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.

Urban Cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#115828 Feb 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Not absurd. It explains the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers. Believers place high value/importance on morality while non-believers generally do not. Ask an atheist and a Christian the same question about sex, honesty, family, marriage, etc., and you usually get very different answers. The typical non-believing young couple shacks up while the Christian couple waits until marriage for sex. Views on abortion, charity, etc. THere is a big difference. Believers have even been found to have less stress than non-believers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/...
Urban Cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#115829 Feb 2, 2013
Cowboys Rule of Non-Macroevolution:

"All biological organisms have potentially unlimited genetic variation, restricted to within their own defined species (and only extremely rarely genus), regardless of generation or time, and with no known present or historic significant exception."

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#115830 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not absurd. It explains the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers. Believers place high value/importance on morality while non-believers generally do not. Ask an atheist and a Christian the same question about sex, honesty, family, marriage, etc., and you usually get very different answers. The typical non-believing young couple shacks up while the Christian couple waits until marriage for sex. Views on abortion, charity, etc. THere is a big difference. Believers have even been found to have less stress than non-believers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/...
Ask two believers about those same topics and you always get two totally different answers. Your point is null, you have none.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115831 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you want to get into the HIV/AIDS debate then be my guest... HIV has not "evolved"... Where are you getting your information?
Another example of you not having any medical education. You should have known that viruses evolve, that's how they reproduce. Viruses depend on host DNA for reproduction. They don't reproduce by splitting in half like bacteria do.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115832 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's represent a classic failed prediction of Darwinism.
Darwin did not have an opinion about ERV's. What "prediction" are you referring to? The ToE is not a philosophy, it is not an "ism". The geological record, the fossil record, the biological record all support the science of evolution.

However, creationism IS an "ism".

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115833 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's have long been labeled as junk DNA.
Science has moved on since the 1980's. ERV's were once considered to be all junk DNA, but some of them have been found to have function, such as aiding the immune system or as switches for turning other gene functions on/off. But the function of most of the ERV's is unknown (if they have or have not a function).

When did you get your medical education?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115834 Feb 2, 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".
Any slight change from one generation to the next is evolution. But the general term of evolution refers to many generations over long periods of time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-def...

Common ancestry of all living things is accepted by the vast majority of physicians. Does your degree as a physician include the prefex "meta" as in metaphysician? That would be a few hundred years out of date, so you would need to take some refresher classes.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115835 Feb 2, 2013
right wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe they were dying out because their planet wasnt habitable anymore due to global warming so they found this place, tried to survive but couldnt so their leftover DNA mutated and then evolved and turned into earth life.
Actually, I don't have a problem with that notion. It's just as likely as any other of the many, many unprovable notions. For me, how life originated on earth is best expressed by saying, "I don't know."

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115836 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Transmutation from a worm to a man is not simple "changing allele frequencies", so why do you persist in irrelevant extrapolations?
As far as scientific evidence for God... Perhaps you could enlighten me on the significance of the Wheeler delayed choice experiment. How does your paradigm of atheism explain the existence of intelligence in photons of light?
If you don't actually know that evolution is not about "transmutation" from a worm to a man, then what would be the point of your trying to discuss anything about evolution?

Evolution is about common ancestry from the earliest generations of life to the most recent. The fossil record shows the branching of life forms over 3.5 billion years, not from one generation to the next from simple to complex.
LowellGuy

United States

#115837 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not absurd. It explains the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers. Believers place high value/importance on morality while non-believers generally do not. Ask an atheist and a Christian the same question about sex, honesty, family, marriage, etc., and you usually get very different answers. The typical non-believing young couple shacks up while the Christian couple waits until marriage for sex. Views on abortion, charity, etc. THere is a big difference. Believers have even been found to have less stress than non-believers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/...
Everything you just said is bullshit, except the last bit, because believers don't trouble their brains with things like reality and reason, which tax the brain.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115838 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
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."
There seems to be a contradiction between "unlimited genetic variation" and "locked within its own defined species".

Or did you mean "limited" genetic variation?

