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
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117897 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look, the Black Knight is back.
Yea

Give us a shrug
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#117898 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
If most deletarious effects can't be measured how can you say most mutations are harmful.

So .... Direct question , back up your claim that most mutations are harmful.

No babbling
No dodging
No insults

Just back up your claim (ill put my cricket pads on to protect my knees from attack)
urban cowboy

North Miami Beach, FL

#117899 Feb 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess so, if you say so. Why can't you ever demonstrate though? How come it's always a no-no?
Sorry, I should not have responded at all. You are just too unreasonable.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#117900 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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?
It has been offered. You just dismiss it with a wave of your anti-science, anti-intellectual hand.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117901 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Most scientists know that if they write so the entire community can read and understand their work, then they know that all those eyes will pick apart every tiny detail that is wrong.
However, that serves to dumb down the entire community.

Like what you do for us.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117902 Feb 18, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>It has been offered. You just dismiss it with a wave of your anti-science, anti-intellectual hand.
Contesting what's fasonable in academic circles is not "anti-science".
HTS

Williston, ND

#117903 Feb 18, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
You're an arrogant jackass. I've studied evolution for over thirty years. I've read extensively what is posted on talkorigins, and have read numerous scientific articles on proposals of abiogenesis. I have read very little from creationist sources.The entire unwieldy paradigm of evolution is complete BS.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117904 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You cannot refute him... all you are capable of is parroting canned responses.
Go boom. Irony meter duz it.

Cowboy is the only one who even attempts to explain his canned responses.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117905 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your never ending argument is: Prove that there is a God,... otherwise EVOLUTIONDIDIT.
Not the case. Evolution did it because of the evidence. Ya know, that stuff you're unable to address. You then complain we're not taking divine intervention into account then whine like a wuss when we point out you have no evidence to present for it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117906 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
In that case you have no case from which to claim most are deleterious.

Oops.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117908 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Darwin was 150 years ago. We're still waiting for you to catch up and refute what's known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117909 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>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".
No, what's been posted is a pretty thorough refutation by Chimney which includes peer-reviewed results falsifying Sanford's claims which were based on YEC apologetics anyway. Besides, every time you boys mention him you're STILL contradicting yourselves.
HTS wrote:
Can anyone actually tell me how the human genome makes up for 100+ mutations per generation?
Yes. Read back a few pages and it's there.
HTS wrote:
Does someone actually think that these mutations are randomly occurring and that most of them are building up human DNA?
Near as we can tell they are random. What does "building up" mean? Are you still working from the fallacy that evolution is goal-directed?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117911 Feb 18, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
If most deletarious effects can't be measured how can you say most mutations are harmful.
Easy. He just opens his mouth and the words just come right out.

Who said it had to be coherent?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117912 Feb 18, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I should not have responded at all. You are just too unreasonable.
Yeah I know. How silly of me to expect rational coherent counter-rebuttal when just a quick flippant comment saying "NO!" will do.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117913 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Contesting what's fasonable in academic circles is not "anti-science".
It is when you have no case.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#117914 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a noisy child that has brought nothing of value here. All your claims outside here are just so much BS, because what one says here is all any here have to go on.
In all the years you've been here, you have brought only childish nonsense.
Perhaps you can find others to fight with you.
Major projection.

What is the significance of the radar mile?

Run away, little wussy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117915 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're an arrogant jackass. I've studied evolution for over thirty years.
No you haven't. That's why you can't even get the basics right.

In fact you're not even capable of scientific discussion. You've never even tried. All your posts are nothing but denials and dismissals, and repostings of typical creo mischaracterizations of evolution.
HTS wrote:
I've read extensively what is posted on talkorigins
And dismissed them because they didn't gel with creationism.
HTS wrote:
and have read numerous scientific articles on proposals of abiogenesis.
The theory of evolution does not rely on the abiogenesis hypothesis.

And you know why.

And you know why you keep avoiding it.
HTS wrote:
I have read very little from creationist sources.
Yes, and you've also had 4 years in med school. And I'm sure the fact that you ARE a creationist is just a coincidence.
HTS wrote:
The entire unwieldy paradigm of evolution is complete BS.
Your grandiose proclamations have never addressed the scientific validity of evolution. You don't even cause an itch.

Time to appeal to another quote now, is it?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#117916 Feb 18, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a noisy child that has brought nothing of value here. All your claims outside here are just so much BS, because what one says here is all any here have to go on.
In all the years you've been here, you have brought only childish nonsense.
Perhaps you can find others to fight with you.
Jimbo suffers from projectionitus.
One way or another

United States

#117917 Feb 18, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I should not have responded at all. You are just too unreasonable.
Very true, however, you want to talk science, just like myself, HTS, Russell and others that just aren't speaking, because the Evo morons don't want intelligent science spoken here. All they want is one sided nonsense.

I might suggest that you, myself, Russell and HTS simply read what they claim and then we assess what they say between ourselves, leaving them out of the conversation all together. That way, other people that want to discuss both sides will see they don't have to fight, just because they think differently. We know they will be running off whether we speak to them or not.

The Evo crowd will be left to their own devices.

Just a suggestion to you, HTS and Russell.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117918 Feb 18, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Contesting what's fasonable in academic circles is not "anti-science".

Evolution was first mentioned 2,500 years ago based on observation

Some form of an evolutionary hypothesis has been around at least 200 years.

The First mechanism of evolution was discovered over 150 years ago.

What is fashionable has come and gone hundreds or thousands of times since then. The fact of evolution is still a fact. The ToE is the only scientific explanation of that fact.

So,... I can't even honestly say "nice try" to your comment.

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) 3 min anonymous 120,500
Darwin on the rocks 7 min Chimney1 343
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 37 min DanFromSmithville 138,167
Monkey VS Man 5 hr Bluenose 14
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 17 hr MikeF 351
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 21 hr Chimney1 692
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution 23 hr TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE