Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#116347 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Dogen, None of the "evidences" you've listed constitute scientific evidence. Everything you've stated is based on religion. And since when is antatomic converge "conclusive" evidence of evolution? It is quite the opposite. Convergence screams intelligent design. Evolution predicts random outcomes, not identical endpoints.
You cannot logically defend any of your claims without invoking religion.
You can start by stating HOW anatomic convergence proves evolution....
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116348 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has more material evidence supporting it than any other theory in existence. Evolution is a simple scientific fact. All you can argue about is certain aspects of the ToE and philosophical justifications of why it can't be so, but it still is.
Evolution is an observable fact. period.
Now you can quibble about the theory all you want.
Evolution doesn't have one shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it. Let me remind you... stories do not constitute science.
Why don't you logically defend one tenet of evolution with science rather than blindly parroting what you read on atheist websites?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#116349 Feb 8, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Just in case anyone got confused there
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/clad/clad1.html
Yep jimbo is still a cut and paste moron
Mugwump... Blindly posting links does not constitute intelligent debate. If you can't logically defend your religion of evolution with science, don't bother setting up smokescreens.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116350 Feb 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution doesn't have one shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it. Let me remind you... stories do not constitute science.
Why don't you logically defend one tenet of evolution with science rather than blindly parroting what you read on atheist websites?
Clearly you don't know the definition of scientific evidence. The theory of evolution has mountains of supporting scientific evidence.

What do you think the definition of scientific evidence is?
One way or another

United States

#116351 Feb 8, 2013
If the gov isn't extracting the most taxes from those that can least afford it, the stock market is. You idiots keep making the economy stall, just as it might have a chance to get things going.

Of course history has proven that every gov that had dominance at its time in history failed, because they cared for none others than themselves, just as the governments destroy morality and psychology, to protect them from their own theft and traitorous actions.

You sold out America!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116352 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No that article made precisely the point I wanted.
What other factors drive 'evolution'?
Not mutations
Not genetic drift
Not natural selection
As I have said repeatedly, Darwin's little engine is incapable of innovation... PERIOD
You and your materialistic philosophy are stuffed
Please see:
Gauger A, and Axe D, "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway", Biocomplexity, 2011
Excerpt:
"We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth."
Similarly:
"When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied."
Please also refer to for another blow to your shabby evolutionary stance:
Durrett, R and Schmidt D, "Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution", Genetics 180 (2008): 1501-1509
Do you care to offer any explanation for this paper below?
Other than argumentum ad hominem?
These authors, below, describe a highly conserved complex of proteins...present in all ciliated organisms, incl humans--->
Exists in every cell of such organisms and is a complex of 8 or more proteins bound together called the BBSome. This protein complex, discovered in 2007, should not be disturbed. Here’s what happens when it mutates:
“A homozygous mutation in any BBSome subunit (except BBIP10) will make you blind, obese and deaf, will obliterate your sense of smell, will make you grow extra digits and toes and cause your kidneys to fail.”
Children born with Bardet-Beidl syndrome (1 in 100,000 live births) have mutations to one of 14 proteins in this class (and others remain to be identified).
--Hua Jin and Maxense V. Nachury,“Quick Guide: The BBSome,” Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 12, 23 June 2009, Pages R472-R473.
The authors said that the BBSome is “highly conserved”(i.e., unevolved) in all ciliated organisms from single-celled green algae to humans, though absent in plants and fungi.“This pattern of conservation is a signature for proteins that perform fundamental functions in primary cilium assembly,” they explained. Only chordates have an additional four BBS proteins.
Ah, the excellent scientists at the Biologic Institute, have advanced creationism to the level of unicorns and glitter. They have discovered that some mutations can actually be harmful, though they have yet to explore the mountain of research showing that most mutaions are neutral and some are beneficial.