Either way, you have no evidence to support the idea that species cannot branch out to develop a new species. There's no mechanism to stop microevolution. So lots and lots and lots of microevolution leads to macroevolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115839 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
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."
If you mean that no experiment has shown a frog to be jump-started into a mammal, you would be correct. But that has nothing to do with the mountain of evidence from the fossil record.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115840 Feb 2, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're imaging the impossible... that a parasite that can't reproduce infects a host so that the host will eventually be ale to reproduce.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115841 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're imaging the impossible... that a parasite that can't reproduce infects a host so that the host will eventually be ale to reproduce.
How do you come to that preposterous synopsis?

A virus reproduces by taking over a cell, hijacking the DNA of the cell, causing it to reproduce viruses until the cell ruptures.

Sometimes cells with the help of antibodies are able to fight off the infection, but have disrupted DNA as a lingering effect of the battle.

If this cell is a germ cell, the disrupted DNA will be passed on to the children of the organism.

I thought you claimed to be a physician .... a pretty darned poor one if you didn't get this information before.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115842 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not absurd. It explains the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers. Believers place high value/importance on morality while non-believers generally do not. Ask an atheist and a Christian the same question about sex, honesty, family, marriage, etc., and you usually get very different answers. The typical non-believing young couple shacks up while the Christian couple waits until marriage for sex. Views on abortion, charity, etc. THere is a big difference. Believers have even been found to have less stress than non-believers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/...

This is what you believe because you look at believers through rose colored glasses. The fact that we have to deal with is that acknowledged atheists are, on average, better people than we are. They are more honest and less hypocritical. They value humans beings regardless of their belief system.

If you want to see truly caring and moral people take a good hard look at the Buddhists. They do more to help people than any other religion.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115843 Feb 2, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Cowboys Rule of Non-Macroevolution:
"All biological organisms have potentially unlimited genetic variation, restricted to within their own defined species (and only extremely rarely genus), regardless of generation or time, and with no known present or historic significant exception."

Since this is already known to be untrue I guess there is no point in refuting it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115844 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're imaging the impossible... that a parasite that can't reproduce infects a host so that the host will eventually be ale to reproduce.

Your response does not make any sense.

Maybe if you reword it.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115845 Feb 2, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you come to that preposterous synopsis?
A virus reproduces by taking over a cell, hijacking the DNA of the cell, causing it to reproduce viruses until the cell ruptures.
Sometimes cells with the help of antibodies are able to fight off the infection, but have disrupted DNA as a lingering effect of the battle.
If this cell is a germ cell, the disrupted DNA will be passed on to the children of the organism.
I thought you claimed to be a physician .... a pretty darned poor one if you didn't get this information before.
I was responding to the ridiculous proposal that a virus infected an ancient mammal and inserted a worthless segment of DNA into the host which eventually enabled that host to be able to reproduce. So-called ERV's are nothing of the kind, because they have vital functionality.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115846 Feb 2, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response does not make any sense.
Maybe if you reword it.
ERS's have been proven to have functionality. One, for example, is vital for the proper function of the placenta. The proposal that these segments of genetic code were worthless segments resultant from past parasitic infections requires the conclusion that an ancient mammal was infected by a virus and thereafter acquired the capacity to reproduce.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#115847 Feb 2, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I was responding to the ridiculous proposal that a virus infected an ancient mammal and inserted a worthless segment of DNA into the host which eventually enabled that host to be able to reproduce. So-called ERV's are nothing of the kind, because they have vital functionality.
No ERV ever infected an ancient mammal and gave it an ability to reproduce that it never had before. That on it surface is ridiculous.

I suppose it never occurred to you that you might have misunderstood something if what you heard was that ridiculous.

'course not!

The ERV remnants are markers passed on to descendents of a previously infected animal. These markers are present in all the descendants of such an animal, even those thousands of years later that have evolved into something completely different. This is why and how we share some of these identical markers with apes and chimpanzees.

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) 18 min messianic114 163,856
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Chimney1 141,339
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 19 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