Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 177,032

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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113561 Jan 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
By that standard he agrees with 75% of everything I have ever wrote here.
It's possible. Unless someone states that they disagree, you can safely assume they do agree.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113562 Jan 4, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have fossil evidence of every generation of any species and following those generations to include the path to new species. Creationists claim that this constitutes "missing links". But the ToE does not depend on counting every generation. The evidence is in following the branches.
Uh oh, now you've done it, you admitted to not knowing, and the creationists think that it's a "sin" to be honest.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113563 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Common design as an explanation of nested hierarchies is merely taking the predictions of evolution and pretending they're your own. But that still leaves you with the problem that you haven't been able to explain for two years, why would an all-powerful universe-creating creator limit itself to common design principles? Common design is done for only two reasons - to save time and resources. Things which an eternal omnipotent entity has an infinite supply of. And why in a manner that makes it LOOK like life evolved? After all, common design principles STILL don't need to adhere to nested hierarchies. Re-use wings on a pig? Common design. Cats with compound eyes? Common design. Centaurs? Common design. Just like putting a jet engine on a car. It can still be done. Jet engines don't HAVE to be for planes only. Our designs don't stick to nested hierarchies either.
Why would God limit Himself? Are you kidding? How did He limit Himself? The number of different plants and animals is staggering. The number of stars is mind boggling. Why would ask such a question? But just like any field endearvored by Man, He most likely employed common design principles. Just as a contractor can read any engineer's or archetect's plans, the genetic code was used universally. This explanation comes naturally from what we experience.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113564 Jan 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would God limit Himself? Are you kidding? How did He limit Himself? The number of different plants and animals is staggering. The number of stars is mind boggling. Why would ask such a question? But just like any field endearvored by Man, He most likely employed common design principles. Just as a contractor can read any engineer's or archetect's plans, the genetic code was used universally. This explanation comes naturally from what we experience.
"most likely" that is the most honest thing you have said on the subject, but then you go and spoil it with the last sentence. Nothing is self evident, nothing is. Everything that exists has evidence, it leaves evidence as it exists, so to assert something exists you must present that evidence, otherwise it is simply wishful thinking or fantasy. All evidence suggests evolution caused speciation, there is nothing else it suggests.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#113565 Jan 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"most likely" that is the most honest thing you have said on the subject, but then you go and spoil it with the last sentence. Nothing is self evident, nothing is. Everything that exists has evidence, it leaves evidence as it exists, so to assert something exists you must present that evidence, otherwise it is simply wishful thinking or fantasy. All evidence suggests evolution caused speciation, there is nothing else it suggests.
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!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113566 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, no.
Correct.

No one is saying we don't want to know. No one does not enjoy speculating on this issue, but it is not at all vital in our understanding of (biological) evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113567 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.

Thank you for admitting macroevolution even if you cannot say the word yet.

What stops current creatures from completely speciation when all the millions of animals that have lived before modern times have speciated?(Macroevolved).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Actually on balance, there is quite a lot of evidence pointing to creation/against macroevolution.

I would love for you to provide some. So far all you have is a combination of pseudoscience and stuff that actually supports evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I am sure you've seen my 99 Reasons.

That is what I was mainly referring to in the above. I could rename it to "99 reasons for Evolution", rewrite the text so that it better conforms to what science has actually discovered and it would be a decent (though not nearly great) thesis for evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> In fact I believe the evidence is much stronger for creation. The evidence hand fits creation like a glove.

In fact I believe the evidence for the purple ping-pong ball theory of the universe is much stronger. The evidence hand fits PPPB theory like a glove.

So there you go.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> But NDE is one gap or contradiction after another.

Why do you keep talking about Near Death Experiences (NDE)? Is Creationism having one?

Your trying to change what NDE means isn't going to happen.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I know I know, but all the scientist disagree. I don't follow the crowd. I seek my own answers.

Because that is what idiots do. Look at Psycho. He is the poster child for the idea of blindfolding himself and going on a long walk down a short road that ends at a 300 ft. cliff. You guys could be intellectual twins.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> I used to believe in evolution 100% but after many years of study I changed my mind entirely.

Years of studying creotardistic claptrap will do that to you. If you spent 1/2 as much time reading real science on these issues you would be 1/1000th as confused about them.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> No one influenced me. I simply read up on the material.

LOL. This is Joke, Know? No one in this world can say that there is much of anything that other people have not influenced them on. And those influences have not taught you to think logically, but rather to eschew it like the plague.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Dozens and dozens of books on the subject from both sides of the equation.

There are plenty of books on the Loch Ness monster, a lot on big foot, on alien abductions,...... Creationism is not as scientific as any of those things, but whatever floats your boat.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> There's just no evidence that one type of organism ever changed into a different type.

Outright lie.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> There's no evidence of any genetic mutation or genetic drift in a population leading to a different kind.

LOL
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Then you have all the living fossils.

How do the existence of living fossils help your argument? Hint: they don't.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> Then you have the basic fact of entropy and the information in the genome.

How bad did we bust that idea down? Even the research of Sanfords own colleagues refutes him!!!!! How hysterical is that!?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> The universal genetic code.

You mean the universal genetic "code"?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113568 Jan 5, 2013
what wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with the last few sentences..I never finished college because it was taking time from me starting a business. I have to deal with architects and engineers from the state who sat in a class but never worked on a job site..sure they got A's in college but have no clue how these systems work in the real world.
I also did not finish college--for slightly different reasons. I was going for a BA in Chemical Dependency Counseling, but by the time I got to my last quarter for an AA degree I realized that the last thing in the world I would want to be was a chem dep counselor. What was I thinking?! I've never had a problem with alchohol or drugs, and though I did very well with the academics of drug counseling I knew that I would never understand it on any bone deep level like my peers who had been to hell and back.

But I did learn a lot about group dynamics and also gained an appreciation for the discipline of listening to people as they voice their opinions and problems. Those skills gave me a good step ahead in the ordinary workplace. Any time a team lead was needed I was a shoe-in for the job.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113569 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!
That's just it, species, the concept itself, is a gray area, the entire notion is artificially constructed, there is no discernible boundary other than genetic compatibility. But then you go back into the denial of evidence. First, "kind" is not a scientific term because I have three kinds of pens in my apartment, they're all pens, but they're all different kinds of pens. I have two kinds of computers, they can both run the exact same software too, but they're vastly different. There are millions of kinds of birds, most can't interbreed, some can, some can't fly, some can swim. "Kind" is a generic descriptive, not a scientific one.

Then you continue with fallacies that have already been addressed so many times it's redundant, and you have ignored all evidence countering your fallacies. The only things that "scream design" have labels, where is your production tag?

“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

Miami, 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

Elmwood Park, 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?:(

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
evolution of Eyes - size - skin color - shape -... 37 min MikeF 4
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 48 min dirtclod 731
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 17,016
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr MikeF 150,004
Humans DID evolve from apes! 3 hr Denisova 42
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 3 hr emrenil 37
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 3 hr Denisova 1,377
More from around the web