Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117109 Feb 13, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes
That MUST be a quote mine
Because he goes on to say that evolution, as dastardly as the lack of evidence is, IS TRUE...
No
That just isn't the case
So sadly for you
By the way
Still waiting for your response to heteroplasmy with mtDNA being a mistake on Terrible Origins....
As always
Bluster and hot air
Nil else from SZ
I didn't see an actual question in relation to "heteroplasmy with mDNA being a mistake on Terrible Origins..." What is your point?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117110 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your base ignorance of biology is embarrassing.

Actually Mr. Boogah (Ms. Boogah?) is quite correct. Based on the 7 properties a virus only have 4. Some rocks meet 2.

ERVs implant genetic material inside of DNA. So if you disagree with his statement then it is your own ignorance of biology that is embarrassing.


Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Viruses are "non-living" organic matter that interact with living DNA. There ya go!!!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117111 Feb 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly my point.
<quoted text>
I realize how desperate you are to avoid the issue, but facts are facts. DNA is a chemical. Chemicals are atoms. Most chemicals are reactive (combine with other chemicals and atoms). nucleotides are chemicals that are made up (ultimately) of atoms. RNA is very chemically similar to DNA. Double strand RNA is even more similar and is the base of a number of virus.
RNA "stores information" the same way DNA does.
RNA is the basis for some forms of life (if you consider a virus to be alive) or at least is a bridge between life and non-life (whatever that may mean).
That RNA is a precursor to DNA is not "raw conjecture" as you term is, but rather a well supported hypothesis.
For more about RNA/DNA try this simple site:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/organicprops/amino...
You have entirely dodged the question as to how DNA could have self organized. Just because nucleotides are chemicals that can combine with other molecules doesn't justify the belief that a purposeful genetic code can self organize. The hypothesis of RNA being a precursor to DNA is not well supported by experimental science. It is raw conjecture based on evolutionary assumptions. If you contend that it's well supported, then let's see a logical pathway as to how RNA could gradually transform to DNA through naturalistic processes. Even if you imagine such to be the case, how did RNA self-organize from a hodgepodge of nucleotides. I would respectfully appreciate it if you would stop dodging the question and provide a clear answer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117112 Feb 13, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what I'm taking about, do you?
Since there's nothing on Snorting pigeons.com for you to clumsily look up about this subject
.....you're essentially stuffed
Wait, let's see. What new logic is this? Russell cannot name one time that he or anyone else has shown Talk Origins to be wrong so I am stuffed?

Does that make any sense to anyone but a creatard?

I didn't think so.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117113 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

It is not I who is ignoring the facts of molecular biology. Sorry, but all I hear you saying is that your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Every proposed mechanism of evolutionary transmutation

About that word you keep using. I do not a think it means what you think it means.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> is biologically impossible.

Funny how millions of trained scientists who have actual knowledge of the subject disagree with you. I don't recall reading anything in the scientific literature that would indicate ANY of the proposed mechanisms for evolution are impossible, much less all of them. How does life evolve (an observed fact) if it has no viable mechanism? Maybe it is magic poofing!

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you think humans and apes are related, then try selective breeding on a chimpanzee and see how far you can get.

To what end? What would you expect to happen if evolution is true? For them to become humans? Maybe they could be very similar in several million years. But they will never be us.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

First, this is not true. This has been done and bacteria were evolved to consume a food that previous generations could not consume. That would be like us learning to eat rocks.

Second, this was actually a REPLICATION of what has been observed in nature (virus and bacteria both are known to evolve rapidly) for example with nylonase.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117114 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical atheist BS. Your relativistic worldview requires you to pervert mathematical concepts or order and complexity to justify your religion.

I stated a simple fact that you were not able to address. Name calling is not addressing the issue, but I understand it is the best you have under the circumstances.

BTW
1. All world view are "relativistic"
2. "complexity" is a concept but not a mathematical one.
3. My religion is Christianity.


