Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 173,750

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118950 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure?
Not not just sneaking off to Revolting Oranges again?
I may test you...
I have also read some of the critics of project Encode who explain why the original claim of 80% coding was bogus:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/09/fighting...

Granted, project ENCODE will give us some very important information, it is just not the information the creatards hoped and prayed that it would be.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118951 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure?
Not not just sneaking off to Revolting Oranges again?
I may test you...
And before you test me you owe several answers to me.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118952 Feb 21, 2013
By the way Russell, project ENCODE originally claimed 80% functionality. Later they pared that down to a much much smaller 10%, which of course the creatards ignored, and raised there potential to 20%.

Hmm, that was the same figure that was given in another article that I linked earlier for HTS.

Project ENCODE jumped the gun a bit when they claimed 80% functionality. Still they found quite a bit more functionality than the original 1 or 1.5% found of the very active genes.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118953 Feb 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what any of that means.
You couldn't think of any more intelligent way to design that?
Go to YouTube, search for "Dawkins giraffe" and watch it.
Already done
Its trash
Joy Reidenberg makes some glaring errors AND omissions

Its the vagus nerve that has a long course the laryngeal is a branch

When and if you understand any anatomy and embryology...Its all crystal clear....the great vessels eg aorta rely on teh laryngeal nerve being present during development

Back to the drawing board with you...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#118954 Feb 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
By the way Russell, project ENCODE originally claimed 80% functionality. Later they pared that down to a much much smaller 10%, which of course the creatards ignored, and raised there potential to 20%.
Hmm, that was the same figure that was given in another article that I linked earlier for HTS.
Project ENCODE jumped the gun a bit when they claimed 80% functionality. Still they found quite a bit more functionality than the original 1 or 1.5% found of the very active genes.
Shapiro....James...not Robert...has said the genome is likely 100% functional

He is an evolutionary geneticist

I have posted about this last night in my comments to Chimney

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118955 Feb 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Shapiro....James...not Robert...has said the genome is likely 100% functional
He is an evolutionary geneticist
I have posted about this last night in my comments to Chimney
Yes, and he had a vested interest in project ENCODE. You need to remember the earliest articles had those claims. They toned it down later on.

Very often when a project is new the directors overhype the results that they have gotten in order to keep the money flowing in.

Sometimes it is best to wait until the work is done and see what the results actually are.

Project ENCODE was far from a failure, but they were nowhere near their early projection of 80%.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#118956 Feb 21, 2013
One of the reasons that we call people like Rusty a creatard is because he latches on to the least article that looks like it might hurt evolution. And I can guarantee you this, no one on project ENCODE thinks that there work hurts evolution in any way. They are looking for answers for how evolution happens.

Evolution works fine either with a fully functional gene pool or the one that we have, we don't know enough about DNA yet to demand one or the other for evolution. The existence of massive amounts of junk DNA does seem to be a bit of a problem for creationists.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#118957 Feb 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA is evidence of creation
So is the cell
No, DNA is actually evidence that chemicals react with each other in predictable ways. So is the cell.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#118958 Feb 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, DNA is actually evidence that chemicals react with each other in predictable ways. So is the cell.
Funnily enough there was a 2 part documentary on the BBC called meet the Izzards, last part was last night. Eddie Izzard (British actor/comedian, marathon runner and transvestite) went on a quest to trace his DNA roots from beginning to end, part one on his mothers side, part 2 on his fathers side

His mother’s line started in Namibia almost 200,000 years and over 10,000 generations ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qxqgs...

His fathers line started in Cameroon 142,000 years ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qxqm5...

