Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178667 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.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119159 Feb 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence that abiogenesis MAY have been the result of natural chemical processes includes naturally occurring biological compounds observed in the lab due to chemistry, and the first organisms in the fossil record were bacterial/microbial in nature.
Citrate utilising bacteria...

We’re here so it must have happened...

Tiktaalik...

Archie...

And what else?

Let’s not forget your favourite-->SETMAR

And the White Cliffs of Dover....

And......what else?

What other debunkable nonsense have you hung your hat on?

How very scientific of you....

How very utterly brainless, actually

This just proves the complete bankruptcy of your thinking
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119160 Feb 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

Abiogenesis MAY have been caused by a God or Gods, or perhaps even aliens. So far there is no evidence at all. I don't need to "disbelieve" or "reject" what you cannot provide.
Of course none of this is relevant to the validity of evolution.
NOTHING is relevant to the validity of evolution

Irrefutable evidence against it is not valid

It is a belief

That’s all

Creationists have the same evidence

You just interpret it differently

Where you lack evidence

You have your fanaticism...

And of course a nice distraction is cretard-bashing...

That never fails to soothe rankling pride
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119161 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

Really, name one example from modern science. What is more seen in modern science is wrong ideas being wiped out ---QUICKLY--- quickly. The closer to the present we get the quicker bad ideas are wiped out. Sound science that is supported with a lot of data only gets refined, not collapsed.
Your examples are based on unsound thinking and lack of awareness of the progress science has made.
H pylori story --> Marshall and Robin

Nobel Prize recipients in 2005

"This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine goes to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who with—TENACITY-- tenacity and a prepared mind ---CHALLENGED PREVAILING DOGMAS----challenged prevailing dogmas."

The prevailing dogma, as you may or may not know, was that no living thing could survive in stomach acid

This was unshakable...

Marshall had the distinct displeasure to having to infect himself and treat the infection in order to establish his thesis that H pylori caused peptic and gastric ulcers

“ In 1982, they performed the initial culture of H. pylori and developed their hypothesis related to the bacterial cause of peptic ulcer and gastric cancer.[2]

It has been claimed that the H. pylori theory was ---RIDICULED---ridiculed by the establishment scientists and doctors,

....who did not believe that any bacteria could live in the acidic environment of the stomach.

Marshall has been quoted as saying in 1998 that "(e)veryone was against me, but I knew I was right."[5]”

----------
There's the example of convention being WRONG

But of course you will fob this off ....as you earnestly contend for your faith in evo-god

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119162 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, lets look at evolution. The observation that evolution occurs was made nearly 2,500 years ago. The Theory of Evolution has been with us in some form for over 150 years. The modern ToE is supported by multiple lines of evidence from a plethora of different fields of science.
It has more material evidence than any other theory in the history of science. It is an apex scientific theory that is based on enough scientific papers to fill an entire library (not to mention books).
Creation trumps evolution every time

First observed ~6,000 yrs ago

Been with us ever since

Has multiple lines of evidence from EVERY field of science

Has NO evidence to refute it

The central paradigm does not alter every other day

The tenets are stable and its facts are observable

Belongs to a body of beliefs upon which nations can stand

Belongs to a body of beliefs that has the power to change lives

Is the basis for human rights

Is the basis for sanctity of life

Is the basis for fighting disease and disability

Is the basis for ALL charitable operations

Is the basis for caring for animals and the environment

Is the basis for the development of the scientific method
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119163 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It has more material evidence than any other theory in the history of science. It is an apex scientific theory that is based on enough scientific papers to fill an entire library (not to mention books).
Evolutionary propaganda has committed a full blown assault on the scientific community

It has contributed NOTHING worthwhile to science or to the world

Belief in it has stymied good science

Like a parasite it exists and thrives because of real science

Its blind assertions, lies and nonsense never end

It claims EVERYTHING to be its own regardless of producing nothing of value itself

----------
Change is evolution

No change is evolution

Fast change is evolution

Slow change is evolution

Convergent evolution is evolution

Divergent evolution is evolution

Homology is evolution

Analogy is evolution

Homoplasy is evolution
----------

Here are a few of my own:

Grossly erroneous predictions is evolution

Absent evidence is evolution

Non-homologous genes are evolution

Molecular evidence that contradicts homology is evolution


There is an EVER changing definition of evolution

Initially it was all about the ‘tree of life’ simple organisms becoming more complex as they ascend this imaginary tree

Then when the “simple” cell was found to be horrendously complex...evo-god quickly kidnapped this unavailable child into its repertoire of just-so story telling

When molecular biology revealed DNA and its dazzling perturbations

....Evo-god comes along and says, oh yes, that one is mine too

When mutations were shown to be utterly inadequate to account for evolution over millions of years...the story changed again....

