Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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 am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116312 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!

Mazhere? Seriously? She got her arse kicked on a daily basis and could never defend her positions. She ended up just parroting he own sayings. She did not understand ERVs well enough to support the creationist position (as if there is one).

I guess you will just believe anybody who says something that sounds like something you want to be true without being objective. Typical creationist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116313 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian God, or something from bizarro-land like Vishnu or Kali or some alien thing?

THE one true God. The God of the Christians, who was the God of the Jews before them and the God of the Egyptians before them.

The Singular god with many aspects or faces.
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116314 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Name a better theory, in all of science, that is better than evolution.
Go ahead and try.
At minimum you will need: Multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields of science backed by MILLIONS of real scientists working on the subject for over 150 years.
Good luck with that.
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?
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116315 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
THE one true God. The God of the Christians, who was the God of the Jews before them and the God of the Egyptians before them.
The Singular god with many aspects or faces.
Right answer

You pass

But totally daft theology

Are you from the "God used evolution" school?
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116316 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Mazhere? Seriously? She got her arse kicked on a daily basis and could never defend her positions. She ended up just parroting he own sayings. She did not understand ERVs well enough to support the creationist position (as if there is one).
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
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you will just believe anybody who says something that sounds like something you want to be true without being objective. Typical creationist.
And you have a bad case of creation-racism
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116317 Feb 8, 2013
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?
Astrobiology?
One way or another

United States

#116318 Feb 8, 2013
Now that's an Alzheimer's kicken. Poor widdle evos.
One way or another

United States

#116319 Feb 8, 2013
Russell has smashed the cliques evolutionary nonsense. It was a pleasure to watch such intelligence at work. I must confess, while I didn't understand quite a bit of the reading material, the Evo children had only their childish nonsense with which to respond.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116320 Feb 8, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
One of my English Composition professors said that the average college graduate writes at the eighth grade level. So, making some mistakes would be in keeping with the normal range.
But voice recognition software would have never occurred to me.
If I remember correctly, he's using a iPhone or similar.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116321 Feb 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
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...
WHAT??? They didn't get house arrest?

Who knew?
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116322 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a fact.
No, it aint
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is an observable FACT:
No, it aint
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
1. In the fossil record
Where?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
2. In the genomic (DNA) record
Like, where?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
3. In the natural environment.
Whats a natural environment?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
4. In the laboratory.
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
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
ERVs are conclusive evidence of evolution.
If utter confusion and half arsed assumptions and conclusions satisfy you
Along with the ever changing "just-so" stories that accompany ERV research interpretations
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA is conclusive evidence of evolution.
Quite the oppposite
DNA is anti-evidence for evolution
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nested hierarchies are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Busted several times over
http://creation.com/walking-whales-nested-hie...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Transitional forms are conclusive evidence of evolution.
What transitional forms?
Archie?
Tiktaalik?
Horse evolution?
Whale evolution?
None of those work
What else you got?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Convergence of independent phylogenies are conclusive evidence of evolution.
http://creation.com/amber-with-flowering-plan...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Anatomical vestiges are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Old redundant argument
Name a vestigeal organ
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Molecular vestiges are conclusive evidence of evolution.
What "molecular vestiges"?
Again, this reeks of redundant evolutionary desperation
Do you mean pseudogenes?
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Atavisms are conclusive evidence of evolution.
Circular reasoning
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Ontogeny are conclusive evidence of evolution.
WHAT! Surely you don't mean recapitulation!!! HORROR
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Developmental biology is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Why?
I am beginning to snicker a little to myself....excuse me...cant help it
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
biogeography is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Most certainly NOT
"There is an abundance of other biogeographic anomalies that do not fit the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, the fauna of central and southern Africa is closer to that of southern Asia than that of northern Africa,11 and flora found in Madagascar is remarkably similar to that of Indonesia.12 Crowberries (Empetrum) are found only in the more northern regions of the northern hemisphere and in the most southern regions of the southern hemisphere. Many closely related plants are found only in eastern North America and eastern Asia. A study conducted by the Illinois State Museum showed that 627 seed plant genera are common to eastern Asia and eastern North America, 151 of which are not found in western North America.13 Significantly, some of the plants (and fungi) found in eastern Asia and eastern North America are identical at the species level, indicating that the disjunctions occurred very recently (that is, within the last few thousand years). If these disjunctions had occurred millions of years ago, as evolutionists believe, it is most unlikely that so many species would have remained the same in the two areas. This is because plants and animals are known to change rapidly in response to changes in their environments."
http://creation.com/biogeography
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Morphology is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
That's a strange one...
How so?
Sounds ridiculous
They way something looks...is evidence for evolution...
Russell

Elizabeth, Australia

#116323 Feb 8, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Protein functional redundancy is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
No. its conclusive evidence of devolution
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA functional redundancy is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Functional redundancy??? That smells like Junk DNA......step away...slowly...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Transposons are a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Thats rubbish
Transposable elements are existing DNA
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Redundant pseudogenes are a conclusive evidence of evolution.
http://creation.com/are-pseudogenes-shared-mi...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Anatomical parahomology is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Like what?
I have 5 toes just like a gekko?

http://creation.com/are-look-alikes-related
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Molecular suboptimum function is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Cladistics are a conclusive evidence of evolution.
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"
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
phylogenetic reconstruction is a conclusive evidence of evolution.
Need more?
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
LowellGuy

Lowell, 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

Lowell, 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

Lowell, 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

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.

“I am Sisyphus”

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.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Dogen 134,831
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr Brian_G 13,643
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 3 hr Gillette 999
How would creationists explain... 13 hr Dogen 449
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 16 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 17 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 20 hr spiderlover 77
More from around the web