenced me. I simply read up on the material. Dozens and dozens of books on the subject from both sides of the equation. There's just no evidence that one type of organism ever changed into a different type. There's no evidence of any genetic mutation or genetic drift in a population leading to a different kind. Then you have all the living fossils. Then you have the basic fact of entropy and the information in the genome. The universal genetic code. To me, it screams out loud design-design-design!
Oh, right...kinds! That thing for which there is no actual applicable definition. Where are kinds? Genera? Families? Classes?
Urban Cowboy

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113572 Jan 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, right...kinds! That thing for which there is no actual applicable definition. Where are kinds? Genera? Families? Classes?
http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113573 Jan 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Still no applicable definition.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113574 Jan 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:

I just love the fuzzy illogic and sciency sounding words that mean nothing.

I also love to see creationism backing away from what it put forth as core issues and now allow evolution all the way up to the genus level!!!!

Further: "It is generally agreed upon that natural selection, reproductive isolation (speciation), and genetic drift are effective in leading to the formation of populations that are highly adapted to their environment. Speciation and genetic drift is believed to have occurred at high frequencies during the dispersion immediately after the global flood"."

and

"Second, while the evolutionary tree credits evolutionary change to an increase in genetic diversity from simpler to more complex organisms, the creation biology tree credits small mutational change to the rearrangement and expression of genetic variation that was "built in" to the original kinds; "

So, in other words, creationism is now allowing for evolution mechanisms of Natural selection, Biased mutation, genetic drift and gene flow!!!!!!!!!!

Slowly, creationism is EVOLVING into evolution!

Creationism now accepts (according to your wiki article) FULLY, at least 4 of the 7 mechanisms for evolution!

What a loser idea.

Nice job discovering evolution 160 years late.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113575 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no applicable definition.

Actually, if you read it carefully, they are starting to define evolution. But as long as you don't say "evolution" and DO say "goddoneit" it is all okay.

http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113576 Jan 5, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if you read it carefully, they are starting to define evolution. But as long as you don't say "evolution" and DO say "goddoneit" it is all okay.
http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind
Interesting, someone else noticed that too. I looked for a definitive definition, and didn't read it all.
One way or another

United States

#113577 Jan 5, 2013
How is it tha when a hurricane Sandy happens, that the insurance cos that have taken trillions in profits over the years, pays nothing, while we the people pay for the loss.

Morons comes to mind.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113578 Jan 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
How is it tha when a hurricane Sandy happens, that the insurance cos that have taken trillions in profits over the years, pays nothing, while we the people pay for the loss.
Morons comes to mind.
Interesting - can you back up the following.

The insurance companies have taken TRILLIONS in profit (do you know what a trillion is)?

They have made NO payments on policies ?

Or let me guess, this is just more unsupported nonsense that you seem on a mission to pollute this thread with
Mother Mary

Cicero, IL

#113579 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting, someone else noticed that too. I looked for a definitive definition, and didn't read it all.
Police, Cops and many others have seen craft defy explanation.Blue Book, spent billions on SETI knowing contact is impossible. WHY? WHO? Are they the creators? Is the earth a little petri dish flying thru space @ 34MPS?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#113580 Jan 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Aw, how unfair. The taxonomic system that's based on evidence doesn't coincide with an ambiguous term that refers to "common ancestry" but doesn't explain what is and isn't considered the limits of common ancestry. Gee whiz, won't science ever give Bible stories a chance?:(
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113581 Jan 5, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, if you read it carefully, they are starting to define evolution. But as long as you don't say "evolution" and DO say "goddoneit" it is all okay.
http://creationwiki.org/Created_kind
From your link
'Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry'
How does that work? I thought all 'kinds' were created at once as you insist the Cambrian suggests (snicker) so how can there be a common ancestor ?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#113582 Jan 5, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
From your link
'Created kinds are organisms that are defined by creation biology as sharing a common ancestry'
How does that work? I thought all 'kinds' were created at once as you insist the Cambrian suggests (snicker) so how can there be a common ancestor ?
Apologies, hit the wrong reply button - the above is directed at urban not Dogen

Also if you want to address the following

'Therefore, it is believed to be assumable that any organism alive today, which has obvious ancestors in the fossil record, is a created kind.'

So anything that has an Identifiable ancestor is actually created ? How the fuck does that work - it's almost as if the article is saying:-

'Look, doesn't matter what evidence those pesky science guys (and gals) are doing - it's a created kind'

One way or another

United States

#113583 Jan 5, 2013
The morons in gov stole social security money for decades to prop up America's economy and to enriched and enlarge small co's into huge corporations, that congress has been forced to keep stealing from our taxes, to keep them fed at the trough, because the bribers documented their bribe taking long ago.

All the bribers are milking America and congress keeps borrowing a trillion or more, to not only keep paying the bribers, but to keep paying the overpaid gov workers, to keep electing them.

Congress is murdering America, only the bribers and gov workers will ride her down into the ground.

Morons refuse to see what's right in front of them.
One way or another

United States

#113584 Jan 5, 2013
There will always be reason to keep borrowing, to keep paying the gov workers to keep voting them back into congress and to keep paying congresses bribers, just as big oil gets billions in tax bribes, while big pharma, healthcare, media, insurance, paying over 50 billion for Sandy, while the insurers pay nothing, according to the silence of the media, all feeding at the trough.

Americans have been made into morons, by the schools. Too bad America must die for such.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#113585 Jan 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
http://creationwiki.org/Create d_kind
From your reference:

“The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis."

Do you think that "definition" could be any more vacuous?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113587 Jan 6, 2013
Linnaeus was a biblical creationist and developed our current method of taxonomy. This is used to classify what is observed. Created kinds is what was created as described in Genesis. So the challenge is to link the two together.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#113588 Jan 6, 2013

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113589 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Linnaeus was a biblical creationist and developed our current method of taxonomy. This is used to classify what is observed. Created kinds is what was created as described in Genesis. So the challenge is to link the two together.
Using that classification makes matters way worse. Bats are not birds, for one. Going by your bible many birds do not qualify as birds either. That's just for starters. I haven't even gotten to the "what can breed with what" flaws.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113590 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Epigenetic research into methylation patterns between humans and chimps have shown huge, marked and extensive differences in the main gene body as well as promoter region, and control and modification regions.
Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation
This also means that human brain genes could tolerate very little epigenetic modification and would result in severe disease and show strong evidence against epigenetic evolution in primates.
"We also found extensive species-level divergence in patterns of DNA methylation and that hundreds of genes exhibit significantly lower levels of promoter methylation in the human brain than in the chimpanze brain."
"Finally, we found that differentially methylated genes are strikingly enriched with loci associated with neurological disorders, psychological disorders, and cancers."
This is solid evidence that we did not descent from apes! Must suck to be a Darwinist these days.
http://www.yilab.gatech.edu/publications/Zeng...
Oh, so you are claiming that the majority of methylation alterations will be deleterious?

In other words, nothing new. To spell it out, during the 6-7 million years that human brains have been diverging from chimp brains, the vast majority of changes whether mutation of the coding part of the genome, or changes in the control sequences, will be deleterious or neutral. i.e. only a small minority will be beneficial.

Now tell us something biologists haven't already heard and accounted for inside the framework of evolution.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 min replaytime 2,033
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 41 min Nohweh 27,376
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 43 min messianic114 219,618
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Subduction Zone 58,355
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Subduction Zone 159,361
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Sentinel 1,758
News Intelligent Design Education Day Feb 19 replaytime 2
More from around the web