Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179628 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 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#116454 Feb 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even attempting to pin any rational dimension to Jimbo's rantings are futile. Jimbo's only value is to expose how intellectually and morally bankrupt creationist arguments really are.
Have you noticed that taken far enough, virtually all of your own arguments boil down to a conspiracy accusation in the end, where the evidence that could confirm your position has been mysteriously hidden or ignored?
Quite the opposite I'm afraid. Creationists evidence is primarily directly observed without need for filling in gaps with "just-so" stories and happens to be consistent with the Bible. The two happen to come from different realms but intersect harmoneously. For example, we observe comets, that they have a limited lifespan and accept that and that observation is consistent with the Bible. We have no need to invent imaginary Oort Clouds or Kupier Belts to explain why they don't fit a billions-year old universe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116455 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the cop out, "We don't know", doesn't work Chimney. And breaking it down to segments doesn't work either. Bottom line is you can't say what the origin of anything is so might as well be nothing and nobody. You at least accept the notion of "nobody", correct?
Its not a cop out to say I don't know when I don't know. The cop out is to jump to a premature conclusion and insist its right even though you have no decent evidence. That would be you.

Now, regarding segmentation of knowledge, go tell a chef that he cannot understand taste until he has solved the mystery of the olfactory nerve to neural sparking and resultant effect on the brain's pleasure centres, and he will rightfully throw you out of the kitchen.

We knew a lot about the periodic table before we knew why elements lined up like they do (protons, neutron, electrons), which we new before we had any idea of the structure of a proton, etc.

What you lot are trying to do is conflate (in the public mind), what we do know with what we do not know. If its sincere, then you do not understand science or any inductive approach to knowledge including cooking, and if its deliberate, you are a liar. Take your pick.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116456 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now hold on there partner. There are many and profound multiple corroborating evidences of a young earth in addition to the comets. For example, the fine tuning, the young Sun paradox, the galaxy spiral arms, Saturn's rings, the presence of blue stars in our Milky Way, missing Type III supernovas, Moon recession, etc. Furthermore, the distant starlight problem has been solved!
Of all your examples, the ONLY one that has not been comprehensively debunked may be the spiral arm argument. And again, its a case of "we don't know how it works", not "this proves the universe must be young".

Given the vast evidence for an old universe form all sources, it makes more sense to assume that this is a problem awaiting a solution. That is all.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#116457 Feb 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even attempting to pin any rational dimension to Jimbo's rantings are futile. Jimbo's only value is to expose how intellectually and morally bankrupt creationist arguments really are.
Have you noticed that taken far enough, virtually all of your own arguments boil down to a conspiracy accusation in the end, where the evidence that could confirm your position has been mysteriously hidden or ignored?
And you guys fall for it everytime. You see, what he is demonstrating day after day, what he provokes out of your group so easily, is the arrogance, presumptousness, conceitedness, and insolence. That is what he hates most and sees this as corruption with regards to science. And that is what he seeks to teach you. He's no dummy but he's no Einstein (neither am I) but he is honest and transparent.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116458 Feb 9, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The morons telling fortunes make claims they can never prove. They claim comets are billions of years old. Frikken morons.

We have samples of comet material.

We have measured its age.

Billions of years old.

Period.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116459 Feb 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to quote this post of Russell's again. Right now it says he posted this 2 hours ago, yet he posted the top one on this page 3 hours ago:http://www.topix.com/forum /news/evolution/TMHKC3DQFKMIOI DKA/p85
[quote]Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You need some new jokes Russell. We have all heard these before.
Like the comets ....
They keep coming
A regular Kuiper belt/Oort cloud...
Oh hang on
Kuiper belt and Oort cloud do not produce comets....
So how are stars made ?
See? I am willing to learn[/quote]
So there he was, responding to my answer where I debunked his stupid comet claim more than an hour before he posted this nonsense. He got caught lying by his very own posts.
What a maroon! what an ignoranimus!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =C_Kh7nLplWoXX

ISON is coming.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116460 Feb 9, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do birds have reptilian scales on their feet?
And you have nipples

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116461 Feb 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, why do scientists propose an Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt, constructions entirely consistent with the known laws of physics and gravitation, instead of throwing in the towel and admitting that comets are proof of a young earth even though nothing else in the cosmos is consistent with that idea?
You mean, why do we not accept that because useful function has been found to exist in one or two ERV's, we do not automatically decide that all the other thousands have useful function too? Why do you not accept that once an element has been introduced randomly into the genome, that its presence might occasionally get incorporated into some process, so its no surprise that the occassional ERV becomes "usefully functional" but the vast majority are clearly nothing more than useless parasites...
...who of course happen to provide excellent evidence for the nested hierarchy of variation consistent with common ancestry, along with their pseudogene and ubiquitous protein counterparts, not to mention the same story told independently in the fossil record.

ISON is coming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_ISON

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116462 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Even that is more logical than "nobody and nothing equals everything".

