Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 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.

Mugwump

London, UK

#116080 Feb 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Lively
Housing fall
More new science by Jim Ryan
The failing school systems across the planet, due to government control, fail in the most important way and that is, to teach how to think for oneself.
The gov teaches A B C's and 1 2 3's, it teaches what to say and what to do. It teaches what not to say and what not to do.
Most of the housing bubble and fall were not due to lending to those who couldn't afford it, but it was due to the group think, taught all throughout school and work.
I'll bet none of you know what it was.
If you are able to think for yourself, it should be very easy to figure out, especially in hindsight and knowing that the rise and fall of the housing industry was due to group think and action.
The housing fall came not from the bad loans, but rather from the good loans. The good loans were the ones that borrowed money to renovate their homes. There were quite a number of tv shows touting the money to be made by renovation, coupled with politicians, realtors, home improvement stores, gov and more, making money by creating the schools, follow the leader mentality.
All you have done is identify two phenomena, the housing crash and the increase in renovation loans.

Want to provide evidence of a link that is more compelling that the effect of providing loans at low interest rates to people who could not afford them, and underwriting them with increasing equity?

There - got my fruitless post of the day out of the way.
Mugwump

London, UK

#116081 Feb 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
It's good to see two other people here that have a real brain and know how to use it. They would be, HTS and Russell.
That must be the equivalent of the Dali lama and mother Theresa getting a high-five from Pol Pot
Mugwump

London, UK

#116082 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
Evolution, as I have clearly defined just recently, is the conversion of inorganic substances into living cells, with the inexplicable gain of DNA by absolutely NO KNOWN MEANS..... and voila!!
Here we all are....
Change is not evolution
Christianity is defined by a belief in hobbits from middle earth.

However as the whole middle earth myth was invented by Tolkien ...

Lord of the rings

Christianity is a fable (and a bloody long and tedious one at that)

Can you see an issue with this argument Russell ?

No of course not

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116083 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bud
Real nice try an' all
But
Adaptation is not evolution....
GTE demands single celled organisms arising from inorganic matter and gaining the DNA to provide the complexity we observe in living things today.
See Kerkut
Here http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerk...

I covered this. Adaptation IS evolution. It is one of the main mechanisms of evolution.

Sorry.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116084 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no and no, again
Adaptation is not evolution
Just saying so, does not make it so
Natural selection???
C'mon, Bud
Surely you're smarter than that?
How is natural selection "evolution"
Again, as requested before.....
Check GTE Kerkut, creation.com
No, don't be shy
Don't be a materialistic bigot either...check it out
Creation.com
No evidence exists for what is demanded by "evolution"
None what so ever
Greater minds than ours' have been infuriated by the shoddy pseudoscience that is "evolution"
Its trash
Should not be referred to as science
Please check
http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis
This is regarding another experiment similar to Lenski's where 4 mutations resulted

Adaptation is a known mechanism for evolution.

All of the drivers (mechanisms) of evolution have been observed genetically. The effects of the mechanisms is to cause life to change over time in response to its environment. These changes are recorded in the fossil and genomic records.

Simple facts that anyone can look up on real science sites, not on religion based pseudoscience sites.

Creation.com is not a science site as evidenced by:

"What we believe
STATEMENT OF FAITH
(See also “Good News”)
(A) PRIORITIES

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 doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

They are also into historical revisionism. If you would like examples from the site I would be glad to provide them.

I suggest you get your SCIENCE information from science sources.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116086 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree
It's a definition
Well spotted 99

No that was revisionist and filled with denial.

Here is a correct definition.

Adaptation: An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.

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


Adaptation: An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides some improved function. Adaptations are well fitted to their function and are produced by natural selection.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116087 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
Evolution, as I have clearly defined just recently, is the conversion of inorganic substances into living cells, with the inexplicable gain of DNA by absolutely NO KNOWN MEANS..... and voila!!
Here we all are....
Change is not evolution

LOL. Funny joke.
Urban Cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#116088 Feb 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. I have heard your insistence on "debunked arguments" frequently in the last day or two but in four years on these sites and others, have never heard an actual debunking. I have seen many attempts.
Natural Selection is easily observed and one of the main two complementary processes of evolution, the other being mutation.
Unless you can come up with a convincing reason why the process of mutation and natural selection should not continue indefinitely, producing essentially open-ended variation, you have no argument.
And please do not be tempted to employ the following:
1. The earth is too young. Total anti-science across multiple disciplines,
2. Genetic Entropy. Debunked by experiment. Fitness recovers.
3. Irreducible complexity. Debunked in multiple examples but a failure even in principles as (a) you cannot identify and eliminate all potential pathways to a complex structure and (b) IC advocates tend to assume that the function represented today is the same function that the components were "driving towards" in the past, which is patently false.
4. No new information. Gene duplications and insertions are observed and add new information by any objective measure.
5. No transitionals. Patently false in the spirit offered. We speak of intermediates now, because we cannot be sure if species X or a related species actually gave rise to descendant species. However the fossil record follows the predicted pattern of divergence with modern forms and, simultaneously, convergence with contemporary forms as you track back through the strata.
6. Arguments by probability. Completely bogus as natural selection removes the constraint of pure independently calculated probability. Evolution drives the development of complexity, and natural selection is not a random process.
7. No macroevolution. We have a series of transitions showing the highly derived development of the 3-boned middle ear throughout the development of the synapsids and therapsids, mammal-like reptiles of the period around 230 million years ago. We will never have the complete record for all such transition in the history of life, but the principle is demonstrated.
Isn't it interesting that all of your points are the rare exception rather than the rule. And you forgot design. Oh, and you forgot Cowboy's Rule of Non-macroevolution.
Urban Cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#116089 Feb 5, 2013
Cowboy’s Rule of Non-Macroevolution:

