Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#116324 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No. its conclusive evidence of devolution
<quoted text>
Functional redundancy??? That smells like Junk DNA......step away...slowly...
<quoted text>
Thats rubbish
Transposable elements are existing DNA
<quoted text>
http://creation.com/are-pseudogenes-shared-mi...
<quoted text>
Like what?
I have 5 toes just like a gekko?
http://creation.com/are-look-alikes-related
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Wrong again
http://creation.com/cladistics
"Pattern cladists Ebach et al. summarize it like this:
“Cladistics is not about evolution, but about the pattern of character distribution in organisms, or the recognition and characterization of groups.”7
This argument spilled over into the ‘creation science’ controversies of the day.8 Some candid statements of Colin Patterson, a noted critic of Hennigian cladistics, were particularly influential in the controversy.9 He discounted the speculative evolutionary reconstructions many systematists attached to their cladistics analyses because there was no way to identify in reality the putative ancestors ‘identified’ by the nodes on a cladogram:
“As the theory of cladistics has developed, it has been realized that more and more of the evolutionary framework is inessential, and may be dropped. The chief symptom of this change is the significance attached to nodes in cladistics. In Hennig’s book, as in all early works in cladistics, the nodes are taken to represent ancestral species. This assumption has been found to be unnecessary, even misleading, and may be dropped.”10"
<quoted text>
Yes please
I am utterly unimpressed
I guess I read too much
Have you heard of the Altenberg 16?
http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16
Well, your evolutionary love fest can continue...if you wish...ou have every right...
But "real" science just laughs at evolutionary mumbo jumbo
Read too much? Well, you read too much horseshit. Everything...literally EVERYTHING...that you read on creation.com is a lie of some sort, or a baseless assertion. If that's what you think can counter the prevailing scientific understanding of some aspect of demonstrable reality, you're exactly as stupid as you sound.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#116325 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're being quite daft
Atomic theory and nuclear physics is better by far
What are millions of "real" scientists?
From Creation.com ---> full of 'real' scientists, incidentally
"Richard (Rick) Errett Smalley (1943–2005), M.A., Ph.D.(Princeton), was the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University.1 He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes, nicknamed buckyballs—see box below. Although he died of cancer shortly after his conversion from agnosticism to Christianity, he has left us a remarkable testimony to his faith."
"As a scientist Dr Smalley was searching for answers that made scientific sense. He at first could not accept the idea that the Bible was the word of God and struggled with the question of whether science was compatible with Christianity.5 An important step in his spiritual path was an intelligent design lecture presented at his university. He was “a stickler for scientific credibility and integrity” and filled “with questions about biological evolution, or about Bible passages that he presumed were in conflict with science …”.4 When he finally agreed to look into evolution in detail his reaction to what he was learning was anger. His wife (a biologist, who had to come to terms with the same issues) wrote:
“I remember him pacing the bedroom floor in anger saying evolution was bad science. Rick hated bad science worse than anything else. He said if he conducted his research the way that they did, he would never be respected in the scientific community.”6"
"Smalley at first accepted theistic evolution, but as he studied the issue in detail he became an outspoken anti-Darwinist. In 2004 he delivered an anti-Darwinist address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program and received a standing ovation. In it he said:
“The burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that ‘Genesis’ was right, and there was a creation, and that the Creator is still involved.…[The fact is] this planet was built specifically for us. Working on this planet is an absolute moral code.… Let’s go out and do what we were put on Earth to do.”
When Dr Smalley realized macro-evolution as science was fatally flawed, he intended to openly challenge the evolution establishment, but cancer took his life before he was able to achieve this goal.
He also claimed that Darwinian evolution had been given its death blow due to the advance of genetics and cell-biology, and that it was now clear that biological evolution could not have occurred."
I take it you think he was not a REAL scientist?
He hated evolution
So, his science credentials mean mud-pies?
So, an astronomer-chemist was fooled by bullshit regarding a field of study he's not qualified to speak about? Wow...got any geneticists who wax authoritative about geology?
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#116326 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Right answer
You pass
But totally daft theology
Are you from the "God used evolution" school?
If one must deny demonstrable reality's existence to maintain one's belief in a God, that God cannot be the one true God.

How does the scientific method work, and why is it the best method for understanding how the universe works?
One way or another

Sarasota, FL

#116327 Feb 8, 2013
The Evo children didn't even understand much that Russell brought, that's why they had Nothing but childish rebuttal.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116328 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You're being quite daft
Atomic theory and nuclear physics is better by far
What are millions of "real" scientists?

Sorry, neither atomic theory lacks the observability and does not have as many lines of evidence as evolution. It is also not as old and not as well tested.

Millions of real scientists means millions of real scientists. I not sure what word is tripping you up.
In context a real scientist would be a person with a legitimate degree from a legitimate university in a scientific field related to that under discussion. In the present context that would be biology. Not physics, btw.

Your story about Smalley just proves what I have been saying. There are no objective scientists that are against evolution UNLESS they have a religious bias.

You want to try putting another theory forward as superior to evolution?
Or maybe you would like to prove that the multiple lines of observable evidence for evolution are some sort of mass hallucination! LOL!
One way or another

United States

#116329 Feb 8, 2013
Whether or not a creation or evolution site, intelligent individuals argue the science offered or they are simply one sided idiots, by choice.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116330 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Right answer
You pass
But totally daft theology
Are you from the "God used evolution" school?

No, I am from the God created all the forces of nature including chemistry, on which evolution is based, school.

God created a universe that is capable of life-ing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116331 Feb 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Whether or not a creation or evolution site, intelligent individuals argue the science offered or they are simply one sided idiots, by choice.
It's quite obvious which choice you've made.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116332 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
ERVs are no friend of evolution
Study of ERvs is a work in progress
Progress that was stymied because of evolutionary fanatacism...
Junk DNA....indeed
"How does one reconcile an early evolution of syncytin-mediated placentation in eutherian mammals with the remarkably recurrent cooption of different syncytin genes, from different retroviral lineages, at different points in the evolution of mammalian orders? For instance, Syncytin-Car1 is at least 60 million years old and highly preserved, whereas the syncytin-1 gene in primates is approximately 25 million years old, and preserved only in hominoids but not Old World monkeys"
Singh H, "Retroviruses push the envelope for mammalian placentation" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 February 14; 109(7): 2184–2185.
Also check:
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/endogenous_re...
But the science in regards to ERVs is moving fast, and is contradictory
By and large
It defies belief that retroviruses and retrovirus like elements are benignly included in genomes throughout nature, have deftly inserted themselves into germ cell without harming the zygote
Lost all virulence by some unknown means
Been faithfully replicated for alleged millions of years
AND have successfully been recruited to carry out prodigious varied and amazing tasks
And
are found in the same loci in unrelated organisms
And carry out unrelated tasks in related organisms
<quoted text>
And you have a bad case of creation-racism

Sorry, but the above is just an op-ed philosophical piece. The science of ERV's confirm the same Nested hierarchies as are found in the fossil record (also confirming the fossil records timeline).

The source of ERVs has been confirmed with modern genomes and live ERVs and insertion has been observed.

That any portion of DNA can change or develop functionality over time is no mystery and is known to occur.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116333 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Astrobiology?

Not yet.



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is an observable FACT:
1. In the fossil record
2. In the genomic (DNA) record
3. In the natural environment.
4. In the laboratory.
ERVs are conclusive evidence of evolution.
DNA is conclusive evidence of evolution.
Nested hierarchies are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Transitional forms are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Convergence of independent phylogenies are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Anatomical vestiges are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Molecular vestiges are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Atavisms are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Ontogeny are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Developmental biology is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
biogeography is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Morphology is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Protein functional redundancy is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
DNA functional redundancy is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Transposons are a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Redundant pseudogenes are a conclusive evidence of evolution. Anatomical parahomology is a conclusive evidence of evolution. Molecular parahomology is a conclusive evidence of evolution. Anatomical convergence is a conclusive evidence of evolution. Molecular convergence is a conclusive evidence of evolution. Anatomical suboptimal function is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Molecular suboptimal function is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Cladistics are a conclusive evidence of evolution.
phylogenetic reconstruction is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Need more?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116334 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Truncated to void intense boredom
Oh, you voided, all right...
One way or another

United States

#116335 Feb 8, 2013
Only idiots look at just what they want to see.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116336 Feb 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Whether or not a creation or evolution site, intelligent individuals argue the science offered or they are simply one sided idiots, by choice.
Nothing offered from creation.com is science. It is, in the most generous terms, anti-science.