That is one of the implications of Quantum Mechanics and of string theory.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116463 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, "Spam" would be incorrect. Spam is email, unsolicited commercial-purpose email to multiple mailing lists.
Obviously, what I did is relevant to this debate, was certain not email, was not for commercial purpose, and was not sent to multiple email lists.
Now referring to yourselves as kids? Well...

"SPAM (acronym) "Stupid Pointless Annoying Messages""

"2.E-Mails or posts on message boards that were either pointlessly made by an annoying person, or made to annoy that were made by an annoying person. "

"- The crap you don't want to eat
- The crap you don't want in your inbox
- The crap you don't want on your forums"

All from http://www.urbandictionary.com

Also see
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_ (Monty_Python)
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116464 Feb 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to quote this post of Russell's again. Right now it says he posted this 2 hours ago, yet he posted the top one on this page 3 hours ago:http://www.topix.com/forum /news/evolution/TMHKC3DQFKMIOI DKA/p85
[quote]Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You need some new jokes Russell. We have all heard these before.
Like the comets ....
They keep coming
A regular Kuiper belt/Oort cloud...
Oh hang on
Kuiper belt and Oort cloud do not produce comets....
So how are stars made ?
See? I am willing to learn[/quote]
So there he was, responding to my answer where I debunked his stupid comet claim more than an hour before he posted this nonsense. He got caught lying by his very own posts.
What a maroon! what an ignoranimus!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =C_Kh7nLplWoXX
Man!
Have you heard of carboxyhaemoglobin?
Me thinks there may be something of that ilk lurking around in your system...

Is this your idea of responding to my answer?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What!? Who sold you that load of shit? Ask an astronomer.
And no, we are not going to talk about star formation until you get this comet concept straight.
When my original post went thusly--->

----------
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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116465 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
He is referring to the manner in which many of the other evos speak in the third person as "we" instead of speaking for themselves, i.e., "I". It's very noticable and makes me wonder.

As "we" are usually quoting established (real) science that "we" all agree with it is not such a mystery.

Creotards cannot do this as they are all over the place and seldom agree even with each other for very long.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116466 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the cop out, "We don't know", doesn't work Chimney. And breaking it down to segments doesn't work either. Bottom line is you can't say what the origin of anything is so might as well be nothing and nobody. You at least accept the notion of "nobody", correct?

Science only works with data (observations).

Speculation of causes without data is meaningless (and not science).

Manipulating the data so it conforms to a priori beliefs is also not science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116467 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now hold on there partner. There are many and profound multiple corroborating evidences of a young earth in addition to the comets. For example, the fine tuning, the young Sun paradox, the galaxy spiral arms, Saturn's rings, the presence of blue stars in our Milky Way, missing Type III supernovas, Moon recession, etc. Furthermore, the distant starlight problem has been solved!

All this has been refuted. Don't you remember? Every single one has failed even cursory examination.

Comets are billions of years old.
Fine tuning is unnecessary.
The sun is 4.5 billion years old.
The galaxy spiral arms are just fine and would take nearly a billion years to fully break down even if there were no blacks holes holding them together.
blue stars are forming all the time. Blue is the most common type of young star.
No Supernova are missing.
The moons recession has taken over 4 billion years (when the math is done correctly).

I have not seen an adequate problem for star light.

At any rate, if all the stars in the universe were in a 20,000 year radius, it would incinerate the earth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116468 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite the opposite I'm afraid. Creationists evidence is primarily directly observed without need for filling in gaps with "just-so" stories and happens to be consistent with the Bible. The two happen to come from different realms but intersect harmoneously. For example, we observe comets, that they have a limited lifespan and accept that and that observation is consistent with the Bible. We have no need to invent imaginary Oort Clouds or Kupier Belts to explain why they don't fit a billions-year old universe.

Actually the creationist stories don't fit with anything. Each creation story gives a different time line and a different age for the universe and none of which are consistent with the bible. You ACCEPT this as being consistent with the bible but you ignore the math, which others have done.

What is the life span of a comet with a 300,000 year period?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#116469 Feb 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
He is referring to the manner in which many of the other evos speak in the third person as "we" instead of speaking for themselves, i.e., "I". It's very noticable and makes me wonder.
"We" is 1st person, Genius.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116470 Feb 9, 2013
Russell, if you have a real article let's see a link to it.

One article by some wannabes does not amount to anything.

I searched for your paper and came up with bupkis, so until you can beat what is the current paradigm supported by the articles you can find on Google Scholar like these:http://scholar.google.co m/scholar?hl=en&q=kuiper+b elt+comets&btnG=&as_sd t=1%2C48&as_sdtp=

Over 8,000 of them.

I knew you were thick, but to think one measly paper, which you are too much of a chickenshit to even link can overcome all the rest is laughable. Odds are it is a stinking pile of crap that could be only published in the so called "ICR".

