Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178688 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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116213 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up, Kong
Good effort tho'
Your time is better spent doing other things...
Ne hao
Don't put down Yankee that way. He is new to this part of the forum. He may not be an idiot, he might be able to learn yet.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116214 Feb 6, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Specifically
<quoted text>
Mankind can decipher the technology used 1000s of years ago, why do you presume advanced beings can't make the same leap.
Explain what you mean by your above quoted assertion, and when you say different dimension - what exactly do you mean ?
Thanks in advance
You are way too polite...
Aliens....for heaven sake...

By the way

You have not commented on the papers I had provided after your long suffering persistence for a reference that 100's of proteins would be involved in the first replicating "life"

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116215 Feb 6, 2013
Russell, you are way to deep into creatard denial. You do realize that the original geologist were looking for evidence to support the story of Noah's Ark.

So perhaps if we started with the evidence for the age of the Earth you might get yourself started on the right path to understanding.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116216 Feb 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, you are way to deep into creatard denial. You do realize that the original geologist were looking for evidence to support the story of Noah's Ark.
So perhaps if we started with the evidence for the age of the Earth you might get yourself started on the right path to understanding.
Why not start with the age of the Universe

Let's say...
Comets?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116217 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not start with the age of the Universe
Let's say...
Comets?
Don't listen to idiots like that jailbird Hovind. Comets come from the Kuiper belt and the Oort Cloud. Short lived comets come from the Kuiper Belt and long lived ones tend to come from the Oort Cloud.

The existence of these have been theoretical for quite a while the Kuiper Belt since the 1940's. But telescope technology was not high enough until the 1990's for us to spot any objects in it. Since then over 1,000 Kuiper Belt objects have been observed and it is estimated that there are over 100,000.

Now, did you know that the rotation of asteroids demonstrates that the Solar System is billions of years old?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116218 Feb 6, 2013
The same YouTuber who made the last video I linked also made one for comets. By the way, he is not a geologist, he is a physicist. Here is his comet video:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116219 Feb 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of unlimited within its own defined species don't you understand? Or are you just bitching?
What part of "defined spaces" can you actually define? And no, saying "species, maybe genus" is not defining anything. What specific aspect of the genome prevents open ended, continuous adaptation?

We observe small scale change in the lab.
We observe the evidence of large scale change in nature.

So now you prove that the obvious conclusion, when we observe a succession of fossils with minor cumulative changes adding up to major changes over many strata....prove it is NOT continuous adaptation as observed that is responsible. i.e. evolution.

And then explain why those successions exist, when according to you, everything was created almost at the same time. There should be fossils of every kind ("species, occasionally genus" - UC) in the earliest strata with a gradual winnowing out as extinction removed creatures. Not what we observe, not even close.

Taking the Cambrian as a baseline:

NO mammals or dinosaurs of any kind until the second half.
NO birds or flowering plants of any kind until the last third.
NO grasses of any kind until the last quarter.
NO ants of any kind until the last quarter.
NO monkey, cats, or whales of any kind until the last tenth!
NO hominids of any kind until the last one hundredth!

You cannot explain that, but evolution can, easily.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116220 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Original work
By MikeF
Supported by evidence
Jim Ryan is an idiot.
QED
Not original.
But correct.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116221 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
For goodness sake!
Education is highly over-rated
Which "cretard", as you lovingly refer to creationists, has lied? Making bigoted statements does not endear you to the masses nor function as a "badge of honour" for "being educated"...
You're tired again?
You're half asleep all day
Whatchoo gotta sleep at night for?
Here is one.

The REAL scientists, Coe and Prevot, spent a months hacking away at lava beds etc to discover that during a magnetic reversal, there can be fluctuations in alignment of the magnetic field of several percent per day. What they were investigating was a single reversal event out of the 200 odd that are recorded (mostly in the ocean bed).

Andrew Snelling "Creation Geologist", misinterpreted their data to concluded that the huge number of total reversals we have observed may have happened all at once during the Flood year, the time, supposedly, that tectonic activity went crazy and all the continents moved at the speed of jet boats across the face of the earth to find their current positions, with total magnetic pole reversal occurring daily - based, supposedly, on Coe and Prevot's work.

His error was clearly pointed out to him but of course, he did not retract. After all, you guys have NO credible answer to the problem of magnetic reversals, so Snelling's BS is the only way out. So he stuck to it.

