Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,458

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

#117877 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Define"precious" within your atheistic paradigm, devoid of absolutes. Atheists see life as an accident... A fortuitous assemblage of molecules.

You are very strange.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/03/a...

BTW, as I have mentioned, I am not an atheist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117878 Feb 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
groan....what happened to that ningnong anyway?
Merged with Russ and annihilated each other out of corporeal existence?

Hey, I can hope for miracles too.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117879 Feb 18, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing and nobody plus billions of years equals everything!

Why do you repeat things that have blown up in your fact, like the above?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117880 Feb 18, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Man, you are clueless.
I guess so, if you say so. Why can't you ever demonstrate though? How come it's always a no-no?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#117881 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What you claim is worthless when in here, you talk and act like a one sided moron. Run along moron.
Nice try. You're still a world class idiot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117882 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
What you claim is worthless when in here, you talk and act like a one sided moron. Run along moron.
Ahh, shaddap Jimbo.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117883 Feb 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
UC is looking for any possible angle to dismiss this...they MUST have introduced fresh blood! Because otherwise, uh oh, its true. Sanford is falsified!
He would be better off sticking to the Bible than relying on guys like Sanford. At least the Bible is allowed to use magic to get around any falsification tests. No such luck when a scientist like Sanford creates a hypothesis that makes specific claims that can be proven false!
Nah, he insists that's what the paper says - he just seems unwilling to point out where

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117884 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
Researchers in multiple scientific fields of are abandoning Darwinism in large numbers because the theory contradicts laws of science. Biologist Dr. Egbert Leigh of the Smithsonian institute, observed that the evolutionary hypothesis is falling out of favor because it's claims cannot be reconciled with science...
"The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and anti-Darwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation."
*(Leigh, Egbert G., Jr.[Biologist, Smithsonian Institution, USA], "The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism," Trends in Ecologyt and Evolution, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp.495-498, December 1999, p.495).

QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT

Dr. Leigh's paper set the above quote up to refute it. Which he did.

Here is the whole paper. You might want to take special note of the conclusions.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/12759...

My god! You blundered again!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117885 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanford's observations are a death blow to Darwinism, and his scientific credentials are impeccable. He started out as an atheist. After over two decades of research in plant breeding, he concluded that NDT is utter BS.

????

Sanford has long since been refuted. Is incorrect conjecture was stillborn and simply the result of his creationist bias, not science.

Anyone willing to do so can look this stuff up. Why don't you do so? Oh yea. Because reality refutes you.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117886 Feb 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
...and why would we expect a new sequence of random mutations along with natural selection of those mutations to produce the SAME phenotypic result again? Is this your flawed understanding of "repeatable"?
How about this: Its a repeatable experiment that a fair coin tossed 1000 times will produce approximately 500 heads and 500 tails. However, you could do the experiment 100 times and its exceedingly unlikely that you would ever have the SAME sequence (e.g. HHTHHTTTTH etc) repeated twice.
WHAT is repeatable? Recovery.
WHAT is unique? The particular random sequence of mutations available for selection, that drive each recovery event.
...and any significant degree of recovery AT ONCE falsifies Sanford's hypothesis that genetic entropy is a one-way street that natural selection cannot reverse.
<quoted text>
They would not HAVE to ALWAYS recover fitness to falsify Sanford. That they should do so EVER, is enough to falsify Sanford's genetic entropy hypothesis as laid out in his book.
<quoted text>
And the problem is?
<quoted text>
The very first sentence there completely falsifies Sanford. The rest is exactly what you would expect in a process where the source of new variation is random and of course the previous "historical loss of fitness", the starting point, is unique too.
<quoted text>
Actually, EXACTLY as I like. Because IF the process yielded exactly the same results every time, it would be evidence AGAINST non-directed, randomly sourced evolutionary change. In fact if the response was the same every time, we would then suspect that the driving force was a pre-programmed adaptive response, NOT evolutionary adaptation.
So thanks, you have merely offered further confirmation that both
1. Sanford was falsified and
2. Evolution is a process driven by random genetic change, not pre-programmed adaptation.
And I am even bothering to argue with a YEC nutcase because? Until you get over that bit of Santa Clausery, I cannot even see the point of arguing any other SCIENCE with you.
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