Once again, find some real science. Do you even know why peer review is the only way to go in the world of science?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116471 Feb 9, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
12 : how come we have a few hundred mutations per generation

Nice to see you admit this
I have asked why we are not dead 100 times over and am met with stony silence

Kondrashov, A S, "Contamination of the genome by slightly very deleterious mutations: why we have not died 100 times over? J Theoret Biol 175:583-594, 1995

[QUOTE who="Mugwump"]<qu oted text>
13. mosaic turner syndrome?
Are you daftly trying to imply that Mosaic turner syndrome or indeed Turner syndrome are great for evolution?
They are syndromic anomalies

DEAD ENDS

-Renal anomalies
-Cardiovascular disease eg Coarctation/aortic valve disease
-Aortic dissection
-Hypertension
-Variable experience of fertilty issues, eg primary or secondary amenorrhoea
-Aortic rupture possible during birth if pregnancy is attained via IVF

And the list continues

Incidentally
Many men become 'mosaic' in their 40's
There exists documented evidence of this
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
14 : see 13
I have
Not impressed at all
But I live in hope....
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
16 : nope, where did you get this ? MRCA ~ 200,000 years ago
May be he got it here:

--Gibbons, A, "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock", Science 279: 28-29. Copyright 1998, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

http://www.dnai.org/teacherguide/pdf/referenc...

Quoting from the on-line article:

"Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate.
For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new
clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
While we at it, you mentioned a few days ago that as many if not more fossils are found out of place than 'in the correct strata'
Asked you about this but guess you missed it (fair enough)- but does roll it up into a nice round number 5
Biggest ever fossil jelly fish were found in a Wisconsin sand quarry, found in Cambrian strata---dated at 510 million years

--Hagadorn J W, Dott R H and Damrow D, " Stranded on a later Cambrian shoreline: Medusae from central Wisconsin, Geology 30(2):147-150, 2002

Evidence of rapid burial
And does not support the evolution of "big-evolved-from-little " idea

ALSO-->
--Dasycladalean algae

--Pipiscids

--Agnathan fishes

--VEREBRATES found in the Early Cambrian of south China

--Lystrosaurus in the Permian of Zambia.

--The sponge Neoguadalupia — another Permo-Triassic boundary ‘violator'

--The bivalve Camptochlamys
--> In this particular instance, there is more than a stratigraphic-range extension. There also is a contradiction between this particular fossil’s stratigraphic occurrence in European strata, and that of North America. So much for the myth that there is a consistent succession of fossils from one continent to another! Of course, this is not the only such instance....
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#116472 Feb 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, if you have a real article let's see a link to it.
One article by some wannabes does not amount to anything.
I searched for your paper and came up with bupkis, so until you can beat what is the current paradigm supported by the articles you can find on Google Scholar like these:http://scholar.google.co m/scholar?hl=en&q=kuiper+b elt+comets&btnG=&as_sd t=1%2C48&as_sdtp=
Over 8,000 of them.
I knew you were thick, but to think one measly paper, which you are too much of a chickenshit to even link can overcome all the rest is laughable. Odds are it is a stinking pile of crap that could be only published in the so called "ICR".
Once again, find some real science. Do you even know why peer review is the only way to go in the world of science?
Heavens!
What on earth are you jabbering on about?

Make your self clear

What paper?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116473 Feb 9, 2013
Russell, Russell, Russell. You are trying to pull a Maz. She would find one article, misinterpret it and hang her hat on it. Your interpretation of the mitochondrial DNA article is wrong. It does not apply to the mDNA used to date mDNA Eve:http://www.talkorigins.org /indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html
The claim is founded primarily on the work of Parsons et al.(1997), who found that the substitution rate was about 25 times higher in the mitochondria control region, which is less than 7% of the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA). Revised studies of all of the mtDNA find that the control region varies greatly in substitution rates in different populations, but that the rest of the mtDNA shows no such variation (Ingman et al. 2000). Using mtDNA excluding the control region, they placed the age of the most recent common mitochondrial ancestor at 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.

Gibbons (1998) refers to mutations that cause heteroplasmy (inheritance of two or more mtDNA sequences). This does not apply to mitochondrial Eve research, which is based only on substitution mutation rates.

A study similar to the mtEve research was done on a region of the X chromosome which does not recombine with the smaller Y chromosome; it placed the most recent common ancestor 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago (Kaessmann et al. 1999). Since the population size of X chromosomes is effectively three times larger than mitochondria (two X chromosomes from women and one from men can get inherited), the most recent common ancestor should be about three times older than that of the Mitochondrial Eve, and it is.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min Thinking 11,679
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 min marksman11 150,636
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min ChristineM 29,550
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min Blitzking 195,607
Humans Performing Dentistry 8000 Years Before F... 13 hr MIDutch 1
Science News (Sep '13) Tue scientia potentia... 3,621
News Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory (Jan '15) Tue asar 12
More from around the web