Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,169

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." Read more

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#113602 Jan 6, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true, he wouldn't have grouped humans with chimpanzees.
And immediately pissed off all the theologians.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Hollywood, FL

#113603 Jan 6, 2013
wide observer, a close thinker; but the atmosphere in which he lived and moved and had his being was saturated with biblical theology, and this permeated all his thinking. ...Toward the end of his life he timidly advanced the hypothesis that all the species of one genus constituted at the creation one species; and from the last edition of his†Systema Naturś†he quietly left out the strongly orthodox statement of the fixity of each species, which he had insisted upon in his earlier works. ...warnings came speedily both from the Catholic and Protestant sides.[161]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#113604 Jan 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
wide observer, a close thinker; but the atmosphere in which he lived and moved and had his being was saturated with biblical theology, and this permeated all his thinking....Toward the end of his life he timidly advanced the hypothesis that all the species of one genus constituted at the creation one species; and from the last edition of his†Systema Naturś†he quietly left out the strongly orthodox statement of the fixity of each species, which he had insisted upon in his earlier works....warnings came speedily both from the Catholic and Protestant sides.[161]

So he was a victim of circumstances. As are we all. As are we all.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#113605 Jan 6, 2013
Iron Ranger wrote:
Absolutely NO "evolution" should be taught in schools.

The so-called theories of evolution have been shown to be false. Darwin made up a lot of "facts." He "filled in" when he had no proof.

God made us.

Don't be odd.
Get with God!
... Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. I cannot believe you used the word "fact" in your argument for religion. You are no different than any other religious zealot group who ignores science and believes the fairy tails. More people are killed over "religion" than anything else. Most people follow the religion of parents or geographic location and not because they read and searched for truth.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#113606 Jan 6, 2013
Tddoff wrote:
Only if it is explained that evolution is nothing more than one theory with very little evidence and that intelligent design also should be taught as another possibility. Otherwise if not, evolution should be removed from the schools.
Excellent reply. I could not agree more. Put it all out there and allow people to go on their own spiritual journey. The people who want other views withheld are the ones that fear truth, like North Korea. I attended Catholic grade school. The experience was good, but when I look back, I think my studies should of included all religions and evolution, then in retrospect I would have more respect for the institution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#113607 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It made sense to him because he was a creationist. Of course the genomic pattern would also make sense with creation. That is why I'm not much impressed with it as evidence for macroevolution. It makes just as much sense for a common design/common designer.
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).
The only criticsm I receive for that is why would designer re-use design modules? I say why wouldn't he?
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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113608 Jan 7, 2013
Hey Cowboy! Wasn't it you that said there was no Oort Cloud?

"The biggest excitement is being reserved for Comet ISON, named after the International Scientific Optical Network, whose telescope was used by Russian astronomers Vitaly Nevski and Artyom Novichonok to make the find last September.

Right now, it is unclear how bright ISON will be, but by some calculations it could become visible to the naked eye by late November and maybe linger brilliantly for months, becoming a once-a-century event.

ISON is an extraordinary beast, for it last returned to Earth 10 million years ago, or more, says Bailey. "It's a 'new comet', which comes from a region of the Solar System that's called the Oort Cloud, an extensive system that extends from around a thousand times the distance of the Earth to the Sun to around 100,000-200,000 times this distance," Bailey says.

"If you imagine a model of the Solar System whereby the Sun's a football in the centre of a football pitch and the Earth is on the perimeter, then this comet has come effectively from Australia. That's the scale of things."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-celestial-flybys...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113609 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't lie. You did! And please look up pussywhipped you idiot.
Yes you did, you not only lied (which I have pointed out several times) you also deliberately tried to provoke a nation and hence pick a fight with your lies and ignorance.

When it all backfired on you, you claimed it was just fun. My dearest honeybitch, fun doesnít work that way. You want fun then you choose a subject that is fun for all, not a subject that only you can masturbate to yet are so clueless you have to lie about and make yourself look stupid.

