Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,178

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." Read more

“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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119179 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like Genesis 1:1?

Exactly.
One way or another

United States

#119180 Feb 23, 2013
Great arguments Russell, but the Evo children care nothing for science. The pseudoscience of evolution is all they hear.

They simply repeat their dogma via clique until they chase away most people.

That's what schools and governments teaches. Anyone outside the cliques are ridiculed, including scientists that dare say what they don't want.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119181 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution needs MORE mountains of evidence
Because what you have is just evidence of change

Evolution = change over time.

No more evidence needed.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That is patent nonsense
Who would deny that electricity exists?

That is my point. Who would deny that evolution happens? I just substituted one scientific fact for another (evolution for electricity).

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Your claims are akin to saying that because electricity exists, buildings spontaneously develop wiring and cabling, along with switches and power outlets

No your analogy is not good. Electricity existed for billions of years before those things came into being on this planet. Likewise, evolution existed for billions of years and eventually a lifeform came along that was able to utilize electricity with wiring, cabling,.... But that is not really the point.

It is interesting to note that humans have been USING evolution for longer than they have been using electricity (except as a source for fire). Selective breeding uses the mechanism of evolution to alter existing animal with the characteristics the breeder desires.

So evolution has been a fact longer than electricity.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119182 Feb 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Poor Rusty, he has delusions of adequacy again. It seems he likes to pull a Maz now and then too. Like Maz he will find an article with keywords that are hopeful to him and then he posts it as if he has accomplished something.
Rusty, you have shown time after time that you don't understand the few noncreatard articles that you link.
No of course I don't understand plain English
Subduction Zone wrote:
Worse yet you have admitted to denying almost all science. Even science as recent as Newton's mechanics go against your idiotic creatard beliefs.
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
Subduction Zone wrote:
All you have been able to do is to try to insult people by copying what is said about you.
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
Subduction Zone wrote:
Unfortunately since others do not make the same grade school mistakes that you do those insults do not apply.
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
Subduction Zone wrote:
ignorance is a mighty fortress for Rusty.
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119183 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
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

Since these errors have been occurring for over 3.5 billion years, when exactly did "the fall" (sic - not actually a biblical term) occur?

You have a problem.

Second, the similarity of genomes is directly related to the length of time the two organisms have been separated by evolutionary history. Not one counterexample has been found.

The EXACT same nested hierarchy found in the fossil record is found in:
- DNA
- Morphology
- Ontogeny
- ERV insertion pattern
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Phylogenies
- Cladistics

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> And you claim chemical turned into horrendously intricate cells by eluding every chemical law in creation and zapped themselves into life...

What in the name of Osirus are you talking about? So, in addition to biology you also don't get chemistry. Small wonder.

I go even a step further. I claim that hydrogen atoms turned into horrendously intricate molecules by a process I call nature.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Gould formulated punctuated equilibrium BECAUSE of the massive issues with the fossil record

Actually, Darwin formulated punctuated equilibrium. Gould supplied the name and ran with the concept.

Gradualism was assumed early on due to the principle of parsimony. Observations required that to be rejected. Still, Darwin got it right in the beginning.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119184 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No of course I don't understand plain English

We Know. We know.


Note the vapidity of the rest of Russell's post.

[QUOTE who="Russell"]<qu oted text>
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
<quoted text>
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
<quoted text>
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
<quoted text>
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!

Emotionalism without substance. Typical of creationists.

You need to learn evolutionary theology and come to realize that science does not refute religion nor does science ever even attempt to refute religion. That is just a function of your paranoid belief system.

http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119185 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely
And proving evolutionary dogma to be incorrect

In what way is ENCODE not 100% in line with the MSE?

In what way is ENCODE consistent with creationism?

[crickets chirping in February]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119186 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Face it Dogem
You have no evidence

The name is Dogen. It is a long O sound. Like Doe-gin or Doe-gen.

If that was the only thing wrong with your posts you would be doing well. However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:

Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science)

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> 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....