Doesn’t matter at all that evo-god, shabby, cloaked in pseudoscience, changes its mind constantly

Whenever new contrary evidence arises....evo-god is given a nice brush down by its aficionados, bolstered up with utter nonsense and paraded triumphantly as having always been right, or being completely ‘scientific ‘ therefore unavailable for any scrutiny other than glowing adoration

You may kiss evo-gods cheeks....just be sure they are the cheeks you want to kiss.....ever capricious....evo-god cares not one whit about you

----------
Have a nice little shrug....just about now, Dude
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119164 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe he can refute gravity with his religious notions.
My religious notions, as you refer to my belief in God’s unwavering word,

...do not change due to the ramblings of men, and are based in an unchanging, plain reading of the Word


You, made all those claims about being Christian, believing in the one true God, the God of Israel, etc, but you have fallen in a heap when tested

--Church of God is a cult

--The trinity is real

--Your have modified God’s word to suit your mistaken beliefs

You can’t even talk about this

...I hope from abject shame

And then you have the audacity to say this:
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What is most disturbing is that none of them are willing to look at science objectively even as a mental exercise.

When have philosophical and religious arguments EVER trumped science? The only hope they have is to walk fearless into the valley of the shadow of death, but not one of them has the faith, nor the guts.
You find God’s word inconvenient and embarrassing

Hence you have altered it to agree with your indefensible beliefs

Dr Duane Gish pointed out, there may be theistic evolutionists, but theistic evolution itself is an oxymoron, just like an anhydrous reaction using water.

A good illustration is Woodmorappe’s parable The horse and the tractor: Why God and evolution don’t mix.

http://creation.com/the-horse-and-the-tractor

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119165 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Rusty only reads certain parts of the articles the he links. He never reads the whole article or pays attention that none of the articles that he links threaten evolution in any way.

I have noticed that. He also appears to quote things he has not read, or not read carefully.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119166 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Your circular logic is laughable. You can't argue that the fossil record is full of transitional species because they are evolving.

Maybe you don't understand.

He CAN argue that the fossil record is full of transitional species BECAUSE they are evolving.

Get it now, oh logic impaired one?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119167 Feb 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw-man. It's HTS's concept. He claimed some genomes were inferior to others. I'm asking him to explain himself.
So, you don’t believe in the tree of life?
You are saying that multicellular creatures did not come from single celled organisms?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The Jews are God's chosen people. He said so.
Only, sadly for you, they were not present at the creation
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, artificial selection does.
Artificial selection does, AS WELL
The Dude wrote:
Hypothesised evolutionary mechanisms
Otherwise Drosophila melanogaster should be a rhinoceros by now
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your objections are irrelevant since you openly admitted to having zero interest in science and instead favouring religious apologetics.
Strawman
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you just hate it when your own arguments apply to you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119168 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Absurd logic. You can't assume that because bacteria develop antibiotic resistance that man evolved from a worm.

You, of course, ignore the fossil record and millions of transitional fossils, the genome with all its evidence of evolution in it and ignore evidence of the evolution from field studies, medical studies .......

If I can have a penny for every evidence for evolution I will give you a dollar for every evidence of creationism. I will be rich and you will need to borrow change to buy cup of coffee.

Your straw man has no arms, legs or head. Do you understand my logic impaired friend?

Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assertion is, in fact, wrong.
IFF the question is evolution OR creation (dichotomy)
AND since evolution is an observed fact
THEN we can conclude that creation is incorrect.
I actually think it is a false dichotomy, but that is an issue to discuss with people who are not in the routine of denying reality.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119169 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I have noticed that. He also appears to quote things he has not read, or not read carefully.
You mean like Genesis 1:1?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119170 Feb 23, 2013
One way or another wrote:
By what has been said, science sent in a bunch of juveniles at the start of the encode project or science didn't like what they had to say, because it didn't fit with their version of evolution.
Ah, the scientists selected for this project were just over zealous kids, according to the grown up scientists.
Hahahahahahahaha
Fruking morons

?

ENCODE is completely consistent with known science.

Buy a clue.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119171 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're not presenting scientific evidence... You're throwing a hissy fit.

Sounds like more projection on your part.

You may be forgetting which of us has been providing evidence and which of you have been running from it.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assertion is, in fact, wrong.
IFF the question is evolution OR creation (dichotomy)
AND since evolution is an observed fact
THEN we can conclude that creation is incorrect.
I actually think it is a false dichotomy, but that is an issue to discuss with people who are not in the routine of denying reality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119172 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your declarations are worthless. There is evidence of an intelligent force... The complexity of life. You can deny it all day... That doesn't erase anything. Science is not making unsubstantiated proclamations. It's providing evidence that can be validated by a skeptic. I am a skeptic. You have provide stories only. Your mountains of "evidence" is non-existent.

As explained before "complexity" does not prove anything as it is only a relative term. Even when it can be operationalized (as in computers) it does give the implication that it cannot be founded on natural processes. RNA anyone?

