Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Read more: www.scientificblogging.com 178,491

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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115807 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. I don't simply swallow whatever BS is out there on atheist websites. If you have some scientific evidence that HiV is "evolving", let's see it... I would be very interested.

https://www.google.com/search...

About 15,900,000 results (0.22 seconds)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115808 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I can't imagine why you'd want to bring up ERV's... The failed junk DNA debacle only further debunks evolution. I didn't reference it only to spare you further embarrassment.

ERVs are one of the proofs of evolution. There is no other way to explain them that actually fits the facts.

By "junk DNA" I assume you mean non protein coding DNA. That does nothing to support creotardism. In fact the non-protein coding portions of DNA contain further proofs of evolution. not exactly something an antiscience buff such as yourself would want to draw attention to.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115809 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your philosophical opinion that atheism is irrelevant to evolution is likewise irrelevant.

Fact: the first mechanism of evolution was discovered by a Christian.
Fact: the nested hierarchy of evolution was discovered by a Christian.
Fact: some of the greatest evolutionary biologists were/are Christians.
Fact: The secrets of the ultimate proof of evolution (DNA) was proposed and discovered by a Christian.

Therefore: atheism is irrelevant to evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115810 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not an opinion. The scientific theory of evolution makes no theological opinions. If you wanna complain that it's "atheistic" then you could make the same complaint about EVERY single currently accepted field of science. As none of those make any theological claims either.
That's why your local weather reporter doesn't mention the wrath of the Gods when it rains, and why gravity doesn't mention anything about intelligent falling.

Actually this atheist driven conspiracy goes even further than you might imagine.

Bowling makes no theological claims.
Kite flying makes no theological claims.
table fan design makes no theological claims.
Silver mining makes no theological claims.
Thumb twiddling! Thumb twiddling makes NO theological claims!

And,... here is the kicker

DIPPER CHANGING! Dipper changing makes NOT ONE SINGLE theological claim.

G.D. atheists are running EVERYTHING!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115811 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's have long been labeled as junk DNA.

Um... better look that up again. ERVs can occur in either coding or non protein coding portions of DNA. The ERVs themselves can be functional or non-functional in terms of protein coding.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115812 Feb 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact: the first mechanism of evolution was discovered by a Christian.
Fact: the nested hierarchy of evolution was discovered by a Christian.
Fact: some of the greatest evolutionary biologists were/are Christians.
Fact: The secrets of the ultimate proof of evolution (DNA) was proposed and discovered by a Christian.
Therefore: atheism is irrelevant to evolution.
Atheism and evolution are unrelated concepts. That is true.
But Christianity and evolution are also unrelated concepts. That is also true.

So fecking what??

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115813 Feb 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have a scientific survey. I know that the majority of physicians I know think goo-to-you evolution is absurd. Any survey that you can site will invariably fail to define "evolution".


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

And older poll
http://phys.org/news6847.html

Further explication
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/why-d...
One way or another

United States

#115814 Feb 1, 2013
The childish clique pretends to have many names, but in reality, they have one face and that is the face of deceit.

They hate hard, provable science, because that field must be proven. With evolution, they don't have to prove anything.

They care nothing for science and not one of them in all the years they have been here, have ever offered even one new thought to science.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#115815 Feb 1, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why of course not. Ignoring of course the shedloads of inconvenient facts you've avoided for three years or something.
<quoted text>
Well I dunno. How about invisible magical Jewish wizards? That's scientific, right?
Dodge.

YOU said there was literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject of evolution. I asked for ONE that proves macroevolution true.

Right.

Let me make this so simple even an evotard can understand:

Cowboy's Rule of non-macroevolution:

"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation permanently locked within its own species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, collectively referred to as within "created kind"), and with no known significant exceptions."

Prove me wrong.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#115816 Feb 1, 2013
Furthermore,

Cowboy's Rule of Non-Macroevolution:

"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation, such that, the organism remains forever permanently locked within its own defined species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, regardless the number of generations or passage of time, and with no known historic or existing significant exceptions."

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#115817 Feb 1, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The childish clique...With evolution, they don't have to prove anything.
And in their minds they get to continue behaving just like animals because after all, that's what they are...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115818 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm well aware of your stale recycled arguments. Abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing. Junk DNA was the poster child for evolution for two decades. Now it's proponents are eating crow. You respond to the failed paradigm of genetic determinism as "meaningless rubbish"... then you accuse me of knowing nothing about science? You're obviously capable of copying and pasting atheist BS, but cannot logically think for yourself.
What utter bollocks.

Abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution's veracity. Even if God put the first bacteria in place, we know that since then, the evidence is for evolution all the way. Typical Creationist Fallacy: Trying to conflate what we do know and understand with what we don't know or understand (yet).

Junk DNA is not and never was a core or necessary prediction of evolution. Junk DNA was compatible with evolution but not with creationism. Even now, the actually usefully functional, selectable portion of the genome is estimated at 20%. A helluva lot of it is "functioning" merely to code useless fragments of RNA etc. Another Creationist Fallacy: create a strawman and knock it down.

Genetic determinism means what? Evolution was always strongly environmentally determined, not merely genetically. And epigenetics does not violate genetic determinism either. So what is your point?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115819 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your philosophical opinion that atheism is irrelevant to evolution is likewise irrelevant.
Your philosophical opinion that atheism is relevant to evolution is, of course, equally irrelevant.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115820 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I stopped responding to Dogen a long time ago. Him and a guy named Dutchy are the nuttiest of the bunch. Chimney is the only one with any brains but he is also one of the most radical.
Thanks, I think...but what is radical about my position? Its the same one held by 99.9% of biologists and over 90% of scientists in general!

The only truly full-on radical position being argued here is yours, i.e. your young earth creationism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115821 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's represent a classic failed prediction of Darwinism.
By far the majority of ERVs are useless and parasitical. On the other hand its not surprising that their presence has, on occasion, become incorporated into functional processes. Such as interfering with the immune response in a way that enabled the development of the placenta.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115822 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's have long been labeled as junk DNA.
And most of them still are.

However, even the usual claims that ERVs are actually all usefull, it would not alter the parallel conclusions re the nested hierarchy based on pseudogenes and ubiquitous proteins. They all tell the same story, and its one that evolution can explain but creationism cannot.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115823 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And in their minds they get to continue behaving just like animals because after all, that's what they are...
Absurd. Though it does remind me of the non-scientific objections that usually underlie the creationist position. What exactly do you mean when you say "act like animals"?

Humans act like humans. We have moral codes and conduct that does not depend one iota on what myths you choose to believe. God himself as represented in the Bible would fail miserably by modern ethical standards. Genocide of the Midianites, anyone? And careful not to beat your slaves to death. Or perhaps we should fast forward to "when your enemy smites you, turn the other cheek". How's that one worked out for Christians? How many can follow it, and where would Christianity be if they had?

Morality can be developed on a rational basis. Human life is not a myth, its a reality, and morality should be tailored to bettering it. Now, let me modify that slightly...I do not favour any radical re-valuation of morals by the lunatic left. We saw the results of that. We should respect traditions simply because the traditions that have survived - by trial and error - are clearly successful. They got us this far. That does not mean freezing them in stone, but it does mean that a conservative approach to change is probably wise. We can never see the full results of our decisions, but we can see what has worked in the past...so when we change things, we do it with caution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115824 Feb 2, 2013
In case you missed it...that was a Darwinian style argument by the way!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115825 Feb 2, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The childish clique pretends to have many names, but in reality, they have one face and that is the face of deceit.
They hate hard, provable science, because that field must be proven. With evolution, they don't have to prove anything.
They care nothing for science and not one of them in all the years they have been here, have ever offered even one new thought to science.

Science does not prove theories. Science supports theories.

Theories never become "proven".

Evolution is the most materially supported theory in the history of science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115826 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge.
YOU said there was literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject of evolution. I asked for ONE that proves macroevolution true.
Right.
Let me make this so simple even an evotard can understand:
Cowboy's Rule of non-macroevolution:
"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation permanently locked within its own species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, collectively referred to as within "created kind"), and with no known significant exceptions."
Prove me wrong.

You actually just proved evolution true well beyond the macro level. Proof: "Cowboy's Rule of non-macroevolution:
"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation permanently locked within its own species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family"

What stops macroevolution from going even further? We have proven mechanism that all for it to do so?

But thanks for admitting macroevolution. That is a start.

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 TrueLogic 159,136
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr Chimney1 996
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Zog Has-fallen 18,432
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 hr Dogen 141,192
Humans DID evolve from apes! (Oct '14) 22 hr Chimney1 68
Poll How Do You View The New Millerite Adventist Inv... Apr 13 Zog Has-fallen 1
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) Apr 13 Denisova 360
More from around the web