"All biological organisms have potentially unlimited genetic variation, restricted within their own defined species (on very rare occasion, genus) regardless of ancestry or time.”

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116090 Feb 5, 2013
Dogen wrote:
I suggest you get your SCIENCE information from science sources.
Seriously!

http://creation.com/about-us

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

But, of course, it is of *NO* importance that the bible is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

You betcha.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#116091 Feb 5, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to admit to having little understanding of the issues that have driven the bloodshed in that part of the world. The little I know (or think I know) of the situation in Northern Ireland is that England allowed Ireland to be independent, but kept hold of much of the economy by maintaining a foothold in Northern Ireland. What I understand (or again, think I understand) is that England gained control of Northern Ireland by shipping lots of English people to that area so the original population became the minority. After that, the original (catholic) population became second class citizens, while good jobs and political opportunities went to the protestant majority. I'd guess that we might have the same mess here if the U.S. had gained its independence from England while losing Massachusetts to England.
When both sides see the other as uncivilized murderers, it's hard to find a way to resolve the problem.
Yes that’s one way of looking at it however it ignores the religious demographics and strife has been a byword in Ireland for 1000 years. Pope Adrian IV awarded the lordship of Ireland on Henry II of England in 1155 hoping to cure some of Ireland's religious troubles. Ireland was far from a catholic country and sectarian violence was commonplace between clans.

From then until the early 1500s many English moved to Ireland just as many Irish moved to England. Some assimilated but strife continued between the native Irish and the colonists and between the catholics and non catholics.

The Jacobites held most of the land and treated non catholics very poorly. Henry VIII overthrew the Fitzgeralds as Lords Deputies of Ireland and the Jacobites later surrendered confirming protestant authority in Ireland. Much of the land previously owned by the Jacobite catholics was transferred to the winning protestant side. No doubt the bad treatment also changed sides as is the way of such power.

There are several twists and turns in between then and now which of course different people cite as the cause for the trouble. Cromwell, James II, the breakdown of the penal code, the polarising effect of the 1790s, The failed Rebellion, the founding of the Orange Order etc. etc.

By the early 1900s the catholic faith was by far the most populous and on the verge of gaining home rule. Unionists concentrated in the north resisted home rule, fearing a blood bath.

The easter uprising, the Irish War for Independence which lead to Sinn Féin failing in the north showing the strength of feeling for unionism.

Ireland was eventually partitioned in the 1920s, not as you consider for economic grounds but by population boundaries.

And then the troubles really began but in truth each of these nuances contributed and of course a 1000 years of religious hatred continued.

Now the majority in Northern Ireland (by popular vote) want to keep the status quo, to be part of the UK. The minority want to rejoin with the south and some of that minority seem willing to maim and kill and spread terror to gain their ends

There will be another vote (I believe in 2016)

As that date draws closer perhaps we will again see the deliberate and arbitrarily targeting of innocent children and unarmed civilians in knee cappings, murders and bomb attacks. There is a worrying trend of the IRA and their clones stepping up sectarian violence after a few years of peace.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116092 Feb 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously!
http://creation.com/about-us
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
But, of course, it is of *NO* importance that the bible is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
You betcha.
I just hope you count yourself among those infallible people.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116093 Feb 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I just hope you count yourself among those infallible people.
Nope. Never have. I'm not as egotistical as yourself.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116094 Feb 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Never have. I'm not as egotistical as yourself.
But you couldn't possibly be wrong about evolution, right?
Elohim