Even when pointed out by Coe, even when explained, he continued to peddle lies. The most generous interpretation is that he started with a misunderstanding, but that does not hold up later.

Then, how about the continued use of Denton's erroneous conclusions about the nested hierarchy, which HE HIMSELF retracted with some embarrassment when his obvious error was identified. Creationists STILL use his false argument and quote him! Its STILL on Creatard sites. That is lying.

Academics will argue, and passionately, but you guys just do not understand that even then, deliberate quoting of errors and retracted statements, and deliberate twisting of your opponent's words, is NOT considered acceptable. You are merely turning the search for truth into a political game, and its despicable.

We call you liars, for the simple reason that you are liars.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116222 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You are way too polite...
Aliens....for heaven sake...
By the way
You have not commented on the papers I had provided after your long suffering persistence for a reference that 100's of proteins would be involved in the first replicating "life"
Have you read this yet?

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116223 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up, Kong Good effort tho'
Your time is better spent doing other things...
Ne hao
My post (above) was a response to Yankee Yahoo who suggested that the ToE failed to enjoy popular support from scientists.

The information I supplied shows otherwise.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#116224 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "defined spaces" can you actually define? And no, saying "species, maybe genus" is not defining anything. What specific aspect of the genome prevents open ended, continuous adaptation?
We observe small scale change in the lab.
We observe the evidence of large scale change in nature.
So now you prove that the obvious conclusion, when we observe a succession of fossils with minor cumulative changes adding up to major changes over many strata....prove it is NOT continuous adaptation as observed that is responsible. i.e. evolution.
And then explain why those successions exist, when according to you, everything was created almost at the same time. There should be fossils of every kind ("species, occasionally genus" - UC) in the earliest strata with a gradual winnowing out as extinction removed creatures. Not what we observe, not even close.
Taking the Cambrian as a baseline:
NO mammals or dinosaurs of any kind until the second half.
NO birds or flowering plants of any kind until the last third.
NO grasses of any kind until the last quarter.
NO ants of any kind until the last quarter.
NO monkey, cats, or whales of any kind until the last tenth!
NO hominids of any kind until the last one hundredth!
You cannot explain that, but evolution can, easily.
I am using the word species as it is normally used. Dogs are all one species but come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes but they can all still produce offspring and they all share common characteristics that we collectively define as the that species. That is the most specific category of life. The next is genus. Two different genuses cannot produces viable vertile offspring but still share much of the same characteristics of which we collectively define it. There is virtually unlimited genetic variation possible within a species with regards to size, shape, color, etc. For example, no two humans share the exact same fingerprint, facial features, eye pattern, or DNA. So this is a perfectly valid definition based on our current knowledge.

And now briefly, I am basing my rule on what is routinely observed and not what is speculated to fit the TOE. Gradualism and the slow fossilization of bones is generally not accepted by anyone therefore there really is no geologic column of fossils that represent vast eons of time and by deduction, no macroevolution. In order for a fossil to form, the creature must be quickly buried in mud under pressure. The old idea that an animal dies and its lies out in the sun and rain with all the decomposers and regardless of what we routinely observe that there is basically nothig left after a few days, the animals is slowly covered by dirt and leaves day after day, year after year, for thousands and millions of years and finally becomes fossilized. And then a framework whereby the fossil pattern found was used to create the framework of a theory is much weaker - and circular - than what is routinely observed. Plus the fact that there are as many or more out of place fossils than evolutionary ones. Plus the fact that there are so many living fossils. Fossils of creatures in very old layers that look just like their living counterparts. Got to go to work.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116225 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Gradualism and the slow fossilization of bones is generally not accepted by anyone therefore there really is no geologic column of fossils that represent vast eons of time and by deduction, no macroevolution. In order for a fossil to form, the creature must be quickly buried in mud under pressure. The old idea that an animal dies and its lies out in the sun and rain with all the decomposers and regardless of what we routinely observe that there is basically nothig left after a few days, the animals is slowly covered by dirt and leaves day after day, year after year, for thousands and millions of years and finally becomes fossilized. And then a framework whereby the fossil pattern found was used to create the framework of a theory is much weaker - and circular - than what is routinely observed. Plus the fact that there are as many or more out of place fossils than evolutionary ones. Plus the fact that there are so many living fossils. Fossils of creatures in very old layers that look just like their living counterparts. Got to go to work.
It really is hilarious how you twist things. Go right back to Darwin to see if even then, they thought fossils were made in the way you suggest they thought.

