Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178616 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 am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115420 Jan 29, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Ya know how I've always been projecting doom and gloom for our economy, well children, its gonna get much worse. The housing market will keep falling, the stock market will crash again and we will suffer another depression, much much deeper than the last Great Depression.
It will happen within 1 to 5 years.

If you make enough predictions, no matter how unlikely any are, something is bound to be true,.....eventually.

But long term market indicators look very positive. In 5 years we are more likely to be in a period of sustained growth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115421 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Bookmarked, and when it doesn't happen, will you then stop being a moron?

You mean like when he was wrong about making millions using pet psychology?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

United States

#115422 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Yes, I have read Origin of the Species, Darwin's seminal book. And there is a LOT more evidence in it than just the finches.
How are finches evidence??? All he did was describe the obvious, the observable, reality, which has no relevance to macroevolution. Come on. There is no evidence that finches have ever been anything other than finches. He would have already been aware of the enourmous range of diversity in the human condition. Or any other species on Earth. The book (Origin of the Species)is retarded.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115423 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How are finches evidence??? All he did was describe the obvious, the observable, reality, which has no relevance to macroevolution. Come on. There is no evidence that finches have ever been anything other than finches. He would have already been aware of the enourmous range of diversity in the human condition. Or any other species on Earth. The book (Origin of the Species)is retarded.
Projection, do you have anything else?

Evolution explains the diversity in humans, and why our species is more capable than the others in spite of our many flaws and weaknesses, like the idiocy of creating and believing in superstitions instead of looking at everything objectively.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115424 Jan 29, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Ya know how I've always been projecting doom and gloom for our economy, well children, its gonna get much worse. The housing market will keep falling, the stock market will crash again and we will suffer another depression, much much deeper than the last Great Depression.
It will happen within 1 to 5 years.
On January 23rd?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115425 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
If you make enough predictions, no matter how unlikely any are, something is bound to be true,.....eventually.
Yup. I'm dreading it when they finally get the end of the world date right. And not because it would be the end of the world.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115426 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How are finches evidence??? All he did was describe the obvious, the observable, reality, which has no relevance to macroevolution. Come on. There is no evidence that finches have ever been anything other than finches. He would have already been aware of the enourmous range of diversity in the human condition. Or any other species on Earth. The book (Origin of the Species)is retarded.
Well, if finches are like virtually every other critter on the planet, yes there is. It goes like this:

1. As we go back through the fossil record, we see creatures diverging from today's bit by bit. There is nothing quite like a modern cat or tiger in the record of a million years ago, but there are very similar creatures.

2. At the same time, as we go back, we see the forms contemporary with each other converging.

So, for example, we see cats converging on two ancestral types (felix and panthera), then even earlier those two converging on one.

By the time we go back to miacids, this whole line is converging with dogs.

That's the fossil evidence UC, a pattern repeated across all the species we can find in the record. And just for good measure, the evidence from pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins, and ERVs all independently concur with that. Divergence from species of today, and convergence of different species / genera / orders in the past.

Do you realise that even Darwin had no idea that the birds on Galapagos were actually finches until his taxonomist friend in London years later pointed out their deeper anatomical similarities to a close species of finch on the mainland?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#115427 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How are finches evidence??? All he did was describe the obvious, the observable, reality, which has no relevance to macroevolution. Come on. There is no evidence that finches have ever been anything other than finches. He would have already been aware of the enourmous range of diversity in the human condition. Or any other species on Earth. The book (Origin of the Species)is retarded.
Because the “finches” were unique to the Galapagos, their evolution was dictated by the local environment as were several other species in a unique and isolated environment – and of course they were not finches

In the same way that evolution can be seen to have occurred in the 10,000 years that Escudo de Veraguas has been isolated from the mainland the Pygmy three-toed sloth has evolved from it’s much larger ancestors

And in the skin pigments that can be seen evolving from generation to generation due to environmental change encountered by the Langkawi bent-toed gecko

And of course my hobby, the skeletal differences between Cro-Magnon man and their modern descendants.

You are retarded, the book gave a good impetus to what has eventually become scientific fact

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115428 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
How are finches evidence??? All he did was describe the obvious, the observable, reality, which has no relevance to macroevolution. Come on. There is no evidence that finches have ever been anything other than finches. He would have already been aware of the enourmous range of diversity in the human condition. Or any other species on Earth. The book (Origin of the Species)is retarded.

Sorry but this is just more unsupported creationist mythology.

Microevolution (when creationists are not trying to move the goal posts) is separation of species via evolution. So to qualify the finches needed to be derived from a ancestral species into different species that are distinct from the original species and from each other.

In other words the finches are an example of macroevolution.

Finch are not a species, not even a genus, but a family. Microevolution is at the species level or higher.

Further, it has been found through genomic studies that the differences in Finch are genetic and have different DNA.

On the Origin of Species is widely considered to be one of the greatest scientific book of all time.

Deal with the reality.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#115429 Jan 29, 2013
Lol Thinking about popping some popcorn. This is some entertaining stuff. :)

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#115430 Jan 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Projection, do you have anything else?
Evolution explains the diversity in humans, and why our species is more capable than the others in spite of our many flaws and weaknesses, like the idiocy of creating and believing in superstitions instead of looking at everything objectively.
I am the one being objective here! Yes, we observe diversity within species. No, evolution doesn't explain it; in fact, diversity exists in spite of evolution! In every single case, the organism was found as it always is found. You'd think this would be a clue.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115431 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the one being objective here! Yes, we observe diversity within species. No, evolution doesn't explain it; in fact, diversity exists in spite of evolution! In every single case, the organism was found as it always is found. You'd think this would be a clue.
Sure you're being objective. That's why you reject reality in favour of invisible Jew magic. That's why you can't answer me every month. For two years. That's why you're strangely silent on the subject of ERV's.

The day you start being objective is the day I start believing creatoinism.

Me wait longtime.
Mugwump

UK

#115432 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
, the organism was found as it always is found..
What exactly would you expect ?

You are seeming to insist you need the infamous crocoduck - if so you are kicking 7 shades of s&@t out of a strawman not evolution.

Evolution is a gradual process, and every form is transitional - but you already know this is what the theory states don't you?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#115433 Jan 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if finches are like virtually every other critter on the planet, yes there is. It goes like this:
1. As we go back through the fossil record, we see creatures diverging from today's bit by bit. There is nothing quite like a modern cat or tiger in the record of a million years ago, but there are very similar creatures.
2. At the same time, as we go back, we see the forms contemporary with each other converging.
So, for example, we see cats converging on two ancestral types (felix and panthera), then even earlier those two converging on one.
By the time we go back to miacids, this whole line is converging with dogs.
That's the fossil evidence UC, a pattern repeated across all the species we can find in the record. And just for good measure, the evidence from pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins, and ERVs all independently concur with that. Divergence from species of today, and convergence of different species / genera / orders in the past.
Do you realise that even Darwin had no idea that the birds on Galapagos were actually finches until his taxonomist friend in London years later pointed out their deeper anatomical similarities to a close species of finch on the mainland?
The record indicates that any particular species has always been the same species. From whatever layer you find a fossil of it to the time it went extinct or until present day. This simple fact negates all your dream-weaving stories. And then you have actual observable science. Still there is no clear-cut example of any organism changing into something different than what it is. Only variations on a common theme. Common design by a common designer is what is obviously the case. There are several generic design concepts that have been slightly modified for variety. There is no evidence at all that any particular specific design changed its basic form just due to the passage of time. Plus you have all the genetic controls for error correction and maintenance to prevent this from happening. Plus you have genetic entropy and accumulating deleteriuos mutations working against change.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115434 Jan 29, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be identifying some of the causes of delusional disorder.
I suppose we might be splitting hairs on the concept of what constitutes a delusion. But either way, intensive institutional treatment is Jim's best hope for recovery.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#115435 Jan 29, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose we might be splitting hairs on the concept of what constitutes a delusion. But either way, intensive institutional treatment is Jim's best hope for recovery.
Splitting hairs? lol Ya don't say!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115436 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the one being objective here! Yes, we observe diversity within species. No, evolution doesn't explain it; in fact, diversity exists in spite of evolution! In every single case, the organism was found as it always is found. You'd think this would be a clue.

You are the one being objective here???????

You caused me to spew my Diet Coke all over the place.

Not one single organism is unchanged over evolutionary time period. Even "living fossils" are significantly different from their ancestors in the fossil record.

You'd think this would be a clue.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#115437 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The record indicates that any particular species has always been the same species.
Yep! Except for the vast record that indicates evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
From whatever layer you find a fossil of it to the time it went extinct or until present day. This simple fact negates all your dream-weaving stories.
And we also find precursors and post, uh, cursors, which are similar, but show progression of differences, that just so happen to look like evolution.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And then you have actual observable science.
Yes, you're right. We do. You don't.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Still there is no clear-cut example of any organism changing into something different than what it is.
Correct. But there are plenty of examples of organisms which are preceded by similar but different organisms, and followed by similar but different organisms. And when we put them in a row we observe clear evolutionary progression.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Only variations on a common theme. Common design by a common designer is what is obviously the case.


Why, obviously. The unknown unobservable designer that didit via unknown unobservable mechanisms and left an unknown unobservable trace.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
There are several generic design concepts that have been slightly modified for variety.
Sure. Cars, planes, ships...
Urban Cowboy wrote:
There is no evidence at all that any particular specific design
There is no evidence of design, period.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
changed its basic form just due to the passage of time.
Plenty of transitionals which can only be ignored for theological reasons.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Plus you have all the genetic controls for error correction and maintenance to prevent this from happening.
Which don't actually prevent it from happening.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Plus you have genetic entropy and accumulating deleteriuos mutations working against change.
Wait, so you're saying that change prevents change? Well done! Oh, you also left out the parts about natural selection and beneficial mutations which overcome these problems as is observed in all species with currently increasing populations. This PARTICULARLY applies to humans.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115438 Jan 29, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The record indicates that any particular species has always been the same species. From whatever layer you find a fossil of it to the time it went extinct or until present day. This simple fact negates all your dream-weaving stories.

This is delusional. Absolutely in conflict with the observed evidence. It is just denial followed up with a clear case of projection.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text> And then you have actual observable science. Still there is no clear-cut example of any organism changing into something different than what it is.

Sorry, the fossil and DNA records are replete with this.

Not one organism from the Cambrian still exists today.

Not one unchanged organism from the Cretaceous still exists today.

That is a 100% refutation of creationism and ID.

I don't need to discuss genetic entropy since it has been refuted.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115439 Jan 29, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose we might be splitting hairs on the concept of what constitutes a delusion. But either way, intensive institutional treatment is Jim's best hope for recovery.

He has no hope of recovery.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 53 min Chimney1 141,339
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr messianic114 163,817
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 12 hr UncommonSense2015 10
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) Sun Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
More from around the web