Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,458

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." Full Story

“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.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116233 Feb 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sZz9r7btrX8XX
Who the heck is Hovind?
And why would I "listen" to him anyway

I go where the evidence is, bud

Don't be a prat

The Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disc are HYPOTHETICAL

Nice bit of astrophysics, admittedly

But they fall into the realms of the usual evo-wishful thinking...

Kuiper belt: in order to work would need BILLIONS of comets

Hooray for your thousands...

Besides, they are TOO LARGE....over 100 km in diameter
Therefore, are at least TEN times wider than comets
Which means they are over a thousand times more massive!
Indeed, KBO's Orcus and Quaoar are over 1000 km in diameter.

Where Kuiper Belt failed as a potential reservoir for short distance comets, by virtue of its stability,
...enter stage R--> The Scattered Disc

--Levinson, H F and Donnes, L, "Comet populations and cometary Dynamics", in McFadden, L A A et al, Encyclopedia of the Solar system, 2nd Ed, Amsterdam, Boston,Academic Press, pp 575-588, 2007

Scattered disc objects are too few and too large eg SDO Eris is larger than Pluto, with a diameter of 2,400 km

Sedna SDO is larger than Quaoar

For long distance comets, with the Oort Cloud---> No observational support

--Sagan C and Druyan A, Comets, Michael Joseph, London, p 175, 1985

If there really was an Oort cloud, there should be 100 times more comets than we see...

So what do evolutionary astronomers do?
Fudge factor
"Arbitrary fading function"....or that they are broken before we see them

--Bailey, M E, Where have all the comets gone? Science 296 (5576):2251-2253, June 2002

--Levison, H F et al, The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science, 296, 5576, 2212-2215, June 2002

See the fallacy?

Hypothetical source for comets
Not observable even today
Claimed to be billions of years old
Then make something up to explain why this hypothetical source does not provide the comets it should

BIG FAIL

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#116234 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nonsense
I have addressed magnetic field reversals previously on the parallel debate thread
<quoted text>
References please
<quoted text>
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
I will look up your sources when I have a chance. However, note the titles of Coe and Prevot's work. Field Variation during A magnetic field reversal. Then go and take a look at Snelling et al.

By the way, UC directed me to some "creation physics" on this subject a year or so back. It was little more than a joke then. Lets see if yours are any better...probably the same stuff.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#116235 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
The Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt and Scattered Disc are HYPOTHETICAL
Nice bit of astrophysics, admittedly
But they fall into the realms of the usual evo-wishful thinking...
Hilarious, the way you guys conflate biological evolution with astronomy. Astronomers don't need the theory of evolution to know that the universe is old.
One way or another

United States

#116236 Feb 7, 2013
Today's failing educational system is little more than monkey see, monkey do. That fact is painfully obvious to everyone that went to school.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116237 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.
How do you explain the "sudden appearance" of creatures in the Cambrian?

Actually

Don't bother

I have already covered this before....here it is....
please excuse the sarcasm...in the heat of the battle...etc..

----------PART 1

"Hold your horses Kong
One thing at a time..
Lets talk evo-god worship stuff first.

I still have to chat about the Cambrian explosion and the total absence of transitional ancestors, Hox not withstanding.

Have you come across the work of geneticist Susumu Ohno? His paper "The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome" is rather unusual.
He suggested that Cambrian was of an "astonishingly short duration, lasting only 6-10 million years." He goes on to say "Inasmuch as only 1% DNA base sequence change is expected in 10 million years under the standard mutation rate, I propose that all those diverse animals of the early Cambrian period, some 550 million years ago, were endowed with nearly identical genomes, with differential usage of the same set of genes accounting for the extreme diversities of body forms".

What he is saying, and this is fascinating, is that mutations could not account for the diversification.

Aren't you surprised by that?

I am certain you are scratching your head, saying, "Hot damn, go figure!!" at this very moment.

--Susumu Ohno, The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome, Proc Nati Acad Sci USA, 93:8475-8478, Aug 1996.

Since changes alleged to be due to natural selection working on genes could NOT account for the diversity of the Cambrian body plans, WHAT caused this diversity?

Since the Cambrian, there has been a wide diversity of genes...but no new phyla.

What an astonishing state of affairs?

And guess what?

It gets worse.

Some argue in favour for vacant ecological niches driving diversification, I know, I know, I'm shaking my head as well, since both you and I know that the vacant ecological niches provided by the Permian extinction "dated" at 250 Ma and the far worse Cretaceous extinction, said to have killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, led to NO new phyla. Indeed-- here's an elbow poke to your ribs-- 57% of all families, 83% of all genera were killed off, including 96% of marine species. Yet, no new phyla.

So clearly, we have a problem.

Not “us” specifically, of course, but the evo-god desperadoes, and I don't mind if you are one of them, I won't judge you at all.

Here in my continent the Adelaide hills provided the name for the Ediacaran fauna, from the Ediacaran period "dated" at 635-542 Ma.

So what?

I hear you say.

Patience...
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116239 Feb 7, 2013
PART 2

The Ediacaran pool included many soft bodied organisms, but sadly for the evo-god worshippers, none were ancestral to the Cambrian creatures.

--Levinton, J, The Big Bang of Animal Explosion, Scientific American 267:84-91 Nov 1992.

Don't weep.

Save your tears for the next part. Hanky ready?

There is even an Avalon Explosion!!

A Few anticipatory tears are allowed now..

"A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage (5775 to 565 Ma) already encompassed the full range of Ediacaran morphospace."

