Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#117944 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, creationists could easily demonstrate if peer review was unfair. I have told you how easy it that would be in the past.
And not Haeckle again. Please, you his drawings were not fraudulent. You don't even know what he did wrong.
When you can tell us what was wrong with Haeckle's work then we might not laugh at you quite so much.
. Have you ever seen a three week human embryo? I have... Many times. They look NOTHING like Haeckle's drawings. I'm demonstrating that no legitimate peer review exists in the world of NDT. You're defending Haeckle's drawings even now, after they have been widely criticized by embryologists who are not DarwinBots.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117945 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Rusty you gigantic douche.
The aim of the paper that Chimney quoted was not to prove evolution. That has already been done. The aim of it was to disprove Sanford's nonsense. According to Sanford the population should not have recovered, it did. There is no genetic entropy.
The population only recovered ...
Because....

It never entirely lost its wild type fitness...

Do you read at all or just skip from post to post saying...

You're wrong...
You're wrong...
You're Oh, so very wrong.....

?
?
?

When the variability within the population was eliminated by the selection of a mutant clone....

NO REVERSAL to ancestral fitness occurred ...

Sanford stands....

If that's all you have.....
HTS

Mandan, ND

#117946 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
As usual, the Evo morons childish clique cackle about people, because science means nothing to these morons, all though they can copy and paste. Too bad they never offer even one new thought as a group, for science, in all the years they have been here. Then they pretend to judge other people as the classic, childish cliques, from elementary school.
Poor ignorant children, they add nothing of value for all the years they have been here.
The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.
The Evo clique is totally one sided. That's the best way to dumb down your children.
Deceit is their first and last line of defense.
Atheism lies at the heart of Darwinism, and there is one common denominator among all atheists...consummate arrogance founded on rebellion against a higher authority. They cannot imagine an intelligence greater than their own, so they play God themselves by mocking creation and making conjectures as to how intelligent creation should have been conducted. Arrogance leads to self deception. Since they reject God, they deify natural selection and pure chemistry as possessing properties of creating life. In short, they create a facade of science to hide behind their religion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117947 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The population only recovered ...
Because....
It never entirely lost its wild type fitness...
Do you read at all or just skip from post to post saying...
You're wrong...
You're wrong...
You're Oh, so very wrong.....
?
?
?
When the variability within the population was eliminated by the selection of a mutant clone....
NO REVERSAL to ancestral fitness occurred ...
Sanford stands....
If that's all you have.....
Yes, they recovered because genetic entropy is bullshit. I am glad we agree. Remember they were testing Sanford's claims, not the already proven concept of evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117948 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Have you ever seen a three week human embryo? I have... Many times. They look NOTHING like Haeckle's drawings. I'm demonstrating that no legitimate peer review exists in the world of NDT. You're defending Haeckle's drawings even now, after they have been widely criticized by embryologists who are not DarwinBots.
Sketches never look exactly like the drawn object. You still have no clue what he did wrong.

Why don't you use Google and look it up. Here is a hint, you won't find the answer on a creatard site. Haeckle's claims were not that far off. That is why they use photographs to illustrate his claims today.

Don't worry, I will let you know what Haeckle did wrong after your next failure.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117949 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what I read you saying is:
1. You admit you have not been studying evolution as long as I have.
Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.
--2 Timothy 3:7
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
2. You have your mind (such as it is) made us and don't want to be confused with the scientific facts (religious fundamentalism has that effect on people).
Your 'religious'stance is faulty
An untenable position

I have posted a comment about it...
but it seems my post has gone missing

#117728

Its not there

Well, I'll just re-post it later
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
3. You are still conflating evolution with abiogenesis which is not possible if you had REALLY read as much as you say.
Why are evolutionists desperate to avoid the REAL issues of origins?

Just happy to play in the 'safe' little playground with your perceived safety nets?

Why not step into the arena where the real blood letting occurs?

Your creed that evolution happened is in defiance of ALL natural laws
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
4. Perhaps I should have lead with this, your ignorance of evolution in particular and science in general makes your assertions moot. The evidence of your ignorance fills your posts. They are filled with assertions you cannot support. You quotemine stuff OR pick the quotemines off creationist ready quotemined.
I could CLAIM to be a brain surgeon, but if I mislabel the parts of the brain then you would be right to call me a liar. Based on a comparable level of errors about evolution I have concluded you are a liar about the extent to which you have studied it.
That is all.
May I politely....taking a leaf out of Mugwumps' book....suggest that you read:

http://creation.com/Did-god-create-over-billi...

You will have to face the indefensible nature of your stance
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117950 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they recovered because genetic entropy is bullshit. I am glad we agree. Remember they were testing Sanford's claims, not the already proven concept of evolution.
A beaut DOUBLE win...
Serendipitous....