There are no verified out of place fossils.

There is still your problem that there is not a single ant, grass, mammal, bird, or flower fossils found alongside the early amphibian fossils of 300 million years ago. Want to compress the timeline to suit your bias? Fine, go ahead and ignore the radiometric and cosmological and chemical and geological data which all disagrees with you. You STILL have the same problem. Virtually none of the creatures are in the early record, and they appear gradually in accordance with the predictions of evolution, not with ex-nihilo creation all in six days.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#116226 Feb 7, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Anything with the word evolution attached, is fodder for morons.
Ignored on the grounds that you are a blithering idiot

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#116227 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
For goodness sake!
Education is highly over-rated
...
That explains so much
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116228 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one.
The REAL scientists, Coe and Prevot, spent a months hacking away at lava beds etc to discover that during a magnetic reversal, there can be fluctuations in alignment of the magnetic field of several percent per day. What they were investigating was a single reversal event out of the 200 odd that are recorded (mostly in the ocean bed).
Andrew Snelling "Creation Geologist", misinterpreted their data to concluded that the huge number of total reversals we have observed may have happened all at once during the Flood year, the time, supposedly, that tectonic activity went crazy and all the continents moved at the speed of jet boats across the face of the earth to find their current positions, with total magnetic pole reversal occurring daily - based, supposedly, on Coe and Prevot's work.
His error was clearly pointed out to him but of course, he did not retract. After all, you guys have NO credible answer to the problem of magnetic reversals, so Snelling's BS is the only way out. So he stuck to it.
That's nonsense
I have addressed magnetic field reversals previously on the parallel debate thread
Chimney1 wrote:
Even when pointed out by Coe, even when explained, he continued to peddle lies. The most generous interpretation is that he started with a misunderstanding, but that does not hold up later.
Then, how about the continued use of Denton's erroneous conclusions about the nested hierarchy, which HE HIMSELF retracted with some embarrassment when his obvious error was identified. Creationists STILL use his false argument and quote him! Its STILL on Creatard sites. That is lying.
References please
Chimney1 wrote:
Academics will argue, and passionately, but you guys just do not understand that even then, deliberate quoting of errors and retracted statements, and deliberate twisting of your opponent's words, is NOT considered acceptable. You are merely turning the search for truth into a political game, and its despicable.
We call you liars, for the simple reason that you are liars.
Creationist physicist Dr Humphreys has made predictions about the rapid magnetic field reversals.

Please see here:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles...

A layperson's summary for the fainthearted:
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matt...

With reference to Coe and Perot here as well:

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field...

"Humphreys model also predicts rapid reversals of the magnetic field. This is in defiance of the evolutionary model's predictions of reversals taking thousands of years 'proving' the earth is millions of years old."

Here are the refs for the Coe and Prevot papers:

Coe, R S and Prevot M, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science, 92(3/4) 292 to 298, Apr 1989

AND

Coe, RS Prevot M and Camps P, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374 (6564) 687-692, 1995

What did Dr Snelling do that constitutes lying?
Kindly back up your claims
One way or another

United States

#116229 Feb 7, 2013
Lenski's antibiotic claim.

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reversed the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistantt bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.

One way or another

United States

#116230 Feb 7, 2013
Aww the poor little Evo babies are mad because not one of them in all the years they've been here have had even one original thought.

Maybe next year children. Lmao

The science of running by Jim Ryan.

Yes, I used to run 10 miles a day for about 2 years. For whatever reason, I started counting a cadence in my head, that matched the cadence of my footfalls and my breathing, which synced body and mind, helping me to get into a trance like state, allowing me to run mile after mile without stress and the last mile I could run almost flat out.

I know they teach different things today, but give my method a try, I think you'll like it. By the way, keep your eyes focused just in front of you, on the ground.

The cadence in running I used to use was, "one two three one", " one two three two", "one two three three", and keep going.

It's a 4 count breathing in and then a 4 count breathing out.

Happy running.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116231 Feb 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
See. Here is an example. This is not stupid. It is purely delusional.
Both.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116232 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
Education is highly over-rated
That speaks volumes.

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) 1 min DanFromSmithville 173,308
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 1 min Zog Has-fallen 59
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 41 min Zog Has-fallen 66
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 2 hr Chimney1 420
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 46
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr Chimney1 143,878
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... 9 hr DanFromSmithville 133
More from around the web