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117887 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..
Oh look, the Black Knight is back.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117888 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
QUOTEMINE ALERT
Dr. Leigh's paper set the above quote up to refute it. Which he did.
Here is the whole paper. You might want to take special note of the conclusions.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/12759...
My god! You blundered again!
You took the bait, Dogen. I knew you would pull out the "quotemine" card. Predictably, you have no answers. You simply parrot the same BS that has been proliferated on atheist websites.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117889 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
????
Sanford has long since been refuted. Is incorrect conjecture was stillborn and simply the result of his creationist bias, not science.
Anyone willing to do so can look this stuff up. Why don't you do so? Oh yea. Because reality refutes you.
You cannot refute him... all you are capable of is parroting canned responses.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117890 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Just shy of 96% actually. No mistake. Didn't you read the link I gave you?
I never formulate opinons based on popularity. Scientific truth is established by experimentation, not consensus.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117891 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Complexity CAN be defined in meaningful terms, but it can't be defined absolutely across the board. For example is a human more complex than a space shuttle? Depending on how it is defined you could argue both ways. And as long as both definitions had working objective methods for measuring complexity, both would be valid. But not necessarily one more valid than the other.
This is why your argument that "IT'S ALL TOO COMPLEX TO HAVE EVOLVED, IT MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNEDED!!!" doesn't work.
Your never ending argument is: Prove that there is a God,... otherwise EVOLUTIONDIDIT.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117892 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, he is dead-on-balls accurate (an industry term). Wiki explains very explicitly why you are wrong and links you directly to the primary research. Creationist misdating of dinosaur fossils is a joke.
If you categorically believe everything that's posted on the Wiki you're a naive fool.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117893 Feb 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you understood Sanford, you would know that the sexual selection you are referring to would not help, in the isolated population. Sanford claims that even with the help of this selection, it would still be a one way trip to genetic entropy and annihilation, and recovery of the population to ancestral fitness levels would be impossible. At best, this selection would slow the decline, but never be able to reverse it. That is Sanford's whole point.
And this experiment shows that he is wrong.
Please explain how the human genome or the genome of any animal can rid itself of 100+ deleterious mutations per generation when it only produces an average of three offspring per couple. I know what you're going to say... you think that most mutations are neutral... FALSE. The deleterious effect of most mutations cannot be measured.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117894 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
????
Sanford has long since been refuted. Is incorrect conjecture was stillborn and simply the result of his creationist bias, not science.
Anyone willing to do so can look this stuff up. Why don't you do so? Oh yea. Because reality refutes you.
Darwin has long since been refuted.
Anyone willing to do so can look this stuff up. Why don't you do so? Oh yea. Because reality refutes you.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117895 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your regurgitated argument from incredulty is abjectly stupid. You expect me to accept on faith anything that validates NDT. You think it's "unscientific" to question a theory that makes no sense...
You cling to your "evolution dun it" paradigm.

Evolution makes perfect sense from the perspective of science. It only makes no sense to those who do not really understand it.

That is the one constant I have seen from creationists over the years, that they really have never learned what the ToE really says and why it says what it does. This board would be dead if all creationists bothered to do that.

Until you bother to do that all your arguments are some form of argument from incredulity (aka argument from ignorance).
HTS

Englewood, CO

#117896 Feb 18, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, he insists that's what the paper says - he just seems unwilling to point out where
No one on this forum has actually offered ANY SCIENTIFIC LOGIC that refutes Sanford... all that's posted are broad meaningless statements that his work has been "debunked". Can anyone actually tell me how the human genome makes up for 100+ mutations per generation? Does someone actually think that these mutations are randomly occurring and that most of them are building up human DNA?

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) 22 min John K 121,147
Darwin on the rocks 43 min The Dude 375
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 3 hr The Dude 721
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 4 hr woodtick57 383
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr MikeF 138,204
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE