Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119008 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
*In 2010, Famed geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, director of NIH, wrote:
"Discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more 'junk  DNA,' think again"
*Collins, Francis S., The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine,, pp. 5–6
My beliefs have not been falsified. You don't even know what they are.
And Collins's view on YEC ?

"But it is not science that suffers most here. Young Earth Creationism does even more damage to faith, by demanding that belief in God requires assent to fundamentally flawed claims about the natural world. Young people brought up in homes and churches that insist on Creationism sooner or later encounter the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of an ancient universe and the relatedness of all living things through the process of evolution and natural selection. What a terrible and unnecessary choice they then face! To adhere to the faith of their childhood, they are required to reject a broad and rigorous body of scientific data, effectively committing intellectual suicide. Presented with no other alternative than Creationism, is it any wonder that many of these young people turn away from faith, concluding that they simply cannot believe in a God who would ask them to reject what science has so compellingly taught us about the natural world?"

Language of god - Francis Collins - 2006
Chapter 8

On evolution ?

"No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution to explain the marvelous complexity and diversity of life. In fact, the relatedness of all species through the mechanism of evolution is such a profound foundation for the understanding of all biology"

Chapter 4

Well waddya know Collins dismisses YEC as harmful and supports ToE

Thanks HTS - reminded me to dig out my copy of the langauge of god
One way or another

United States

#119009 Feb 22, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Do tell us why you're such a friggin idiot.
In ANY context.
Aww poor baby, do you need some attention? Tell your mommy to burp you, it seems you're full of gas, you know, hot air. Lmao

What a maroon.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119010 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I reject evolution solely on scientific grounds.
Liar. You don't even understand how science works and you are terrified you must defend you silly Fall/Redemption theology against REALITY as demonstrated by science.
One way or another

United States

#119011 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
We ask you for an obvious example of fossil remains that violate the nested hierarchies and the timeline of evolution as we have known it for 150 years.
If your silly Jesus Freak pseudo-science were correct, you should be able to cite HUNDREDS of examples of fossils out of place, DNA results that contradict evolution, etc.
Tell us about your billions of fossils that show only 2 possible assumptions of evolution and why neither one shows all the intermediaries that are supposed to be there, if evolution is true.

Why only 2 out of a billion fossils?

Don't think, it might hurt you.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119012 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Do tell how the gov is going to sequester all the automotive co2.
If you mean plans to sequester the emissions from cars - I don't believe there are any plans - not sure how it would work anyway.

Now if you mean sequester the emissions once in the atmosphere along with emissions from power stations etc
Then look it up - but ot sure what your point is -unless you can link the technology of 'carbon capture and storage' to a conspiracy.

Actually, hang on -you DO know what the term sequester means don't you.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119013 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that a natural selection? Did the bears ask for it? Did the 4winds agree on it? What made it a natural SELECTION?
Who or what selected it?
Death!(or more correctly, lack of death) Duh!!
One way or another

United States

#119014 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Not "categorically," you a__hole, but according to each specific instance of fundie Christian NONSENSE you post.
You DID quote-mine Henry Gee, that is, you posted a snippet of a quote that APPEARS to make a distinguished evolutionary scientist be rejecting evolution, when in fact, he rejects no such thing, and in a wider context, the quote can be seen as a lively debate within the sub-field of cladistics in biology.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/14...
Quote:
"I thought this was hilarious and so typical. I actually spent some time talking to Henry Gee at SciFoo, and this very subject came up. He gets quoted all the time by creationists, and he also gets whined at by scientists who say he has to be more careful to avoid this kind of misrepresentation (he is, of course, a strong supporter of science and evolution who thinks creationists are lunatics). Caution does not get the important ideas said, though, and we can’t sit here policing our words, afraid that some idiot will scavenge them and use them to lie.
Haberle’s whole site is a testimonial to the willingness of creationists to distort scientific statements wholesale. She has a series of issues where she tries to call into question basic evolutionary ideas by doing little more than quoting out of context little snippets from books she hasn’t read.
The Henry Gee book is a beautiful example. She hasn’t read it, she certainly couldn’t explain what it’s about (it’s an excellent summary of the principles and philosophy of cladistics), and most amusingly, she got the title wrong. It’s
In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life."
end quote
Do explain how the quote is wrong fruk face.

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story – amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119015 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww poor baby, do you need some attention? Tell your mommy to burp you, it seems you're full of gas, you know, hot air. Lmao
What a maroon.
REALLY?!?! That is the best you can do?? I am embarrassed for you. Apparently you aren't smart enough to be embarrassed on your own.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119016 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that a natural selection? Did the bears ask for it? Did the 4winds agree on it? What made it a natural SELECTION?
Who or what selected it?
Polar bears who cannot adapt to the rapidly warming arctic climate, the melting ice, and thus their inability to trap and eat whales and other fish at ice holes will quickly die off, often without reproducing, and thus the species as a whole is likely to decline quickly and eventually cease to exist.

A 4TH GRADER can understand this process.

No one DELIBERATELY selected them for extinction. That isn't how it works.
One way or another

United States

#119017 Feb 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
If you mean plans to sequester the emissions from cars - I don't believe there are any plans - not sure how it would work anyway.
Now if you mean sequester the emissions once in the atmosphere along with emissions from power stations etc
Then look it up - but ot sure what your point is -unless you can link the technology of 'carbon capture and storage' to a conspiracy.
Actually, hang on -you DO know what the term sequester means don't you.
You are the one that is always one sided. When you get the other half of your brain, let us know.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119018 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that a natural selection? Did the bears ask for it? Did the 4winds agree on it? What made it a natural SELECTION?
Who or what selected it?
Nature itself is "selecting" Polar Bears for extinction (unless something drastic is done about it).