--Shen S, Dong L, Xiao, S and Kowalewski, M, The Avalon explosion: evolution of Ediacaran morphospace, Science 319:81-84, 2008.

Ok,, full flow of tears permitted now.

Handwringing can also start...now...

Thus evo-god worshippers have TWO explosions, that are unrelated, with NO evidence of evolutionary ancestry.

Some of my posts have gone missing

Perhaps a problem with scripts?

Not sure
Not too worried
Ha ha

Hope the game wasn't too disappointing?
(Distraction may help?)
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116240 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious, the way you guys conflate biological evolution with astronomy. Astronomers don't need the theory of evolution to know that the universe is old.
No
Of course not....

http://www.creationastronomy.com/evolution-ha...
One way or another

United States

#116241 Feb 7, 2013
Red shift blue shift
More new science by Jim Ryan

Red shift, blue shift, shows the complete stupidity of all in the scientific world, that are either too stupid to understand how galaxies work or they are simply government stooges.

Just think about it. Science claims that red shift means the Big Bang is correct, but blue shift doesn't mean a shrinking universe, but more importantly, consider how our own insignificant solar system, revolves within our own galaxy, just as every other solar system within this and every other galaxy.

If we look at any planet within any galaxy, there will be times that each and every one will be going away from us at times and at other times, each and everyone will be coming towards us, just as galaxies can, dependent on where each galaxy is located, its speed and direction.

Surely there are galaxies ahead of the galaxies we see. We surely know that some galaxies do not move as fast as others, right? Wouldn't that mean that the faster galaxies are catching up to the slower galaxies that we can't see? Doesn't that mean that according to science on their worlds, that blue shift is dominant and a shrinking universe, at least according to our science?

However, all the above is dependent on the Hypothesis,---that each galaxy is traveling at the same speed and or in the same direction. Science has no way of knowing.

Science is either very stupid or lying.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116242 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So you say I twist things but then what is the mechanism that places the evolutionary order of life in the right layers? This is my point. Every fossil must be buried quickly under pressure. There is no layers of depths from which you can trace backward in time. And another thing. You could equally have said, at some earlier point when the theory was being developed, that so and so fossil preceeds or follows this so and so fossil. It is impossible to know for sure because it is the unobservable past.

You always place much greater weight on the unobservable past than the routinely observed and testable present: we don't see beneficial mutations or macroevolution as the rule. There are only 1 or 2 highly questionnable cases. We have never seen a bone fossilize by the process of slow gradualism. This means that by and large, all fossils form by catasrophism not uniformatariansim. This blows the lid off the geologic column! My rule places much more weight on the observable and testable. Your theory is devoted almost entirely on the unobservable past and the very rare exception.

And as you always do, I'll sprinkle a few supporting comments: The arrow of time is in the exact opposite direction of evolution. Everything in the known universe is moving toward less complexity, including all living genomes. The radiometric dating is only as good as its assumptions about quanties of parent and daughter elements and rates, and it doesn't explain always finding elements that should have been long decayed away.

So regardless of the geologic column or any guesses about how old the earth is, my Rule of Non-Macroevolution stands.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116243 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious, the way you guys conflate biological evolution with astronomy. Astronomers don't need the theory of evolution to know that the universe is old.
They are joined at the hip Chimney. One is an excuse for the other. But there are other, more sophisticated explanations for the star-distance problem, other than the dumbed-down distance = time version that evolutionists like. We've discussed this before. Remember Dr. John Hartnett? Basically, if the speed of light has not changed, the only thing left is time itself. How do we know there wasn't a huge time-dilation event early in the history of the universe? So if the universe was created (or formed by whatever) around the earth and then rapidly inflated, time would seem to have been billions of years on earth which really only took days. The CMB is there, and there are many other clues; the comets, the young sun paradox, the spiral arms of galaxies even in the farthest reaches, etc.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116244 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
For goodness sake!
Education is highly over-rated
The only people who say that are those who have very little education.
Russell wrote:
Which "cretard", as you lovingly refer to creationists, has lied?
Only the ones who say things.
Russell wrote:
Making bigoted statements does not endear you to the masses nor function as a "badge of honour" for "being educated"...
When you stop caring about the evidence, you stop being honest.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#116245 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nonsense
I have addressed magnetic field reversals previously on the parallel debate thread
<quoted text>
References please
<quoted text>
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
Einstein predicts that no god as descried in Revelation 19:6 KJV can exist in this universe with his mass energy equivalence equation

So what you seem to be saying is that the guy whose insight drives modern science and to a great degree modern civilisation was wrong yet some creationist making a prediction in 2002 that happened to be known about since the 1920’s and was fully explained in the 1950s

Motonori Matuyama, Allan Cox, Richard Doell, Frederick Vine and Drummond Matthews each have papers published on the phenomenon at least 50 years before your Dr Humphreys

That’s creationism for you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116246 Feb 7, 2013
Russell, you are as dishonest as any other creationist and now I can honestly call you a creatard. You are trying to use claims that the Cambrian was only a few million years long, and it wasn't, to debunk evolution. Yet in the past you have shown that you have YEC beliefs.

If you truly are a YEC then you cannot use that sort of claim to debunk evolution since you don't believe it either.

When a creationist is found not to be honest, and being inconsistent in your beliefs is one way not to be honest, then you cross over into the land of tards.

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
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 4 min Chimney1 362
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min dirtclod 120,758
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 29 min Dogen 138,174
Darwin on the rocks 40 min Dogen 357
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 4 hr Chimney1 701
Monkey VS Man Sun Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE