Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178696 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113615 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowpat wrote:
<quoted text>
There is an Oort Cloud. OK? It's seen in pure measurement and observations of phenomena by those who believe in scientific discovery. Although itís not yet been proven to exist It explains such a lot. But yes, I am very aware of two good comet viewing this year. One of them may burn up close to the Sun. Now Iím going to prove my stupidity by saying I like those because they prove the universe is young.
The likelihood that the oort cloud exists far outweighs the notion that it was just invented to get at the godbots.

The only possible explanation of some phenomena in this solar system is the oort cloud region of space has mass. The orbital resonance of the planets suggest mass outside their solar orbit. The measurement of long period comet paths suggest the same thing. Orbital mechanics provide that the outer planets should not exist in the form that take which suggests they are close by oort cloud bodies. No there is no actual proof that the oort cloud exists just a lot of smoking guns

So what have we god to say goddidt 6000 years ago? Nothing, OK, you loose. Again

Why does a comet prove the solar universe is young? Please explain, I am fascinated to hear you scientific explanation
Seek Ye The Truth

Branford, CT

#113616 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, you've got me pegged. I am a Silly Creationist Douchebag!
Finally you've said something truthful.
dlovelymarie

Killeen, TX

#113617 Jan 7, 2013
He makes a great point. The theory is HIGHLY expansive. Maybe they should give a theories and logic class to advances HS students...

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113618 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"DNA methylation is a biochemical process that is important for normal development in living organisms. It involves the addition of a methyl group to the 5 position of the cytosine pyrimidine ring or the number 6 nitrogen of the adenine purine ring (cytosine and adenine are two of the four bases of DNA). This modification can be inherited through cell division.
DNA methylation is a crucial part of normal organismal development and cellular differentiation in multicellular organisms. DNA methylation stably alters the gene expression pattern in cells such that cells can "remember where they have been" or decrease gene expression; for example, cells programmed to be pancreatic islets during embryonic development remain pancreatic islets throughout the life of the organism without continuing signals telling them that they need to remain islets. DNA methylation is typically removed during zygote formation and re-established through successive cell divisions during development. However, the latest research shows that hydroxylation of methyl groups occurs rather than complete removal of methyl groups in zygote.[1][2] Some methylation modifications that regulate gene expression are inheritable and cause genomic imprinting."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_methylation
I'm not up on all the specific vocabulary, but you seem to be referring to "switches" that turn variable characteristics of genes on/off, more/less. Yes? Stuff that used to be considered to be junk DNA, but is now understood to have functions.

And I'm not sure how this would have anything to do with supporting creationism.
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#113619 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no Oort Cloud. OK? It's pure imagination by those who believe in evolution.
Thanks for (again) demonstrating your complete and utter (cowturd) scientific ignorance.

The Oort Cloud, and it's study, is part of ASTRONOMY, not biology. The acceptance of the existence of the Oort Cloud has NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution or a "believe" in evolution.
MIDutch

Clinton Township, MI

#113620 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>But yes, I am very aware of two good comet viewings this year. One of them may burn up close to the Sun. I like those because they prove the universe is young.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundamentalist christian creationists" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#Long_perio...

Long period

"Long-period comets have highly eccentric orbits and periods ranging from 200 years to thousands or even millions of years.[42] An eccentricity greater than 1 when near perihelion does not necessarily mean that a comet will leave the Solar System.[43] For example, Comet McNaught (C/2006 P1) had an heliocentric osculating eccentricity of 1.000019 near its perihelion passage epoch in January 2007, but is bound to the Sun with roughly a 92,600-year orbit since the eccentricity drops below 1 as it moves further from the Sun. The future orbit of a long-period comet is properly obtained when the osculating orbit is computed at an epoch after leaving the planetary region and is calculated with respect to the center of mass of the Solar System. By definition long-period comets remain gravitationally bound to the Sun; those comets that are ejected from the Solar System due to close passes by major planets are no longer properly considered as having "periods". The orbits of long-period comets take them far beyond the outer planets at aphelia, and the plane of their orbits need not lie near the ecliptic. Long-period comets such as Comet West and C/1999 F1 can have barycentric apoapsis distances of nearly 70,000 AU with orbital periods estimated around 6 million years."

FYI an orbital period of 6 million years destroys your "they prove the earth is young argument". Of course, you can always come back witrh the "God is a LIAR and only made it "look" like those comets have really long orbital periods" counter "argument".

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#113621 Jan 7, 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.
Linnaeus gave taxonomy a good starting point, but he does not represent our current understanding of taxonomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonom...

The strongest part of his system remains as the use of binomial nomenclature, but most of his system has changed due to a better understanding of evolution.

From the above link:
"Over time, the understanding of the relationships between living things has changed. Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. The greatest change was the widespread acceptance of evolution as the mechanism of biological diversity and species formation, following the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It then became generally understood that classifications ought to reflect the phylogeny of organisms, their descent by evolution. This led to evolutionary taxonomy, where the various extant and extinct are linked together to construct a phylogeny. This is largely what is meant by the term 'Linnaean taxonomy' when used in a modern context.

In cladistics, originating in the work of Willi Hennig, 1950 onwards, each taxon is grouped so as to include the common ancestor of the group's members (and thus to avoid polyphyly). Such taxa may be either monophyletic (including all descendants) such as genus Homo, or paraphyletic (excluding some descendants), such as genus Australopithecus."

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113622 Jan 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are missing the point. ADesigner could do anything, but a system consistent with the nested hierarchy is NECESSARY for evolution with common ancestry.
If life was created ex-nihilo, there is absolutely no reason for the nested hierarchy to be essential. You could indeed have croco-ducks, and creatures with the features of bats and birds mixed, anything you like. A flowering fern, a fish with a 3-boned middle ear, whatever you (He) liked. Your creation makes NO prediction, therefore you can claim ANYTHING is consistent with it, therefore no particular pattern is evidence for (or against) it.
You will note the asymmetry here, just as I pointed out with Junk DNA, except this time the asymmetry goes the other way!
Common ancestry is bound by the nested hierarchy. If life does not display it, common ancestry is falsified.
Does life display it? Yes.
Was this why Linnaeus was able to classify the species as he did? Yes!
Good then, its evidence FOR evolution!(Though not specifically evidence against a Designer).
<quoted text>
Of course. The Designer could do anything He liked, including creating a pattern that happened to be fully consistent with common ancestry. But ONLY evolution specifically predicts the pattern we see.
Not to mention, you have a much harder time explaining why the elements of the genome - pseudogenes, ERVs, and ubiquitous protein sequences, ALSO follow the same nested hierarchy. That part, you cannot explain. We can! So:
1/ A pre-evolutionary classification system, not "biased" by evolutionary assumptions;
2/ The fossil record; and
3/ The evidence of the genome;
ALL agree on the same nested hierarchy which is a core prediction of common ancestry.
Or Common design/common designer. All your bumper sticker evolutionary bromides fall empty because they are just as easily and just as valid as arguments for creation and you still have no evidence of macroevolution. The way that God designed life mimicks the way engineers design things. The building reflects the blueprints just as you would expect. Plus, you still have no obserbved case where a genetic mutation created any new, or nascent limb or organ; you have entropy working in the opposite direction (everywhere else in the whole universe); You still have no reasonable set of fossils to show a progression from one kind of organism to the next; and you can't explain the complex information in the genome or the irreducbly complex machines found in cells.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113623 Jan 7, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not up on all the specific vocabulary, but you seem to be referring to "switches" that turn variable characteristics of genes on/off, more/less. Yes? Stuff that used to be considered to be junk DNA, but is now understood to have functions.
And I'm not sure how this would have anything to do with supporting creationism.
The theory of evolution depends on tons of junk to demonstrate the trial and error nature of mutation/selection over millions of years. Now we know there is no junk. Methylation alterations are highly complex and very specific DNA controls which must be in place from the beginning to control development, regulate cell replication, determine timing and extent of growth, etc. Recent research (as I referenced recently) shows that chimps and humans have completely different methylation alterations which creationist interpret as what we would expect - that we are not related to chimps (not only that, that it is impossible that we are related to chimps!)- while evolutionists have another gap to fill with more "just-so" stories.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113624 Jan 7, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
FYI an orbital period of 6 million years destroys your "they prove the earth is young argument". Of course, you can always come back witrh the "God is a LIAR and only made it "look" like those comets have really long orbital periods" counter "argument".
Man, you're even dumber than I thought.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113625 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution depends on tons of junk to demonstrate the trial and error nature of mutation/selection over millions of years. Now we know there is no junk. Methylation alterations are highly complex and very specific DNA controls which must be in place from the beginning to control development, regulate cell replication, determine timing and extent of growth, etc. Recent research (as I referenced recently) shows that chimps and humans have completely different methylation alterations which creationist interpret as what we would expect - that we are not related to chimps (not only that, that it is impossible that we are related to chimps!)- while evolutionists have another gap to fill with more "just-so" stories.
Why is it impossible for us to have a common ancestor with chimps?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113626 Jan 7, 2013
"A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sunís heat to evaporate much of the cometís ice and dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly reduces a cometís size, and eventually comets fade away. They canít survive billions of years.