Nature "SELECTS" (note the quotation marks?) them for extinction due to the inability of Polar Bears to change with the diminishing Artic environment they had been able to thrive in.

Global warming **IS** happening. Man-made, or otherwise. The environment changes. Polar Bears aren't changing fast enough to meet those changes, thus their population is declining rapidly.

More: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
One way or another

United States

#119019 Feb 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Death!(or more correctly, lack of death) Duh!!
Hahahaha, the moron above insinuates the bears selected death.
One way or another

United States

#119020 Feb 22, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Death!(or more correctly, lack of death) Duh!!
Oh, the bears selected ---lack of death. Mind telling us how they did that. Did they ask the evolutionary fairy?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119021 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You linked me to an article that says 20% is functional. Why did you ignore the article that claimed 80% is functional?
In reference to the collapse of the junk DNA paradigm, Evolutionist Dr. John Mattick, director for the Institute of Molecular Bioscience (Queensland, Australia), wrote,
"The failure to recognize the full implications of this--particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information... may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
Mattick, J. Cited in: Gibs, W.W., "The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk", Scientific American, 289 (5): 26-33, November, 2003; pp.29-30
*In 2010, Famed geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, director of NIH, wrote:
"Discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more 'junk  DNA,' think again"
*Collins, Francis S., The Language of Life: DNA and the Revolution in Personalized Medicine,, pp. 5–6
My beliefs have not been falsified. You don't even know what they are.
Actually they have been. Yes, early on in project ENCODE the people involved in it made some rather grandiose statements. They may not have even believed those statements themselves. Now they, and critics, have cut down those claims by quite a bit. When they made their claims they were made on the basis that they had found more operating parts of the genome than had previously been observed. And it was quite a bit more. Odds are that 10% of the genome is functional in some way, not the 1 to 1.5% that was previously thought to be the case.

You saw the articles that I linked but you did not read or understand them.

"Junk DNA" is still alive and well.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119022 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahaha, the moron above insinuates the bears selected death.
Ok am again calling Poe
One way or another

United States

#119023 Feb 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Nature itself is "selecting" Polar Bears for extinction (unless something drastic is done about it).
Nature "SELECTS" (note the quotation marks?) them for extinction due to the inability of Polar Bears to change with the diminishing Artic environment they had been able to thrive in.
Global warming **IS** happening. Man-made, or otherwise. The environment changes. Polar Bears aren't changing fast enough to meet those changes, thus their population is declining rapidly.
More: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/...
So who asked nature? To make a selection, someone or some animal has to make some kind of request.

se·lec·tion
/s&#601;&#712;lekSH &#601;n/
Noun
The action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.
A number of carefully chosen things.
Synonyms
choice - pick - option - election - assortment - picking
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#119024 Feb 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the one that is always one sided. When you get the other half of your brain, let us know.
So to clarify

You asked a question

I answered it - but asked you to clarify your point

You get all pissy

All present and correct

(Poe)
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119025 Feb 22, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
We ask you for an obvious example of fossil remains that violate the nested hierarchies and the timeline of evolution as we have known it for 150 years.
If your silly Jesus Freak pseudo-science were correct, you should be able to cite HUNDREDS of examples of fossils out of place, DNA results that contradict evolution, etc.
Evolution does not "predict" nested hierarchies. Darwin devoted a great deal of effort in Origin of Species desperately trying to convince the skeptic that nested heirarchies could be reonciled with ToE.
And by the way, do you actually think ToE "predicts" what is seen in the fossil record? Over 100 million fossils identified and catalogued, spanning a supposed geologic time period of 530 million years, and the DarwinBots can come up with maybe two possible examples? Where are the millions of transitional species that are missing?
You can't just throw out arguments as if they're self-evident conclusions. To prove a scientific theory, you must present irrefutable evidence that is convincing to a skeptic. Proponents of evolution can do none of that. They cannot prove that a transitional fossil exists. All they can do is claim they exist. They cannot prove that nested hierarchies are predicted by evolution and are inconsistent with intelligent design. They cannot prove that an ape is genetically related to a human. All they can do is argue, and those arguments have all been logically refuted by intelligent scientists.
You only proclaim the weakness of your position every time you hurl childish insults about the cherished religious beliefs of others. It is obvious that you are groping for validation of your worldview when you have to appeal to religious bigotry to offer some glimmer of support to what you believe to be a scientific theory. I realize that you want to embrace an amoral worldview, but I would advise you to at least show some degree of intellectual honesty in the process.
One way or another

United States

#119026 Feb 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok am again calling Poe
You should, because you're an idiot that has never brought anything worthwhile to this board and you're too simple minded to care.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#119027 Feb 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they have been. Yes, early on in project ENCODE the people involved in it made some rather grandiose statements. They may not have even believed those statements themselves. Now they, and critics, have cut down those claims by quite a bit. When they made their claims they were made on the basis that they had found more operating parts of the genome than had previously been observed. And it was quite a bit more. Odds are that 10% of the genome is functional in some way, not the 1 to 1.5% that was previously thought to be the case.
You saw the articles that I linked but you did not read or understand them.
"Junk DNA" is still alive and well.
SZ... it is obvious that you believe what you want to believe. You want to be related to apes. You want the human genome to be full of junk. Your are selectively filtering data....and what makes you so confident that in five years from now geneticists will be sayiing that 100% of the human genome is functional? What proof do you have that it isn't? You have nothing.

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
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 3 min THE LONE WORKER 63
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Aura Mytha 40,819
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 min It aint necessari... 16,367
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr One way or another 201,728
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr Reno Hoock 277
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 2 hr MIDutch 24
Where does instinct fall within random mutations? 3 hr Reno Hoock 8
More from around the web