Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 177,015

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

#117015 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>More aimless evo-babbling. When you have actual scientific evidence, I'll acknowledge it. To this point, you have produced nothing.

Thank for the support of what I said.

I would accept your implicit resignation but I happen to enjoy bashing baby seals.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Still nothing, eh? You are resigned to not even trying anymore. You know you have nothing. I know you have nothing. Everyone here knows you have nothing.
You are too chicken to even TRY to respond.
Here it is again. Let me know if you get up the nerve.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your not. You just want a forum to spew your value based opinions. You are not interested in facts, nor data and especially not science. You have demonstrated that you are not acquainted with the scientific method and that you love to build and bash straw men.
The science, if you were really interested, is out there. But instead of looking for and at it you have filled your head with silly, religious based, ideas from common creationist (pseudoscience) sites. If that is what you wish to do with your brain then by all means. But don't pretend to us that you have a clue as to what science really says because you have not the first clue.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117016 Feb 12, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
The proven existence of a potential designer would be a darned good start. I'll wait ...
The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer. Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117017 Feb 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You see what I mean? He's just going to say that over and over.

Sorry about pointing out the facts. I know how you hate facts.

You want to get your butt kicked some more? Fine. Just make another unfounded creationist assertion. I will refute it as usual.

I think what frustrated you the most is when I demonstrated that you don't even know your own religion.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117018 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if correct (and it isn't) it is not necessary for a theory to explain everything to be a valid theory. Where science ignorant creationists like yourself come up with this notion I have no idea.
None of the theories of gravity explain everything that is observed. But still things fall to the ground.
There is no information that falsifies evolution.
If you were intellectually honest, you would acknowledge that science cannot explain ANY aspect of the origin of species. All you have are imaginative conjectures. Your magic formula is:
Mutations + natural selection + time = any complexity. That hypothesis has never been proven... Not even one micro-step.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117019 Feb 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you accept as evidence of design? Specifically the things I mentioned? What criteria fails? What passes?

How about something that does not fail the test of falsification?

Remember IC (Irreducible complexity)? That would have been evidence of design, but every suggestion of IC failed. Serious IDers (Yes, I know that is an oxymoron) don't bring up IC anymore because they got crushed badly.

Also, does it past basic scientific method issues?

Is it testable?
Can the tests be reproducible?
Is if falsifiable (but not falsified)?
Is it measurable (empirical)?
Can it be formulated?
Is it objective?
Is it parsimonious (within reason)?
And (this is key) can you make successful predictions!?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#117020 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer. Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?
Viruses are "non-living" organic matter that interact with living DNA. There ya go!!!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117021 Feb 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Biology is not an entertaining magic show. The ATP synthase motor can be observed and analyzed and disected and studied as can the DNA molecule. Now answer the damn question.

You miss the point. Criss Angel's show can also be observed, analyzed, dissected and studied. And when you do so the magic is lost. In just the same way religious based (and biased) pseudoscience can be demystified.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#117022 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer. Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?
Where is this proof demonstrated? That is quite a claim. Please show this proof that "The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer." Please note that to have such a proof you will also have to produce this designer. Otherwise, you've got nothing ... again.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117023 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer. Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?

Since "complexity" is a relative term that has no absolute meaning (like tall or heavy or hot) ones perception that it is present does not mean anything and is not proof of anything.

DNA self organizes every day. It is called "chemistry". I think you referring how it formed originally (hard to say as your language is not very specific). As to proof of DNA's natural origin we know the the parts that make it up (nucleotides) form naturally. And the things that form nucleotides also form naturally. Even RNA (an apparent DNA precursor) has been shown to be naturally forming.

I hope that answers your question, but it will likely just tick you off that the answer is that obvious.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117024 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you were intellectually honest, you would acknowledge that science cannot explain ANY aspect of the origin of species. All you have are imaginative conjectures. Your magic formula is:
Mutations + natural selection + time = any complexity. That hypothesis has never been proven... Not even one micro-step.

This is all false. All you need to do is look this stuff up. The fact that you won't indicates that you have lost faith in your own religion. You don't even seem to know the mechanisms of evolution (you have 2 of them, where are the rest).