I know you well, Marshmallow Terminator ...

So your usual responses, as featured, here just won't work with me....

You ARE wrong....

You have STILL not provided a single rebuttal to my HLA-DRB 1 exon 2 vs intron 1-4 posts

Don't think I have not noticed...

You think you have a 'herd' immunity ducking and weaving about within the fray....

But I KNOW.....!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117951 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly rabbit, that gene may be dormant, because our ancestors started eating many things with vitamin C.
Do you ever use your brain?
Probably correct. Eating fruits and such allowed those with the defective gene to reproduce in large numbers. Otherwise, only those who did NOT have the defective gene would have survived.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117952 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try, Bud
But this is just another carcass road kill on the evo-highway going no where..
Its antibiotic resistance all over again...
Like the rapid pesticide resistance in the same creature de-bunked ages ago
No. I completely refuted your silliness. And now all you can say is "nice try" because you cannot answer me. Instead you bring up antibiotic resistance! That is too funny...as its another great example of adaptive evolution fueled by random mutation and selection.

And as a side note, the creationist claim that antibiotic resistant bacteria are otherwise weakened is also debunked. Sometimes the AB resistant bacteria are stronger than their "wild" counterparts...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117953 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sketches never look exactly like the drawn object. You still have no clue what he did wrong.
Why don't you use Google and look it up. Here is a hint, you won't find the answer on a creatard site. Haeckle's claims were not that far off. That is why they use photographs to illustrate his claims today.
Don't worry, I will let you know what Haeckel did wrong after your next failure.
And, of course, in the twisted world of "all change is evolution", even Haeckel's own admission of fraud was a win of some sort?

Don't worry HTS...

SubDud will never back off

Don't forget

He cares not one whit whether he writes anything of substance or not

He wishes to cement his title of Champ of the Chumps...

And best wishes to him

But HTS

Don't expect him to back away from defending Haeckel

That's his favourite...

SubDud ain't going to watch that boat sink and him stand by doing NUTHIN'

Why....
HTS...

You'll be attacking his other favourite next..
The Monera Fallacy

Boy, then we'll see sparks fly!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117954 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
A beaut DOUBLE win...
Serendipitous....
I know you well, Marshmallow Terminator ...
So your usual responses, as featured, here just won't work with me....
You ARE wrong....
You have STILL not provided a single rebuttal to my HLA-DRB 1 exon 2 vs intron 1-4 posts
Don't think I have not noticed...
You think you have a 'herd' immunity ducking and weaving about within the fray....
But I KNOW.....!
I never saw it or it was so idiotically stupid that I skipped over it.

Do you care to post it again.

Or perhaps I did debunk it but you were too thick to notice.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117955 Feb 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing and nobody plus billions of years equals everything!
Or hydrogen plus billions of years equals everything.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117956 Feb 18, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And, of course, in the twisted world of "all change is evolution", even Haeckel's own admission of fraud was a win of some sort?
Don't worry HTS...
SubDud will never back off
Don't forget
He cares not one whit whether he writes anything of substance or not
He wishes to cement his title of Champ of the Chumps...
And best wishes to him
But HTS
Don't expect him to back away from defending Haeckel
That's his favourite...
SubDud ain't going to watch that boat sink and him stand by doing NUTHIN'
Why....
HTS...
You'll be attacking his other favourite next..
The Monera Fallacy
Boy, then we'll see sparks fly!
No, Rusty, I am not defending Haeckel. I am merely relaying the truth. What he did was not that bad. You have no clue what he did wrong. Neither does HTS, all he can do is shout "fraud" but he has no idea what the fraud might have been.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117957 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot refute him... all you are capable of is parroting canned responses.
I have refuted Sanford in multiple ways.

But none of that even matters, now that he has been refuted more simply by empirical testing.

Doesn't matter how cute you think his theories are. They are falsified by reality. End of story.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

Richard P. Feynman

Note: evolution on the other hand has been confirmed by every observation and experiment thrown at it for 150 years.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117958 Feb 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I completely refuted your silliness. And now all you can say is "nice try" because you cannot answer me. Instead you bring up antibiotic resistance! That is too funny...as its another great example of adaptive evolution fueled by random mutation and selection.
And as a side note, the creationist claim that antibiotic resistant bacteria are otherwise weakened is also debunked. Sometimes the AB resistant bacteria are stronger than their "wild" counterparts...
Not so, Bud

Are you aware of the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance??

Similarly, the Estes et al papers had the same findings

Get mono-clonal and the reversion to ancestral fitness disappears...

ONLY with variability and heterogeneity do you get the wild type fitness

Check out Zorastrianism

A nice little biological anthropological study happening in real time

Also Icelandic peoples....

