Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179707 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116154 Feb 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Are radiometric dates consistent with an old earth the rule or the exception?

How about intermediates? We have thousands of them now, across all classes.

How about sediments? Are those types requiring long periods the rule or the exception?

How about galaxies more then 6000 light years away? Are they the exception UC?

etc.

Your problem is, you spend all your time on Creationist sites that spend all THEIR time focused on (usually imagined) rare anomalies, so you have no sense of the sheer weight of evidence that falsifies your viewpoint.

And Cowboy can have a rule for omelettes and beans for all I care, its meaningless to science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116155 Feb 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
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.”
Oh, so this is your rule. Cute.

Now show the mechanism that underlies your made up rule. The one that stops adaptation being open ended and continuous, and sets limits on the amount of variation allowed. I note that even within your "rule", you have contradicted yourself by claiming that potential genetic variation is unlimited, but restricted. Could you be any less logical?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116156 Feb 5, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Team
Lol, hey moron, light waves are not sound waves.
They do different things. The test was done with light. If they wanted to test with radio waves, they would have done so, but idiots rarely comprehend. Lol, thanks
So you seriously think that radio waves are sound waves? And you presume to lecture us all on how astronomers and physicists are wrong?

Certifiable.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116157 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where exactly is all this evidence that you allude o?
What fossil evidence?
"All fossils support evolution?"
Huh?
Usual evolutionary garbage
How about evolutionary stasis? Does that support evolution as well?
I am acutely aware I am talking to someone for whom acceptance of being wrong is impossible...
But never mind...
Like I said, you are too uneducated to understand the concept of scientific evidence. I am too tired and it is too late for me to try to teach a dishonest person tonight.

By the way, I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong. The problem is that creationists usually use lying cretard sources and there is not too much of a chance of being wrong in that case.

The reason I call "educated" creationists "creatards" is that they either know better or should know better. They obviously lie time after time and if there is one thing that is detested in the world of science it is someone who does not tell the truth. Being wrong is acceptable. Lying is not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116158 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Adaptation is not evolution
Neither is natural selection
Evolution is just cumulative adaptation.
Natural selection is a part of evolution, half of the essential equation (novel variation being the other).
Variability is merely phenotype derived from existing alleles
The variations found in Lenski's bacteria were the result of novel mutations. They had to be, as the original populations were a monoclonal set - genetically identical.

Other experiments have clearly shown new functionality based on novel gene changes and insertions. The nylonase bacteria are another example.
Loss of variability is natural selection
True. Which is why without a source of new variation - mutation - populations would become less and less variable. It was a problem that troubled Darwin because he could not identify the source of new variation. Now we know.
Where in a fossil record so you have a “record” of evolution?
Not "where in" - its the whole record. For example, one skull cannot tell us a lot individually except that a particular creature existed at a point in time. Its the accumulated sequence of changes that show consistency with the theory of evolution and thus confirm it. There would be no reason to expect this pattern in a Creationist framework.

1. Fossils show gradual divergence from modern forms as we go back in time. Rare "living fossils" are examples where a creature in a stable environment reached a local optimum from which much further change was not advantageous.

2. Fossils show gradual convergence with contemporary forms as we go back in time.

3. No highly derived form has ever been found and verified as existing before its possible evolutionary antecedents.

4. If all creatures were created in the first six days, then the fossil record should show examples of every kind of creature from the start, tapering off due to extinction. Not "no dinosaurs in the first three quarters of the strata, then dinosaurs for a quarter of the strata, then no dinosaurs for the last quarter" etc.

Same goes for birds, mammals, armoured fish, trilobites, archosaurs, giant amphibians, bony fish, ants, flowering plants, etc. NO ants, NO grasses, NO placental mammals, until the last part of the column.

Creationism does not even begin to tackle these, while evolution predicted them.

P.S. A cryodont could outrun a daffodil any day of the week.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116159 Feb 6, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you (Jimbo) are unable to extract the fundamental principle from a specific application.
Morons are like that.
A symptom of schizophrenia I believe?