The rest of your post is your usual collection of fallacies,(straw-man, Ad hominem, Argument from Incredulity,....).
Godlust

Kansas City, MO

#117025 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer. Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?
Lets make this as simple as humanly possible......On one side is creation and the other side is evolution both are unanimously false, without question. Human thought of today is no different than humans 1000 years ago. Stuck in a mind rut, sinking hopelessly into an eternity of unbelieveable brainwashing. Only two wrong choices and one right one........Advanced Aliens engineered the human animal and all life on earth. Proof....about as much proof as God exist.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117026 Feb 12, 2013
Godlust wrote:
<quoted text>Lets make this as simple as humanly possible......On one side is creation and the other side is evolution both are unanimously false, without question. Human thought of today is no different than humans 1000 years ago. Stuck in a mind rut, sinking hopelessly into an eternity of unbelieveable brainwashing. Only two wrong choices and one right one........Advanced Aliens engineered the human animal and all life on earth. Proof....about as much proof as God exist.
Who made the aliens?
One way or another

United States

#117027 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Who made the aliens?
If he had a brain, he might have asked himself that question. Oh well.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#117028 Feb 12, 2013
Godlust wrote:
<quoted text>Lets make this as simple as humanly possible......On one side is creation and the other side is evolution both are unanimously false, without question. Human thought of today is no different than humans 1000 years ago. Stuck in a mind rut, sinking hopelessly into an eternity of unbelieveable brainwashing. Only two wrong choices and one right one........Advanced Aliens engineered the human animal and all life on earth. Proof....about as much proof as God exist.
http://www.myfacewhen.net/view/1186-alrighty-...
HTS

Williston, ND

#117029 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since "complexity" is a relative term that has no absolute meaning (like tall or heavy or hot) ones perception that it is present does not mean anything and is not proof of anything.
DNA self organizes every day. It is called "chemistry". I think you referring how it formed originally (hard to say as your language is not very specific). As to proof of DNA's natural origin we know the the parts that make it up (nucleotides) form naturally. And the things that form nucleotides also form naturally. Even RNA (an apparent DNA precursor) has been shown to be naturally forming.
I hope that answers your question, but it will likely just tick you off that the answer is that obvious.
DNA does not "self organize" every day. It always requires pre-existing DNA. As far as nucleotides forming naturally... What does that prove? I'm asking you for a logical explanation as to how DNA could form on its own. A racemic hodgepodge of nucleotides is not a genetic code. How did the first genetic information capable of supporting self replicating life come into existence? As far as RNA being a DNA precursor... That's raw conjecture. You have only dodged the question.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117030 Feb 12, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Viruses are "non-living" organic matter that interact with living DNA. There ya go!!!
Your base ignorance of biology is embarrassing.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117031 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is all false. All you need to do is look this stuff up. The fact that you won't indicates that you have lost faith in your own religion. You don't even seem to know the mechanisms of evolution (you have 2 of them, where are the rest).
The rest of your post is your usual collection of fallacies,(straw-man, Ad hominem, Argument from Incredulity,....).
I've heard all of your debunked recycled arguments. Your incessant parroting of the same stale rhetoric is pointless. You can continue to live in the dark ages and dutifully cling to the primitive thinking of nineteenth century biologists and ignore the facts of molecular biology. Every proposed mechanism of evolutionary transmutation is biologically impossible. If you think humans and apes are related, then try selective breeding on a chimpanzee and see how far you can get. If that's too big of a challenge, try bacteria. You can culture trillions of trillions of organisms in short periods of time. No one has ever produced any evolution.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117032 Feb 12, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since "complexity" is a relative term that has no absolute meaning (like tall or heavy or hot) ones perception that it is present does not mean anything and is not proof of anything.
.
Typical atheist BS. Your relativistic worldview requires you to pervert mathematical concepts or order and complexity to justify your religion.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#117033 Feb 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your base ignorance of biology is embarrassing.
I nailed it and you can't stand it.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117034 Feb 12, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
I nailed it and you can't stand it.
What does a virus have to do with self organization of DNA? I'm only trying to spare you further embarrassment.

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) 8 min The Dude 149,946
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 15 min The Dude 888
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 18 min The Dude 1,356
Humans DID evolve from apes! 27 min The Dude 14
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Richardfs 16,957
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 2 hr DanFromSmithville 1,418
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 4 hr thewordofme 725
More from around the web