Two other mechanisms can destroy cometsóejections from the solar system and collisions with planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the planetsí gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.

Given the loss rates, itís easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.

Rescuing Devices

Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets (comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets (comets with orbits over 200 years).

Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past twenty years astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113627 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it impossible for us to have a common ancestor with chimps?
Because the epigenetic DNA methylation alterations are completely different between chimps and humans and we could not have inherited the ones from chimps because they would cause numerous fatal epigenetic diseases if we had the same methylation alertations as chimps.(Among other reasons!)

http://www.icr.org/article/7157/

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113628 Jan 7, 2013
The AiG Statement of Faith

"~The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.

~The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

~The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

~The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe."

....and so on.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Real fine, unbiased scientific resource you got there, Cowboy![/SARCASM]

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#113629 Jan 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
The AiG Statement of Faith
"~The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
~The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
~The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
~The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe."
....and so on.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Real fine, unbiased scientific resource you got there, Cowboy![/SARCASM]
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
Elohim

Branford, CT

#113630 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
LMAO!!! Thanks for the afternoon chuckle!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113631 Jan 7, 2013
http://www.icr.org/tenets/

Ditto for ICR....

"~The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113632 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime. You should do the same for your unyielding committment to neo-darwinian evolutionary theory.(Of course that is your iron-fisted practice, you just can't be honest enough to admit it.)
*IF* there was REAL evidence for some of the conclusions made by either source, science would be using it. But since neither AiG or ICR actually DO any research to speak of....

It's called "Intellectual Integrity".

Neither you, AiG or ICR (among others) have it.

It may be "honest"...and I'll give you that, but it aint unbiased, nor is it Science.

Have you ever wondered why REAL science doesn't reference ICR or AiG in their research papers?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#113633 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sunís heat to evaporate much of the cometís ice and dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly reduces a cometís size, and eventually comets fade away. They canít survive billions of years.
Two other mechanisms can destroy cometsóejections from the solar system and collisions with planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the planetsí gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.
Given the loss rates, itís easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.
Rescuing Devices
Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets (comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets (comets with orbits over 200 years).
Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past twenty years astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...
Sure, if you ignore the fact that some orbit other stars as well, and oh, that they're frozen and collect more frozen "junk" on their time away from stars. Oh, and that your orbital calculations are based on pi being 3.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#113634 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called honesty Kong. Your side should try it sometime.
Honest in that they openly admit their bias; however, it is dishonest when you attempt to use them as an unbiased reference.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min replaytime 173,670
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 34 min Dogen 143,923
News Intelligent design 1 hr FREE SERVANT 23
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sun Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Sun Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Sun Paul Porter1 421
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Sun Paul Porter1 56
More from around the web