BTW

I thought Iceland was the armpit of the Universe...really

Worse than the ME...

And mosquitoes on the East coast as large as horses...I kid you not...

Anyhoo....
Back to the point at hand...

Your papers, I include the one I have referred to, DO NOT refute Sanford

But thanks anyway

They nicely show non-evolution.....yet again....quite by accident

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117959 Feb 18, 2013
Once again, yes Chimney's papers did refute Sanford, Though Sanford does not need refuting since he never ever made his case. All he ever had was a flawed computer model. Since reality debunked Sanford he wisely never compared his idea to reality.

Sanford's claim came pre-broken.

Chimney's paper showed that life regained the loss that Sanford predicted it would. He was such an idiot he forgot half of the driving forces of evolution.

So since he did bust your claim I believe that I probably did already bust the claim that you are yammering about. You bring up so much nonsense that is so easily debunked that I do not remember all of them that have been shot down. The victories we have all had over you would not be classed as difficult battles. They have all been yawners.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#117960 Feb 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No UC, not the same thing. Do you understand?
1. An isolated population of nematodes is bred generation after generation with natural selection suspended. Fitness falls.
2. The SAME, isolated population, the descendants of (1) above, with no external material introduced, is subject once again to natural selection.
3. Over many generations of this STILL ISOLATED population, fitness recovers.
According to Sanford, this is not possible. Its the very core of his thesis. And its falsified by experiment.
Cougars brought into the everglades were introduced, as I understand it, to bring new diversity into a shrunken and inbred local population. This is NOT the same thing as with the isolated nematode population internally recovering fitness.
You can see this, of course. But now you are grasping at straws, to save your beloved "genetic entropy" hypothesis.
I suspect that the lesson learned from this experiment is that a population CAN recover fitness when natural selection is reintroduced. But I doubt if a return to fitness would be the only possible outcome. The nematodes might have gotten to a critical point where extinction would be a more likely outcome.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117961 Feb 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Once again, yes Chimney's papers did refute Sanford, Though Sanford does not need refuting since he never ever made his case. All he ever had was a flawed computer model. Since reality debunked Sanford he wisely never compared his idea to reality.
Sanford's claim came pre-broken.
Chimney's paper showed that life regained the loss that Sanford predicted it would. He was such an idiot he forgot half of the driving forces of evolution.
So since he did bust your claim I believe that I probably did already bust the claim that you are yammering about. You bring up so much nonsense that is so easily debunked that I do not remember all of them that have been shot down. The victories we have all had over you would not be classed as difficult battles. They have all been yawners.
And here goes Marshmallow Terminator....

As always...

Sanford stands

Chimney's paper...and the one I have referred to...nicely illustrate what creationists have always said....
That antibiotic resistance

C difficle

Estes et al with the C elegans

C elegans pesticide resistance...

ALL>>>

Number One:--->Are not EVOLUTION
Number Two:---> Do not refute Sanford

The C elegans population was heterogeneous and contained the genetic variability to re-express the ancestral fitness

SINCE THE ANCESTRAL FITNESS WAS NEVER LOST FROM THE POPULATION...not entirely

When the mutant genotype was tested...NO REVERSAL

Go figure...

No reversal in the mutant clone....

Only in the heterogeneous populations

All of the above is for Chimney's benefit...

Not your's SubDud

Because all you'll say is "you're wrong"

Whinge whinge...
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#117962 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Listening to an evolutionist speak of "peer review" is laughable. Since you're so interested in truth, let's start by an objective evaluation of Haeckle's fraudulent drawings that have been published in biology textbooks for over a century.
Put your money where your mouth is. Find us a current textbook with the drawings. I'll sweeten the deal. From the last ten years. Better yet, from the last twenty years.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#117963 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Oh really? Show me the "evidence" of abiogenesis. Show me the "evidence" that hemoglobin evolved through gradualism. Show me the "evidence" that man evolved from a worm. You have raw conjectures... Nothing more. Show me the "evidence" that simple can evolve into complex through random mutations. Tell me how evolution created echolocation in whales and migratory instincts in salmon. I' m asking for science, not stories.
How did you get from evolution to abiogenesis? Why do creationists think evolutionary theory must explain how life arose? It merely addresses biodiversity. Using a strawman to smuggle in an argument from ignorance is poor form.

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) 24 min replaytime 94,214
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. 2 hr Rose_NoHo 273
Evolution is boring as Hell (Nov '17) 3 hr Mad John Kidd 48
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 3 hr Mad John Kidd 9
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Rose_NoHo 168,732
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 5 hr Rose_NoHo 40
Evolution is an ANCIENT RELIGION 7 hr Davidjayjordan 2