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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117115 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do atheists continually call others "liars", when they don't believe that any absolute standards of morality exist?
Several fails on your part. First lying does not necessarily have anything to do with morality. Everybody has told a white lie to spare somebodies feelings at some point in their life. In fact that is not even against the 9th Commandment of the Christians necessarily since that one prohibits lies that hurt somebody.

Second, though all aspects of morality are relative you seem to be implying that atheists are amoral. That could not be further from the truth. The evidence shows that atheists are more moral than Christians. We don't need a book written by bronze age sheep humpers to tell us right from wrong. Their is empirical evidence that supports this too. Atheists are under represented in the prison population. So either we are more moral overall or more intelligent (we don't get caught). Either way it looks bad for the theists.

That being said the sort of lies that creationists spread are bad for a society as a whole. Science cannot worry about whether it is violating the teachings of some ignorant religious sect or not when they are doing their work. We would soon become like the Muslim countries that supply very very little new science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117116 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been over this numerous times with them. You may as well be talking to a wall.

You just can't stand loosing.

I refute him just as easily as I refute you.

Easier than clubbing baby seals. And my feet don't get as cold.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117117 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you people ever get tired of this? I mean, time after time dening the obvious and resorting to calling us liars or stupid because you don't have the courage to admit we are right and you have no answer? Because if you had an answer, it would be in the form of a "yes we have observed that and here is the paper". We all know you haven't. Can't you see that something is wrong with your thinking? We have been selectively breeding dogs and farm animals for centuries. Lenski's long term evolution experiments on E-coli are past 50,000 generations. How much evidence (or non-evidence) do you need to convince you? What will it take before you accept the facts?

Nice denial. Pretending we have not given you everything you have asked for and more.

All breeding is selective breeding.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117118 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Question: When was the first E-coli? According to the theory of evolution, this species has been around for 20 million years? And we've seen about 50,000 generations over 25 years (as per Lenski) or about 2,000 generations per year? So the species has supposedly been through (20,000,000 * 2,000) some 40,000,000,000 generations and even according to the theory, has remained the same species, so why would anyone think we will see it macro-evolve after only 50,000?
Use the same thinking with humans, or any mammal for that matter. In light of the above, one cannot fathom how there can be any change possible with so few generations available even in the evolutionary timescale!
And the science bears this out; we have never documented a single unambiguous, clear-cut case of a beneficial mutation even when helped along with artificial selection by intelligent intervention where it resulted in some new or nascent limb, tissue, or organ.
This is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the time arrow of entropy where we see that every last thing in the whole universe is slowing deteriorating towards less complexity. The genomes of all living organisms no exception.

Evidenced in the above.

1. Urb does not understand evolution.

2. Urb does not understand the role of mutation in evolution.

3. Urb does not understand that generations matter less than YEARS (see #2).

4. Urb is willing to either confabulate or outright lie to try to make a point.

5. Urb refuses to admit the obvious (example: that Genetic Entropy stands refuted by science and the original author has not had the courage to try to defend it with real science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117119 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because our time is much better spent on the actual science rather than waste it on the biased, hyped-up, exaggerated version of an already wrong theory by a bunch of crazed voodoo darwin zombees with an axe to grind.

Because our time is much better spent on the actual science rather than waste it on the biased, hyped-up, exaggerated version of an already wrong notion by a bunch of crazed voodoo creotard zombees with an axe to grind.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117120 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have forgotten more about evolution that you will ever learn. And none of my 99 reasons have ever been refuted here. You can't just say it's been refuted without ever having refuted it. You have to actually say something. You sure have a lot of comments next to your name but you hardly ever say anything.

If you actually believe any of this then you are completely delusional.

Name one reason that I and a dozen other people have not refuted.

Remember the spanking I gave you on comets? You didn't have a clue about them.

Your posts are continuing proof that you don't even understand the BASICS of what evolution says. You have a straw-man version living in your brain, but that ain't the real mccoy.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117121 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
By abmitting the impossibility of abiogenesis, you've just toppled the foundation of Darwinism... that no intelligent design exists.
Valid science does not claim to know what conditions were present for the first life to come about. "Admitting the impossibility of abiogenesis" would require making a wild guess about the origins of life.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117122 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Cowboy Proposed Rule No. 2: "If a controlled, measured. detailed, and direct comparable analogy can be made from something complex that is observed and verified to be designed by intellegent agency with the biological test object under consideration, then one must consider it a candidate as such with the probability of intelligent design in direct relation to the degree and detail of the measured comparability."

1. What is a.... diret comparable analogy?
2. What is "complex" (in scientific terms)?
3. What is an "intelligent (which I spelled correctly) agency"?
4. What is "intelligent design" doing in a "scientific" rule? Did ID suddenly become science and no one told me?
5. You might want to run through this and clean up your grammar, spelling and punctuation so that this actually makes sense and is readable. More comments after you do that.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117123 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Great analogy... since hydrogen and oxygen can form water, nucleotides can self organize into a genetic code... is that your grasp of science?
Once again, there's not enough information to establish how life started. Maybe there was a god and he/she/it decided that the best plan involved goo-to-you. But ANY answer is premature without reasonable evidence.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117124 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It would depend on the object being compared but for any object there would have to be criteria established that covers each of its attributes. For example, there are things that work just like "motors" in molecular biology (ATP Synthase, Bacterial Flagellum, etc.) If you documented all of its attributes, i.e., parts, fit, function, rotation, direction, etc., and compared each of the attributes to a motor, this be a controlled, measured, and detailed analogy and the probability of it being intelligently designed would be in direct relationship to the number of matching attributes established.

This is nonsense. What is not important is that the things look or act similar it is the fact that living things evolved those characteristics. You cannot design things that works as well NOR as badly as evolution produces. Evolution does not care that giving birth hurts. It only matters that the baby and mother survive more than they don't.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117125 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The zygote already contains all of the information required for full development in a much smaller package therefore can be argued is more complex.

Argued? Were were going to discuss science at some point, right?

[QUOTE who="Urban Cowboy"]<quoted text> And since the aging begins immediately and results in disease, death, and decomposition, a human's life cycle goes along the same time arrow as everything else.
This is consistent with the total energy cycle and food cycle. The Sun provides all the energy that plants convert into energy which animals eat and decomposers finish off. Even thermal vents in the Earth are cooling off over time. The law of entropy is absolute and universal. Biological development no exception.

So many logical fallacies, so little time. Entropy will eventually kill off all biological life in the universe. But for the last 4.5 billion years we have been living in an energy positive environment. Actually the amount of available energy has been INCREASING for that time. SLoT is a canard at this point.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#117126 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What does a virus have to do with self organization of DNA? I'm only trying to spare you further embarrassment.
Viruses are DNA, but inert, non-living, yet exchanges DNA material with living organisms. That sounds very self organizing to me.

Bazinga!!

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#117127 Feb 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you people ever get tired of this? I mean, time after time dening the obvious and resorting to calling us liars or stupid because you don't have the courage to admit we are right and you have no answer? Because if you had an answer, it would be in the form of a "yes we have observed that and here is the paper". We all know you haven't. Can't you see that something is wrong with your thinking? We have been selectively breeding dogs and farm animals for centuries. Lenski's long term evolution experiments on E-coli are past 50,000 generations. How much evidence (or non-evidence) do you need to convince you? What will it take before you accept the facts?
If you don't like being called a stupid liar, then I recommend you stop lying and get an education.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117128 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing. You couldn't care less how DNA got here?

If god poofed DNA into existence then more power to him. But as far as evolution goes it does not matter. Evolution is an observed fact regardless of where it came from.

I have a computer. It works basically the same no matter who manufactured it (hopefully). I can do the same things on my Dell computer as on the one I built myself.

The process of evolution works.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> No one has observed DNA evolving.

Depends on your definition of "observed".
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Selective breeding of dogs proves the impossibility of evolution.

???? That is one of the dimer things you have said and you are known for saying dim things.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not evolution.

Actually it is. Even by definition.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of evolution again.

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) 3 min thetruth 52,443
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 9 min thetruth 542
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 10 min thetruth 24,927
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr marksman11 157,826
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Aura Mytha 1,223
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Richardfs 218,841
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web