Then because you were highlighted for being a liar you went into the usual godbot rant of hatred, name calling, verbal abuse and spite. Your god has taught you well how to be a decent human being - yes?

However if you feel that lying and name calling based on nothing more than good old christian guesswork is ok in the eyes of your god then feel free, itís your conscience you have to live with.

Honey I have already told you that I donít lie, I have no god to lie for therefore there is no need for me to lie and yet you repeatedly lie in making the claim that I lied but you have never been able to verify your statement. Once again such typical deliberately ignorant christian behaviour

Yes I know what pussywhipped means and you are pussywhipped you condescending, ego-testicle moron.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113610 Jan 7, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess you havent read any if my post..I believe it's a possibilty that our origins are not of earth..Christians and other religious people will never believe in alien life. So I guess the god dunnit thing is out
Nope, Iím quite selective so usually it's only the posts addressed to me and undressed posts with particular words/phrases that catch my attention.

However alien life > higher power > god? Unless you are considering the organic material that can be found in the makeup of non terrestrial objects.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113611 Jan 7, 2013
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you may be the pussywhipped one
Donít think much do you?

I highlighted the guys lies, I proved his lies wrong. He went into christian abuse mode and again I proved him wrong and left him unable to support his claims.

The guy has nothing, he is beaten into submission by the inadequacies of his own posts but he too much of an ego-testical godbot to admit it.

Or are you simply opting for the good old christian ploy of trying to discredit your opponent with guesswork?Ė I thought you just implied you were not christian, come on, you should be able to do better then that.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Duluth, GA

#113612 Jan 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít think much do I?
He highlighted my lies, and proved my lies wrong. I went into voodoo darwin zombee abuse mode and again He proved me wrong and left me unable to support my claims.
I have nothing, and have been beaten into submission by the inadequacies of my own posts and I'm too much of a darwinbot to admit it.
Yep, that's pretty much it. Silly darwinist!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Duluth, GA

#113613 Jan 7, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Hey Cowboy! Wasn't it you that said there was no Oort Cloud?
"The biggest excitement is being reserved for Comet ISON, named after the International Scientific Optical Network, whose telescope was used by Russian astronomers Vitaly Nevski and Artyom Novichonok to make the find last September.
Right now, it is unclear how bright ISON will be, but by some calculations it could become visible to the naked eye by late November and maybe linger brilliantly for months, becoming a once-a-century event.
ISON is an extraordinary beast, for it last returned to Earth 10 million years ago, or more, says Bailey. "It's a 'new comet', which comes from a region of the Solar System that's called the Oort Cloud, an extensive system that extends from around a thousand times the distance of the Earth to the Sun to around 100,000-200,000 times this distance," Bailey says.
"If you imagine a model of the Solar System whereby the Sun's a football in the centre of a football pitch and the Earth is on the perimeter, then this comet has come effectively from Australia. That's the scale of things."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-celestial-flybys...
There is no Oort Cloud. OK? It's pure imagination by those who believe in evolution. It basically is just another "just-right" story of fiction to make your false beliefs "work". 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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#113614 Jan 7, 2013
Urban Cowpat wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, I'm a fool and can't understand so I shout goddidt because I am so stupid
That was not addressed to the liar of this thread but itís quite amusing that the liar of this thread should pick it up and EDIT it using nothing but good old christian spitefulness. Honey we are not all as stupid as you but if you want to start editing my comments then expect the same in return you ignorant fool

Darwin helped promote a scientific discipline that had itís roots in Greek and Roman times long before christianity was a twinkle in Panteraís eye (you wonít understand that). Like all science it has progressed. Some points Darwin made were incorrect, like all good science these points have been have been examined, measured, evaluated and modified. During this process certain facts have come to light that were unknown back in Darwinís day to offer the modern understanding of evolution.

However if you get you kicks by pretending that a 19th century scientific breakthrough stayed in the 19 century then thatís just you own closed mind grasping at straws, after all you consider bronze age science as unchanging fact.

“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."

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) 3 min dirtclod 154,970
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 7 min Chimney1 941
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min Dogen 18,002
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web