Both are 1 hour long so here’s a quick one page description

http://www.meettheizzards.com/

Oh yes and he’s 2.8% Neanderthal
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118959 Feb 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
No explanation there about how Goddidit with magic passes the scientific method.
Russell wrote:
Thanks and I accept your's
<quoted text>
Quite correct as demonstrated on several occasions
You wish.
Russell wrote:
Is this thread CREATION vs evolution...?
Or have I inadvertently stumbled onto an EVO-goblins ONLY forum?
DNA is not 'self' replicating ...it requires existing proteins to unwind the chromatin, DNA polymerase and the like, and these proteins are contained in the DNA code
DNA must translate and transcribe and utilse RNA and ribozymes ---- protein molecular motors, that then transcribe and translate DNA
__________
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
None of which addresses the point.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118960 Feb 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Already done
Its trash
Joy Reidenberg makes some glaring errors AND omissions
Its the vagus nerve that has a long course the laryngeal is a branch
When and if you understand any anatomy and embryology...Its all crystal clear....the great vessels eg aorta rely on teh laryngeal nerve being present during development
Back to the drawing board with you...
The question remains, is there no more intelligent method of connecting the larynx and the brain than with a 15' long nerve bundle? The embryology point doesn't answer the question, as God surely could have made giraffes with a 3" nerve from the brain to the larynx. Or, don't you think your God capable of such a feat? The succession of transitional forms, each a little different than the last, leading from fish to giraffes, explains the laryngeal nerve sensibly. "Intelligent design" doesn't, because as soon as a more intelligent solution is discovered, or as soon as the naturalistic explanation exists, the entire premise of "intelligent design" fails.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118961 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I reject evolution solely on scientific grounds.
Well I sure wish you'd present them.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118962 Feb 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Shapiro....James...not Robert...has said the genome is likely 100% functional
He is an evolutionary geneticist
I have posted about this last night in my comments to Chimney
A definition of "functional" is required for your post to have any meaning. It seems you're afraid of defining this term. I wonder why that is?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118963 Feb 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on how speedy the predators are
How about rabbit predators that exist on Earth?

You're taking a farcical approach. You're intentionally ignoring the reality to insist upon a fantasy that allows your foolish error to exist uncontradicted. You do realize how dishonest that makes you, and surely you recognize that this dishonesty is not what Jesus wants from you when you defend the faith. Or, maybe you think Jesus needs you to lie for him if that's what it takes. But, if you have to lie to defend your faith, think of what that says about your faith...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#118964 Feb 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I did
This is why
<quoted text>
And my version of evolution is that it never happened
That's not a version. Maybe you need a dictionary to know what words like "version" mean. I didn't know that was a 25 cent word. My bad. I figured words that are typically learned in the 2nd grade would have been fair game for you. Apparently, I was mistaken.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118965 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> It is a self evident scientific fallacy to extrapolate nylonase production in bacteria to microbe-man evolution. That is nothing less than wishful thinking. The fossil record is not full of transitional species. They are strikingly absent.
The British paleontologist Dr. Henry Gee commented on the current evidence for evolution in the fossil record with this stunning admission:
“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.”
*Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time. New York: Free Press, 1999, pp. 5, 32, 113-117.
On the contrary we've presented those transitionals to you a number of times. Instead of rebuttal you offer the opinions of creationists or quotemining evolutionary biologists:

http://www.scilogs.com/ieditor/creationists-b...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118966 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The wiki reference you posted offers nothing more than inferences and extrapolations. I asked for observation of a single mutation in the microbe to man transition.
Blue eues.

You asked.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118967 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>DNA is evidence of intelligent design because it is arguably the most complex organization of matter known.
This means nothing until you decide to answer my questions re "complexity".
HTS wrote:
The existence of eaningful coded information with language type functionality, data compression, multiple levels of overlapping messages and intricate algorithms
As previously demonstrated DNA does not have language functionality. Language is arbitrary. Chemistry is not.
HTS wrote:
screams intelligent design.
How exactly?
HTS wrote:
Even though that conflicts with your religion "gravity is observed."
You mean Intelligent Falling.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118968 Feb 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to muddy the waters as usual
I made a CORRECT statement..
DNA is evidence for creation
The cell is evidence for creation
YOU said I was wrong
I said "how"?
Now with arms folded resolutely
I await an answer
Because you've simply been woefully inadequate to demonstrate how invisible Jewmagic is responsible for DNA.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#118969 Feb 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Antibiotic resistance and industrial melanism are observed facts. Gradualistic evolution is not. You have yet to show me a single example. No stories, please.
Correct, we've never shown you single examples because we've provided many. You can't even address them and dismiss anything which conflicts with your religion.
HTS wrote:
No amount of evidence will suffice for an atheist. You demand a rabbit in the Precambrian, a mermaid, or a chimp with cactus DNA. Your worldview trumps objectivity.
Then you claim that none of these would be evidence of violation of observed nested hierarchies? How you figure?

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) 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 116,684
Difficulty Loading Topix Pages 3 hr Gillette 8
New review critical of "Origins" 3 hr DanFromSmithville 21
Need clarification on evolution 10 hr Dogen 7
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 10 hr Chimney1 517
Darwin on the rocks 11 hr Dogen 1
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 137,094
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••