Dogen will know.
One way or another

United States

#116160 Feb 6, 2013
The Evo morons have changed evolution to adaptation, because evolution never happened. They don't seem to recognize adaptation and evolution have two different definitions. However, science will change the definitions to one.
One way or another

United States

#116161 Feb 6, 2013
All the Evo morons act and speak as if its impossible for any of them to be wrong. That's part of the reason I call them children. Lol

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116162 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons have changed evolution to adaptation, because evolution never happened. They don't seem to recognize adaptation and evolution have two different definitions. However, science will change the definitions to one.
Right from the start, evolution was defined as adaptation to the environment in a continuing process that could result in large changes over time. Evolution is nothing more than adaptive change over a long period.

The only argument between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionist regard adaptation has continuing for millions of years with open-ended results, while creationists think there is some sort of limit on the maximum amount of adaptation no matter how long the process runs.

You would think that after years of your prattling on these sites, you might have picked up on the simplest aspects of the argument, but you cannot even do that.

Still think radio waves are sound waves?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#116163 Feb 6, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes. I'm getting an idea what they call it The Troubles.
I've seen a little bit of how war can transform people. My own personal experience in Vietnam was mostly uneventful. No war stories, I just did my small job driving a mail truck. But I got to know several combat veterans who learned to love war. For some it's like a religion, it gives them a sense of purpose.
I hope you and those you care about remain safe and that a peaceful resolution will be found.
It’s certainly a lot more stable than it was but I believe the upcoming poll is starting to excite things again

Yes religion seems to have that effect even if it’s a substitute.

Cheers, we all hope that.
One way or another

United States

#116164 Feb 6, 2013
The Evo morons have changed evolution to adaptation, because evolution never happened. They don't seem to recognize adaptation and evolution have two different definitions. However, science will change the definitions to one.

Let us know when science changes the definitions to become one.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116165 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Team
Lol, hey moron, light waves are not sound waves.
They do different things. The test was done with light. If they wanted to test with radio waves, they would have done so, but idiots rarely comprehend. Lol, thanks
Radio waves are not sound waves, you dumbass.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116166 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you seriously think that radio waves are sound waves? And you presume to lecture us all on how astronomers and physicists are wrong?
Certifiable.
Indeed.

I guess Jimbozo thinks he can hear radio waves. Much like Marky can see electrons.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116167 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
All the Evo morons act and speak as if its impossible for any of them to be wrong. That's part of the reason I call them children. Lol
Do you really think any of us give a rat's ass that you call us children? We all know who the fool is here. You just the whiny little fat kid with the runny nose sticking his tongue out.
Mugwump

London, UK

#116168 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Radio waves are not sound waves, you dumbass.
What comes out of a RADIO ???

SOUNDWAVES

moron

(Sorry couldn't resist)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116169 Feb 6, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That was just dumb.
But "the magical properties of water" isn't dumb. Gotcha.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116170 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where exactly is all this evidence that you allude o?
What fossil evidence?
"All fossils support evolution?"
Huh?
Usual evolutionary garbage
How about evolutionary stasis? Does that support evolution as well?
I am acutely aware I am talking to someone for whom acceptance of being wrong is impossible...
But never mind...
Do you have the Ray Comfort $10 challenge memorized?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116171 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons have changed evolution to adaptation, because evolution never happened. They don't seem to recognize adaptation and evolution have two different definitions. However, science will change the definitions to one.
Let us know when science changes the definitions to become one.
Right from the start, evolution was defined as adaptation to the environment in a continuing process that could result in large changes over time. Evolution is nothing more than adaptive change over a long period.

The only argument between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionist regard adaptation has continuing for millions of years with open-ended results, while creationists think there is some sort of limit on the maximum amount of adaptation no matter how long the process runs.

You would think that after years of your prattling on these sites, you might have picked up on the simplest aspects of the argument, but you cannot even do that.

Still think radio waves are sound waves?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116172 Feb 6, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
What comes out of a RADIO ???
SOUNDWAVES
moron
(Sorry couldn't resist)
:-P
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116173 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so this is your rule. Cute.
Now show the mechanism that underlies your made up rule. The one that stops adaptation being open ended and continuous, and sets limits on the amount of variation allowed. I note that even within your "rule", you have contradicted yourself by claiming that potential genetic variation is unlimited, but restricted. Could you be any less logical?
What part of unlimited within its own defined species don't you understand? Or are you just bitching?

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) 14 min It aint necessari... 216,729
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min One way or another 48,577
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 49 min Knowledge 154,701
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 15 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) 21 hr _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
More from around the web