Second, denial of the mountains of evidence in support of evolution is just meaningless. Okay, so say I deny evidence for electricity. My computer still works, my lights are still on and my tv is still tuned to a boring morning news program. In the same way evolution continues on even with your denial.

And so it goes.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119173 Feb 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, your arrogance doesn't phase me in the slightest. Your incessant insults only proclaim your deep insecurity and prove to me that you have no idea what science is.

[Projection test]

HTS, your arrogance doesn't phase me in the slightest. Your incessant insults only proclaim your deep insecurity and prove to me that you have no idea what science is.

Okay, which statement better fits the observable facts.

I contend the later statement actually fits the facts.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119174 Feb 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Referencing big technical science words do not support your position. Especially when they disagree with you. But that's okay, you already admitted multiple times over you have no interest in science, only apologetics.
Uh uh
This is not going to work

Its no use trying this form of deception yet again...

YOU raised the issue of no reference being provided that an evolutionary geneticist has stated that 100% of the genome is functional
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you are unable to reference him anyway since you don't even believe in the scientific method he uses in the first place.

Thanks again for another find demonstration of your hypocrisy.
I have provided that reference--->

http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.A...

Shapiro has stated this in the paper I linked:

"One criterion propounded to distinguish informational DNA is whether it is transcribed into RNA. Employing this criterion, the evidence for functionality ----OF ALL---of all regions of the genome has recently been extended by a detailed investigation of 1% of the human genome.

22
This Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences study has indicated that---VIRTUALLY ALL---- virtually all DNA in the genome, most of which does not encode protein, is transcribed from one or both strands.

So the central dogma-based notion that the genome can be functionally discriminated into transcribed (informational, coding) and nontranscribed (junk) regions appears to be invalid. There are other reasons for discounting the notion that only protein-coding DNA contains biologically meaningful information."

----------
ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identi&#64257;cation and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447: 799–816.

__________

Admit you're a liar The Dude

You asked for a reference, in your twisted fashion

It was provided

You did not like what it stated....flies in the face of your evo-dogma ...

So, as always...

Sly slippery hand wave...

You are fooling no one...other than yourself

I feel I am dealing with a snake...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119175 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like more projection on your part.
You may be forgetting which of us has been providing evidence and which of you have been running from it.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your assertion is, in fact, wrong.
IFF the question is evolution OR creation (dichotomy)
AND since evolution is an observed fact
THEN we can conclude that creation is incorrect.
I actually think it is a false dichotomy, but that is an issue to discuss with people who are not in the routine of denying reality.
Face it Dogem

You have no evidence

You repeat what you hear and think others are saying....

You link to tediously sloppy sites

You repeat yourself endlessly

You can't even refute what creationists say about theistic evolution

You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...

Real smart....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119176 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
?
ENCODE is completely consistent with known science.
Buy a clue.
Absolutely
And proving evolutionary dogma to be incorrect
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119177 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As explained before "complexity" does not prove anything as it is only a relative term. Even when it can be operationalized (as in computers) it does give the implication that it cannot be founded on natural processes. RNA anyone?
Second, denial of the mountains of evidence in support of evolution is just meaningless.
Evolution needs MORE mountains of evidence
Because what you have is just evidence of change
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so say I deny evidence for electricity. My computer still works, my lights are still on and my tv is still tuned to a boring morning news program. In the same way evolution continues on even with your denial.
And so it goes.
That is patent nonsense

Who would deny that electricity exists?

Your claims are akin to saying that because electricity exists, buildings spontaneously develop wiring and cabling, along with switches and power outlets
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119178 Feb 23, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So what?
You will find that pretty much every organism on Earth has a unique genome.
Fancy that

Just like the Bible says

Every organism also replicates its unique genome into a copy of its own unique genome

...with the exception of the few errors that may slip through....vindicated by the occurrence of the Fall
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You on the other hand are again attempting to claim there was an "original" pre-existing genome from which everything else "fell". Despite you have no evidence and admitted you have no way of knowing.
And you claim chemical turned into horrendously intricate cells by eluding every chemical law in creation and zapped themselves into life...

Despite having no evidence and admitting you have no way of knowing
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we have. Mutations can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial. Observed. Hence if an inherited ERV marker does not prevent an organism from successfully reproducing, that insertion may eventually lead to new function.
So now its viruses dunnit over millions of years?
Tsk tsk...slippery as snake oil
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Gould accepted both evolution and the existence of transitional fossils. He is another favourite for fundies to quotemine.
Gould formulated punctuated equilibrium BECAUSE of the massive issues with the fossil record

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 min kenedy njoroge 141,790
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 51 min DanFromSmithville 168,543
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 4 hr DanFromSmithville 189
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 4 hr NoahLovesU 6,167
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 hr Secret Admirer 19,741
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web