Branford, CT

#116095 Feb 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But you couldn't possibly be wrong about evolution, right?
Correct.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116096 Feb 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But you couldn't possibly be wrong about evolution, right?
Of course I could but you couldn't possibly be wrong about god or creation, can you? No, you've made it abundantly clear that the bible is the absolute truth. And your excellent creation science journals backs that up. Isn't that right, Urb?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116097 Feb 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Try to go to the web page on this post.
Evolutionists in science are always using deceit.
NASA took down its own web page, because I proved their own test and words, showed that what they claimed, disproved speed of light theory. That's why they took down their own web page.
Funny, I prove NASA and Goddard must be stupid, according to their own web site.
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Moons reflectors bogus
So, the moons reflectors are 239,000 miles from earth, approximately and since the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, y'all must think that laser beam will get back to earth pretty fast. Actually, the light should return to earth from the moons reflectors in 1.3 seconds, with the reflectors designed to reflect the light back to the point it came from.
However, in the 1.3 seconds the light takes to return to its origin, the earth has moved approx 4,000 miles from the point source of light, according to sciences claim that our galaxy is traveling that fast in 1 second, making it impossible for science to capture any photons, at least according to science.
Science sure is messed up, thinking it can collect photons that are 4,000 miles behind the collector.
At least they depend on all of us being stupid enough to believe them. Well, at least the Evo morons here.
Stupidity of NASA +Goddard
On the website,----http://eclipse.gsf c.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser . html
It claims,--------- scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters.
I say, WOW, what a marvel.
On to the next part.
Science claims,---"Lunar ranging involves sending a laser beam through an optical telescope," Dickey said. "The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror, then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon."
The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide. Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime two miles away.
I say,--------so now, with a laser light 4 miles wide and an exact location, probably sending out a beacon or should be, they complain like hell. So much for close, perhaps 500 pound bomb close.
Now here is a crucial piece to my complaint.--------
Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.
I say,------read that last sentence very carefully. One photon every few seconds.
Science doesn't say one or two seconds or a couple of seconds. Instead, science claims a FEW seconds, meaning, it took 3 or more seconds for the photon to go from the moon to the earth. That means, that the beam should have taken, 1.3 seconds and not a full 3 seconds or more as NASA and the Goddard space center claim.
Suck on that Evo morons.
You made an error in copying the website. It works fine when you highlight the entire link and copy it to google.

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLas...

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116098 Feb 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Try to go to the web page on this post.
Evolutionists in science are always using deceit.
NASA took down its own web page, because I proved their own test and words, showed that what they claimed, disproved speed of light theory. That's why they took down their own web page.
Funny, I prove NASA and Goddard must be stupid, according to their own web site.
Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Moons reflectors bogus
So, the moons reflectors are 239,000 miles from earth, approximately and since the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, y'all must think that laser beam will get back to earth pretty fast. Actually, the light should return to earth from the moons reflectors in 1.3 seconds, with the reflectors designed to reflect the light back to the point it came from.
However, in the 1.3 seconds the light takes to return to its origin, the earth has moved approx 4,000 miles from the point source of light, according to sciences claim that our galaxy is traveling that fast in 1 second, making it impossible for science to capture any photons, at least according to science.
Science sure is messed up, thinking it can collect photons that are 4,000 miles behind the collector.
At least they depend on all of us being stupid enough to believe them. Well, at least the Evo morons here.
Stupidity of NASA +Goddard
On the website,----http://eclipse.gsf c.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser . html
It claims,--------- scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters.
I say, WOW, what a marvel.
On to the next part.
Science claims,---"Lunar ranging involves sending a laser beam through an optical telescope," Dickey said. "The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror, then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon."
The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide. Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime two miles away.
I say,--------so now, with a laser light 4 miles wide and an exact location, probably sending out a beacon or should be, they complain like hell. So much for close, perhaps 500 pound bomb close.
Now here is a crucial piece to my complaint.--------
Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.
I say,------read that last sentence very carefully. One photon every few seconds.
Science doesn't say one or two seconds or a couple of seconds. Instead, science claims a FEW seconds, meaning, it took 3 or more seconds for the photon to go from the moon to the earth. That means, that the beam should have taken, 1.3 seconds and not a full 3 seconds or more as NASA and the Goddard space center claim.
Suck on that Evo morons.
Please help us resolve an issue. Dogen contends that you are totally delusional. I maintain that you really know all of your posts are nonsense, and you just like being an internet troll. You could make a valuable contribution by laying this issue to rest. So, what is it, total delusion or total troll?
Elohim

Branford, CT

#116099 Feb 5, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please help us resolve an issue. Dogen contends that you are totally delusional. I maintain that you really know all of your posts are nonsense, and you just like being an internet troll. You could make a valuable contribution by laying this issue to rest. So, what is it, total delusion or total troll?
Delusional troll?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116100 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
Evolution, as I have clearly defined just recently, is the conversion of inorganic substances into living cells, with the inexplicable gain of DNA by absolutely NO KNOWN MEANS..... and voila!!
Here we all are....
Change is not evolution
That's not evolution. It's your version of wacky abiogenesis. Evolution does not and never has taken a stand on how life originated. You might also add to your argument that we don't know how gravity happened, so nothing should ever fall.

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 DanFromSmithville 162,134
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 7 min In Six Days 1,726
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 53 min Kong_ 18,900
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 1 hr Kong_ 20
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 141,291
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 1 hr emrenil 897
No Place For ID? 7 hr Chimney1 113
More from around the web