**[Psychological Projection Test]**

Russell, 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 scientists say about evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119187 Feb 23, 2013
This guy reminds me of the Dude

Slippery
Snake

Dawkins, 2009: on “junkDNA”
“it’s full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be!”

Dawkins, 2012: on non-junkDNA…
“it’s not full of junk, which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along!”

Richard Dawkins ENCODE 2013 “Junk DNA”
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119188 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The name is Dogen. It is a long O sound. Like Doe-gin or Doe-gen.
If that was the only thing wrong with your posts you would be doing well. However, I am the one that DOES have the evidence. It is evidence that:
Has been accumulated by MILLIONS of scientists.
Has withstood 150 years of the scientific method.
- It is observable
- It is testable
- It is falsifiable (but has never been falsified)
- It includes experiments and observations that are repeatable
- has repeated the experiments and observations.
- has been peer reviewed.
- has advanced science.
- has made predictions (which have been successful)
Has been observed in nature
Is based on over a BILLION fossils.
Is based on over 10 TRILLION pieces of data.
Has multiple lines of evidence from different fields of science (the holy grail of science)
<quoted text>
**[Psychological Projection Test]**
Russell, 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 scientists say about evolution
You claim to be a Christian...but you scorn God's word...
Real smart....
No I think Dogem is a better representation of you

Your evidence falsifies the Bible
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119189 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Emotionalism without substance. Typical of creationists.
You need to learn evolutionary theology and come to realize that science does not refute religion nor does science ever even attempt to refute religion. That is just a function of your paranoid belief system.
http://evolutionarytheology.wordpress.com/
I've always said evolution is a religion
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#119190 Feb 23, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since these errors have been occurring for over 3.5 billion years, when exactly did "the fall" (sic - not actually a biblical term) occur?
Neither is Biblical...

So there you go...

So you don't believe Genesis?

Neither can you believe a virgin birth

Nor a resurrection

Cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a problem.
I do not belong to a cult
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

Second, the similarity of genomes is directly related to the length of time the two organisms have been separated by evolutionary history. Not one counterexample has been found.
You knowledge of genetics is bleak

HLA-DRB 1 exons may show what you claim
HLA-DRB 1 introns 1-4 do not

Naturally you have not a clue what I am saying but never mind...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The EXACT same nested hierarchy found in the fossil record is found in:
- DNA
- Morphology
- Ontogeny
- ERV insertion pattern
- Redundant pseudogenes
- Phylogenies
- Cladistics
You mean like this?

http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/6/R109/figure...
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

What in the name of Osirus are you talking about? So, in addition to biology you also don't get chemistry. Small wonder.
I go even a step further. I claim that hydrogen atoms turned into horrendously intricate molecules by a process I call nature.
You call nature-god
No evidence
Just confidence and heaps of faith
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, Darwin formulated punctuated equilibrium. Gould supplied the name and ran with the concept.
Gradualism was assumed early on due to the principle of parsimony. Observations required that to be rejected. Still, Darwin got it right in the beginning.
Yes, we argee
There were and are massive insurmountable issues with the fossil record
One way or another

United States

#119191 Feb 23, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No of course I don't understand plain English
<quoted text>
You wish
Dream on, Bud
This is all you have
Argumentum ad hominem
<quoted text>
What insults?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
You have been known to make some rather....shall we say...."strange" remarks when you're off your evo-goblin face
<quoted text>
You mean like the RLN being bad design?
The retina being wired backwards being bad design?
Fast and slow rabbits?
Whale evolution?
Archie?
Lenski's bacteria?
Junk DNA?
Haeckel's drawings?
Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor?
Mutations and the like dunnit over millions of years?
Transitional fossils?
.
.
.
.
.
This list goes on...and on.....and...on
Evo-tard "brilliance" in general...
<quoted text>
Says he from his ivory tower of oblivion driven by a frantic desire to remain champ of the chumps
....And the droning offers to teach....
Uggh!
Lmao, how true.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Truth is might 155,243
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 1 hr kenedy njoroge 948
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr karl44 18,031
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web