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

From the above link:
"The scientific community remains skeptical and commentators note that no publications containing results which support intelligent design have yet appeared.[3][26][27] Reason magazine compared the research efforts at the Biologic Institute to those of "Big Tobacco"[28] and the 2006 New Scientist editorial noted that this sort of research is similar to the agenda-driven research of the tobacco and oil industries.[20] University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers likens the Biologic Institute's research program to cargo cults, with "Intelligent Design creationists pretend[ing] that they're doing science."[29] Intelligent design supporters and other creationists disagree.[21][24]"

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116353 Feb 8, 2013
HTS, while I am waiting for your response about scientific evidence, and before I give you the answer, I will tell you why it has the definition that it does. Scientists are a contentious bunch. If they disagree with someone they will sometimes be quick to call each other names. The definition of scientific evidence that they developed forces them to admit when an opponent has evidence that supports them. They cannot make the idiotic statements that you do such as "Evolution doesn't have one shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence to support it." Easily debunkable claims like that make you appear to be an idiot.
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116354 Feb 8, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the excellent scientists at the Biologic Institute, have advanced creationism to the level of unicorns and glitter. They have discovered that some mutations can actually be harmful, though they have yet to explore the mountain of research showing that most mutaions are neutral and some are beneficial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic_Institu...
From the above link:
"The scientific community remains skeptical and commentators note that no publications containing results which support intelligent design have yet appeared.[3][26][27] Reason magazine compared the research efforts at the Biologic Institute to those of "Big Tobacco"[28] and the 2006 New Scientist editorial noted that this sort of research is similar to the agenda-driven research of the tobacco and oil industries.[20] University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myers likens the Biologic Institute's research program to cargo cults, with "Intelligent Design creationists pretend[ing] that they're doing science."[29] Intelligent design supporters and other creationists disagree.[21][24]"
What is intelligent design in human terms?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116355 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No that article made precisely the point I wanted.
What other factors drive 'evolution'?
Not mutations
Not genetic drift
Not natural selection
As I have said repeatedly, Darwin's little engine is incapable of innovation... PERIOD
You and your materialistic philosophy are stuffed
Please see:
Gauger A, and Axe D, "The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway", Biocomplexity, 2011
Excerpt:
"We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth."
Similarly:
"When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied."
Please also refer to for another blow to your shabby evolutionary stance:
Durrett, R and Schmidt D, "Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution", Genetics 180 (2008): 1501-1509
Do you care to offer any explanation for this paper below?
Other than argumentum ad hominem?
These authors, below, describe a highly conserved complex of proteins...present in all ciliated organisms, incl humans--->
Exists in every cell of such organisms and is a complex of 8 or more proteins bound together called the BBSome. This protein complex, discovered in 2007, should not be disturbed. Here’s what happens when it mutates:
“A homozygous mutation in any BBSome subunit (except BBIP10) will make you blind, obese and deaf, will obliterate your sense of smell, will make you grow extra digits and toes and cause your kidneys to fail.”
Children born with Bardet-Beidl syndrome (1 in 100,000 live births) have mutations to one of 14 proteins in this class (and others remain to be identified).
--Hua Jin and Maxense V. Nachury,“Quick Guide: The BBSome,” Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 12, 23 June 2009, Pages R472-R473.
The authors said that the BBSome is “highly conserved”(i.e., unevolved) in all ciliated organisms from single-celled green algae to humans, though absent in plants and fungi.“This pattern of conservation is a signature for proteins that perform fundamental functions in primary cilium assembly,” they explained. Only chordates have an additional four BBS proteins.
Your personal definition of evolution is not accepted by the scientic community. No magic poofing is necessary.
One way or another

United States

#116356 Feb 8, 2013
Labor is the only thing that makes wealth. Because of this governments constant thefts and demands of bribes, you have contrived this two party system that must fail.

The gov, Wall Street, the media and the so called justice system have systematically sucked the marrow from the bones of labor, whereby more and more labored will see that their hard work only puts them and their children, further in debt and physically abused, in the name of keeping a job.

It is you thieves that create the entitlement system, while you blame it on laborers. Your theft is nearing an end.
One way or another

United States

#116357 Feb 8, 2013
Scientists are just like doctors and lawyers, they are all afraid of turning in the other, for fear of being turned in themselves, save creationists vs atheists.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#116358 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Truncated to void intense boredom
Heavens!
Its the Monera Fallacy all over again!
Subduction Zone's sore arse is testament to the fact that this subject has been previously debated for shocking days and days ...
ad nauseum....
Go back a few hundred pages and check MazHere posts
SZ was slashed BIG TIME
Marshmallow terminator can never admit he's wrong and move on...
Oh no
Had to go on and on and on
The blood bath was unbearable
SubDud hasn't quite recovered
Even as I write, he's off in bye bye land, having made some excuse about having to sleep
Why does he have to sleep at night for?
He's half asleep all day....
Truth is the stress of MazHere has thoroughly shattered him
AND
It was all over ERVs
Or solo LTVS
Or ERVs
Or ...call 'em what you like
Evidence for evolution they sure ain't!
talkorigins---> yeeechh! Yuk!
So, Subduction Zone really kicked your arse with this stuff, huh?
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116359 Feb 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Mugwump... Blindly posting links does not constitute intelligent debate. If you can't logically defend your religion of evolution with science, don't bother setting up smokescreens.
Actually the point of my post was to demonstrate Jimbos hypocrisy as he calls everyone a 'cut and paste moron' and he does exactly the same thing - though never leaves a reference.

And people a lot more learned than me have posted evidence (not proof) that supports the ToE as being the best explaination for our environment ... But you just dismiss it with a hand wave - logical ?

But if you don't mind would like to put a question to you, related to an earlier post where you state.

'Why don't you logically defend one tenet of evolution with science rather than blindly parroting what you read on atheist websites?'

Again conflating ToE with atheism, something that most creationist seem to do - oblivious to the fact that evolution is accepted by many of faith (and institutions) as simply gods work.

It's been said again and again the evolution dosent REJECT god (little G intentional) but simply doesn't need god to support it. As mentioned many thesitic proponents of evolutionary theory simply believe evolution is gods method, Collins being a prime example.

The point being that NO science 'needs' god to come up with explainations - so questions for you.

A) Is ALL science atheistic in nature
B) if yes - do you reject ALL science
C) if no - why single out evolution for this particular charge

Thoughts ?
One way or another

United States

#116360 Feb 8, 2013
Talk talk talk, the children offer no proof.
One way or another

United States

#116361 Feb 8, 2013
I don't bother talking to the children, brought up in a barn.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116362 Feb 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If the gov isn't extracting the most taxes from those that can least afford it, the stock market is..........
Actually - and lets be honest here, it isn't often I would say this - but Jimbo is not entirely incorrect here - cant comment for you burger munchers but us quail scoffers in the UK are finding that a center right dominated austerity drive is hitting those that can least afford it the most, whilst the well off are less effected (not getting off completly of course but certainly the tax affairs of certain big corporations leave a lot to be desired - though is avoidance not evasion)

The rest of the post in the usual unsupported nonsense of course

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116363 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
"Wide" recognition does not constitute the truth
It was widely accepted that no organism could survive in stomach acid...
Very widely...trust me
Enter stage R---> Warren and Marshall
"This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine goes to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren,--WHO WITH TENACITY-- who with tenacity and a prepared mind --CHALLENGED PREVAILING DOGMAS----challenged prevailing dogmas"
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medici...
Prevailing dogmas like evolution, "dating" of fossils, old age of the earth and Universe....are just that....DOGMA
Evidence is what is required
Not evolutionary wishful thinking
There's no doubt, science will keep moving forward, leaving religious dogma farther and farther behind. In the past few decades, many extremophiles have been discovered, organisms that love high pressure and high temperature, organisms that thrive in extreme cold, etc.

The fact that some organisms will adapt to nearly any environment found on earth supports evolution.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116364 Feb 8, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I don't bother talking to the children, brought up in a barn.
Translation :
I will blither on here posting my nonsense and when anyone points out flaws I will simply call them children so I don't actually have to confront the criticisms that are put to me.

I will singularly fail to support my 'new science' in this way as deep down I know it is hooey, but my delusions convince me that I am correct - even if I can't defend my position like a rational adult.

Translation services free of charge today Jimbo - don't have to thank me.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#116365 Feb 8, 2013
We are all Hybrids from Aliens!
One way or another

United States

#116366 Feb 8, 2013
Everything I claim is supported, only the children pretend not to understand.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 18 min Rose_NoHo 170,018
Souls have weight .. 21 grams Experiment 2 hr 15th Dalai Lama 5
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 5 hr Davidjayjordan 266
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 hr Into The Night 95,399
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 19 hr Dogen 113
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu andet1987 1,848
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section Thu 15th Dalai Lama 14