Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,180

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
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#117052 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.
You're still here, eh?
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#117053 Feb 12, 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.
Remind us...is lactose tolerance beneficial or harmful? Does the ability to eat ice cream in any way harm your ability to survive to reproductive age and successfully procreate, bringing forth viable offspring? Simple question. Remember, you say mutations are only harmful. No such thing as neutral or beneficial. So...does Cherry Garcia negatively affect your testes?

And, even AiG recognizes the folly of the SLoT argument. You aren't as smart as Ken Ham?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117054 Feb 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Why is it that Russell and other creatards hate TalkOrigins so much? I suppose any site that leaves them speechless would be an object of hate by them.
So Russell, HTS, Urban Cowflop, can you show that any article in TalkOrigins is wrong? Just one?
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117055 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I just showed that rejection of Gibbons paper on the basis of heteroplasmy is wrong
But you just trundle on...
Marshmallow terminator
I don't think that you did. I am sure that I would have noticed if you did something like that.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117056 Feb 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When people are liars and stupid we call them that.
You for example have continually posted a list of lies that you know has been falsified. That makes you a liar. You can no longer claim to be merely an ignorant idiot.
Please note, we all offer to educate you people many times over. Our offer is always rejected.
And Urb we have offered you papers. Unfortunately you ARE too stupid to understand them. You gave the perfect example. You need to go back to the basics of science. You can't learn evolution if you don't know the basics.
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117057 Feb 12, 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.
I can translate this. Urban Cowflop is admitting that he has nothing.

It is nice to hear this Urb. That means you cannot legitimately complain about TalkOrigins being used against you.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117058 Feb 12, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Remind us...is lactose tolerance beneficial or harmful? Does the ability to eat ice cream in any way harm your ability to survive to reproductive age and successfully procreate, bringing forth viable offspring? Simple question. Remember, you say mutations are only harmful. No such thing as neutral or beneficial. So...does Cherry Garcia negatively affect your testes?
And, even AiG recognizes the folly of the SLoT argument. You aren't as smart as Ken Ham?
Dodge.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117059 Feb 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think that you did. I am sure that I would have noticed if you did something like that.
WRONG

Notice it...you did

Heteroplasmy
Its universal
Not unique to the case in Gibbons paper

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117060 Feb 12, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG
Notice it...you did
Heteroplasmy
Its universal
Not unique to the case in Gibbons paper
Good, so you admit you have nothing.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#117061 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>High end physics requires adherence to standards of science. Evolution is nothing but stories fabricated by intellectuals who think they are practicing science.
So you know nothing about evolution nor the theory that explains it. Good to know, your opinions on the matter are useless then.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#117062 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.
So then why do you buy into creationism?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#117063 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.
Why must you lie so much?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117064 Feb 13, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, so you admit you have nothing.
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
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117065 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
The existence of specified complexity is self evident proof of a designer.
It's not self-evident, it must be demonstrated. Can you specify how complexity is measured in an objective manner via the scientific method and then tell us how that demarcation line between designed and non-design was determined?
HTS wrote:
Why don't you demand proof that DNA can self organize? We're is your scientific evidence that such a "force" exists?
Maternity wards.

Remember, abio is not relevant to the validity of evolution. We can even hand it to you on a plate - abio occured by Goddidit with magic. There. I give it to you. Evolution still occurs because there is life. We know this because abio happened and we observe life evolving. We couldn't care less that God magically poofed it into existence.

Now tell us how CSI demonstrates magical god-poofing.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117066 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What a load of BS. You can't provide any evidence as to how evolution producd the transcription/translation process. What you all science is nothing more than religion.
No, chemistry provides that process. That is all that's observed. And since we have now both agreed that that process happened therefore it enables evolution can happen. The only difference being is that you claim there's an intelligent agent behind it. All you need do now is demonstrate that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117067 Feb 13, 2013
HTS wrote:
I see that you're embracing the perverted logic of atheism. You imagine that pits and crags in cliffs and ocean waves are just as complex as DNA.
The Dude wrote:
Where did I ever make that claim?

I didn't.

The fact is they are complex. Complex as DNA? Well that depends upon how it's measured. So now I will help you:

In order for you to demonstrate your positive claim that the complexity of DNA means it was intelligently designed then you need to provide us with the measuring system you're using to measure the complexity of DNA. You must be able to assign it a precise numerical value AND you must also provide us with the demarcation line along that measure between designed and non-designed - that is, once the number reaches past a certain point we can definitively say that this must be designed because it has a complexity value of X and that isn't designed because it didn't quite reach that demarcation line. Oh, and you must also inform us of how you determined exactly what that demarcation line was in an objective manner via the scientific method. You must also provide us with an example of a NON-designed object/phenomena in order for us to compare it, and other items, with DNA, hence we can now objectively measure them all along your complexity measurement tool.

If this sounds familiar it is because it's PRECISELY what I asked you to provide well over 6 months ago now, and you failed to do so. But because I am a kind, generous and abiding Dude I am offering you another chance. Best of luck with your scientific endeavour!
HTS wrote:
I'm sorry, Dude, concepts of order and complexity cannot be rationalized away by a worldview of complete relativism.
The Dude wrote:
No rationalizing whatsoever. As you can quite clearly see above I am looking for an objective measurement system so as the "science" of IDC can be verified.
The Dude wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Double-O-Ar...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PSM_V3...

What are the complexity values of each of these and how were they determined?
HTS, you still need to tell us how CSI, "Complex Specified Complexity" is measured. I keep asking this but no fundie is able to SPECIFY exactly what this IS. And that includes the guys who invented it.

Without this, your claim that "specified complexity makes design self-evident" has no case.

That's why you can't tell us WHO did it, WHERE they did it, WHAT exactly it is you think they did, HOW exactly they did whatever it is you think they did, or even WHEN they did it.

So far all we know is SOMETHING didit, SOMEhow, SOMEwhere, at SOMEtime.

Brilliant!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117068 Feb 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not self-evident, it must be demonstrated. Can you specify how complexity is measured in an objective manner via the scientific method and then tell us how that demarcation line between designed and non-design was determined?
<quoted text>
Maternity wards.
Remember, abio is not relevant to the validity of evolution. We can even hand it to you on a plate - abio occured by Goddidit with magic. There. I give it to you. Evolution still occurs because there is life. We know this because abio happened and we observe life evolving. We couldn't care less that God magically poofed it into existence.
Now tell us how CSI demonstrates magical god-poofing.
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."
Mugwump

UK

#117069 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."
A controlled analogy !!!

Care to give an example - and demonstrate that there is no underlying bias to this rule?

And how you measure the degree and detail of the measured comparability in a quantitative manner
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117070 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."
Analogy, huh? In other words "Humans make computers therefore God make humans!"

Or "Humans make cars therefore God make humans!"

Or "Humans make houses therefore God make humans!"

But never "God make humans because it used this mechanism in this way and here is the observable testable evidence!"

(sigh)

So how does the complexity measuring tool work exactly, Urbs?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117071 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.
By embarrassing yourself.

Since you can provide no intelligent mechanisms nor an objective method of measuring "specified complexity" then self-organization of DNA is not unreasonable since that IS what's observed.

The problem is you are operating on the assumption that "organization" is deliberate. Biology does not operate on that assumption, it operates on the mechanisms of biochemistry. Hence why if something goes wrong in the transcription process they MAY lead to problems, or occasionally even death. That too is observed. But it ain't the rule, as is also observed.

You decided to finally admit you were lying about your 4 years of biology training yet?

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 messianic114 142,783
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr dirtclod 14,696
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 hr ChromiuMan 960
Why natural selection can't work 8 hr Chimney1 28
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 8 hr dirtclod 801
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... Thu paul porter 3
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) Wed Kong_ 455
More from around the web