1.The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

http://creation.com/about-us

In other words, the Bible is true, and anything that contradicts the Bible is inherently wrong because the Bible is true. That is exactly opposite to how science works. Anti-science. If you think that can be used to counteract science, you're stupid as shit. If you want to be stupid as shit, that's your prerogative. If you think being stupid as shit is admirable, that's your prerogative, too. If you think only science can counteract science, then you must, by definition, recognize everything from creation.com as complete horseshit.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116337 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it aint

Why not? Why no rational nor proof supplied? What other scientific theory explains origins and what is the explanation?
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> No, it aint

Why not? Why no rational nor proof supplied?
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where?

Throughout the genome.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Like where?

All over the world
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Whats a natural environment?


I am going to assume that you are really not this stupid. You're welcome.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Nah. Not at all....you're thinking of forced mutations
As I have said before Drosophila should be an elephant by now if evolution is true


An absurd statement.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> If utter confusion and half arsed assumptions and conclusions satisfy you
Along with the ever changing "just-so" stories that accompany ERV research interpretations


If utter confusion and half arsed assumptions and conclusions satisfy you
Along with the ever changing "just-so" stories that accompany ERV research interpretations
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Quite the oppposite
DNA is anti-evidence for evolution


ROTFLMFAO!

DNA is not only proof of evolution it contains the map of evolution including the genetic clock of changes over time. There are more lines of evidence from DNA than from all other sources COMBINED!

Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
DNA sequencing
Endogenous retroviruses
Proteins
Pseudogenes
horizontal gene transfer
Cyto-c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_comm...
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Busted several times over


Disorganized and disingenuous crap from creotard.com does not count.

The rest is just the same, isn't it. Crap that science has refuted but that creationists keep quoting because they are too scared to learn real science because they KNOW what the real answer is.
One way or another

United States

#116338 Feb 8, 2013
Oh Evo children, a hypothesis is guess work.
Cladistics is a particular method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms. Like other methods, it has its own set of assumptions, procedures, and limitations.

There's that word," assumption", the first three letters of assumption, is what evolution is all about.

Speaking from a scientific perspective.
One way or another

United States

#116339 Feb 8, 2013
The Evo children know they don't stand a chance. Arguing against the science of the oldest known scientists in the world. The so called creationists started the study of science, but we can't expect morons that only have their one sided, cut and paste ASSumptions, to care about science.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116340 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No. its conclusive evidence of devolution

I thought it was evidence of the Loch Ness Monster. Oh wait, I forgot that there is MORE evidence of Nessy than there is of devolution, which does not pass even the critical understanding of what evolution even is!!!
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Functional redundancy??? That smells like Junk DNA

How quickly I forget I am talking to someone who does no know the first thing about science nor evolution. Maybe you should have looked the term up.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Transposable elements are existing DNA

Transposable within and across. Seriously, you are really not going to look up the stuff you don't know?

>ignorant, and out of context creation.com link deleted from this point<

>another creation.com link deleted<
I specified SCIENCE sources. Not fantasyland.com sources.

Wrong again

>ignorant creation.com e link related to a complete misunderstanding of cladistics deleted from here<

I am utterly unimpressed

I guess you have not read too much
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Have you heard of the Altenberg 16?
http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16

Indeed I have.

FACTS about Altenberg-16
"The Altenberg meeting was unfortunately misunderstood and deliberately distorted by religious creationists and intelligent design advocates. Only a few days after the meeting and hundreds of creationist anti-evolution websites and blogs were claiming the scientists at the Altenberg meeting were anti-evolution or advocating non-Darwinian evolution. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Altenberg_16_con...

Well, your anti-science creotard love fest can continue...if you wish...

But "real" science just laughs at creotardism and pays it no mind. It is the butt of jokes that real scientists tell.
One way or another

United States

#116341 Feb 8, 2013
Wikipedia is for gullible idiots. Intelligent people use the well established, dictionaries and encyclopedias.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116342 Feb 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Only idiots look at just what they want to see.
Yes. We've tried to help you with that but, alas, to no avail.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116343 Feb 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Wikipedia is for gullible idiots.
Yet you seem to have no problem using it.

Oh... Wait...

I get it!

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 40 min Dogen 81,848
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 44 min Dogen 2,194
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 46 min Dogen 33,075
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Genesis Enigma 164,290
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web