Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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

Canberra, Australia

#119403 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Your example is not related to the issue at hand. The mechanisms of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are exactly the same (do you need me to review them?). Accumulation of small changes add up to big changes.
This is another straw-man. You seem very fond of them.
On what do these small changes accumulate in the first place?

Secondly the small “changes” you refer to more likely are fatal or neutral mutations in which case the organism goes nowhere and the changes do not accumulate

Other small changes may be expression of allelic variation

Thus
In both cases

DNA was present to begin with

Nothing new has emerged

So the process you are desperate to validate ---evolution----never occurs
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119404 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
1st, ToE requires no belief. The ToE is based on observation.
2nd, Thermodynamics has nothing to do with complexity.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state."
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/b...
OK ....
Random chemicals are a lower energy state than DNA
DNA is a lower energy state than proteins
Hence the need for ATP in translation
Hence the need for the APT-ase
So how again do non-living chemicals defy the 2nd law and form life spontaneously?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119405 Feb 24, 2013
And Rusty shows he has no idea of what the Theory of Evolution says, or the concept of clades.

Yes, cows will always have cows, etc. and so on.

Once an animal is in a clade all of its descendants are in the same clade. Which is how we know we are apes. Our ancestors were biologically apes so of course we are apes too.

Rusty, you cannot debunk a theory you don't understand. Otherwise you make incredibly stupid posts like you just did.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119406 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you continually end your posts with bigoted religious comments? As I've said dozens of times, creotardism cannot be defended without references to religion........
As I have always said evolutionism is a religion
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119407 Feb 24, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Says a lying Christiot, here's what an Atheist would say;
"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides." - Carl Sagan
He's a creationist now
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119408 Feb 24, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is fully supported by evidence, the only challenge to it is from Christiots like yourself who appeal to the authority of 2000 yo goat herder fables.
To what evidence for evolution do you allude?

What is a 2000 yo goat herder fable?

Is that the one where lifeless chemicals unbelievably overcame physical and chemical laws to form unequivocally the most staggeringly complex structure in the universe?

I thought that was a several million year old fable?
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119409 Feb 24, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
You have demonstrated your mastery of mathematics is a joke as is your scientific acumen. Evolution is supported by the majority of the available evidence, "Magic Sky Daddy did it with pixie dust" is supported by none of the available evidence. You've got nothing.
"Majority of the available evidence?"

What's the majority of 'none'?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119410 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Life first existed when God called it into existence
6,000 yrs ago
Since then, life has been faithfully reproducing after its kind....just as God ordained
Life is complex, variation is immense
When the cell has been compared to computers, the comparisons fail as the cell is infinitely MORE complex than any computer
128 computers were required to simulate a single cell division of Mycoplasma and this took ten minutes and generated a half Gb of data
And that’s only 524 genes
The interesting part is that the replication process is high fidelity
Errors are corrected
__________
Your system requires a few errors escaping detection, being the right type of errors, AND being selected for AND fixed in a population
Ain’t enough time for that to have happened in your hypothetical scenario of 4.5 billion years
And once again Rusty denies basic Newtonian physics.

No, the world is not 6,000 years old. It is billions of years old as testified to by several branches of science. To say it is 6,000 years old you have to throw out all science after and including Newton.

Poor YEC creatard. Now they are the bottom feeders of the creatard world.

They have no education in science at all and they think no one else knows any science either.

All that can be done is to hold up a mirror to them and hope that they will be scared by the incredibly ugly image.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119411 Feb 24, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the world do you get this nonsense?
Is your self esteem that bad that you have to make up lies about people you don't even know?
Atheists tend to be more compassionate than faith based people. The best psychiatrist I ever worked with is an atheist. I have never seen a doctor who cared more about his patients.
"It is not one swalowe that bryngeth in somer. It is not one good qualitie that maketh a man good."

Evolutionists /atheists have no objective basis for morality

“The concepts of right and wrong must have an ultimate basis from which to appeal, or else they become simply relative to the culture.......... And, unless one appeals to a Creator who sets the absolute laws for life, who can say what is right or wrong? If there is no Creator who has made us and set the rules, then all our morals and ideas of what is right or wrong are simply subjective—what we ourselves decide.”

Therefore widow burning if acceptable in a culture MUST be okay

Female circumcision....it’s cultural

Wife beating...permitted and encouraged in certain religious groups

Child sex and marrying very young girls is acceptable in certain religious groups
----------

“”When the Nazis during WWII carried out their brutal reign of terror upon innocent Jews, would they have done so if they had truly believed that they would reap a recompense for their actions? The Nazis had been taught that evolution was true and involved the concepts of survival of the fittest and elimination of the weak, and they were determined to apply this in real life. The ardent evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, although an anti-Nazi, commented on Hitler’s evolutionary stance:

‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’1

The bloodthirsty regimes of Hitler and Stalin both based their philosophies on evolutionary principles. Injustice, cruelty, and merciless brutality were backed up by the ultimate evolutionary notion that all things made themselves, and that there is no higher authority which we must obey.

Evolutionist zoology professor Ernst Haeckel, whose fraudulent drawings of embryos continue to feature in some school textbooks2, and whose influence laid much of the foundation for Hitler’s Germany, argued in his book Natural History of Creation,‘the church with its morality of love and charity is an effete fraud, a perversion of the natural order’.3

He said this was because Christianity ‘… makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?’4

Others have written concerning prewar Germany:‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’5

How different to the Bible. God’s standards are love and kindness towards one another:

‘… if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word,“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Love works no ill to its neighbour, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law ’(Romans 13:9–10).””

http://creation.com/the-creation-basis-for-mo...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119412 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have always said evolutionism is a religion
No, religions, like Christianity are based upon faith. Faith is synonymous with "gullibility". Of course it it a selected gullibility once a creatard decides to believe in creationism science and evidence will never change his mind. In fact they will go out of their way to NOT learn how to judge evidence.

Evolution and other sciences are based upon observation and experimentation and evidence. Without these three evolution would not be accepted by scientists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119413 Feb 24, 2013
And Rusty throws in the towel and admits defeat.

Thank you Rusty.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119414 Feb 24, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Just remind us why it makes more sense to connect the brain to the larynx, a mere three inches apart, via a nerve that stretches fifteen feet. I'm not questioning how far it has to reach to get to the heart/lungs. I'm questioning how far it has to reach to get to the larynx. Is fifteen feet of nerve to connect the brain to the larynx more or less intelligent than three inches of nerve?
You are confused due to the fact it is named "the laryngeal" nerve

It should be called the recurrent laryngeal, tracheal and oesophageal nerve


The tenth cranial nerve is the vagus

The laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve

The laryngeal nerve does not traverse the gap between the brain and the larynx as you erroneously suggest

And the gap between the larynx and the brain is not 3 inches as you suppose

It innervates the trachea and oesophagus

On the right side it arises from the vagus nerve in front of the first part of the subclavian artery;... On the left side, it arises from the vagus nerve on the left of the arch of the aorta...

The reason the laryngeal nerve is “recurrent”, that is, travels up to the larynx, is due to its importance during embryological development

"The vagus nerve in the stage 16 embryo is very large in relation to the aortic arch system. The recurrent laryngeal nerve has a greater proportion of connective tissue than other nerves, making it more resistant to stretch. It has been suggested that tension applied by the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as it wraps around the ductus arteriosus could provide a means of support that would permit the ductus to develop as a muscular artery, rather than an elastic artery" – Gray’s Anatomy, 39th edition 2005, p. 1053.

To innervate the oesophagus and trachea of the giraffe and also reach its heart, the
recurrent laryngeal nerve needs to be, indeed, very long..........

Great design as expected from a Great Designer
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#119415 Feb 24, 2013
Interesting that the evolutionists actually believe that the entire genome is mutated. They actually believe this even though there has never been demonstrated or observed even one, clear-cut, unambiguous case of a beneficial mutation that creates some new, or nascent limb, organ, or tissue; or some new, or nascent control or important regulatory function. They really think the entire genome is mutations from worm to man, yet they have never had even one mutation observed to do anything that would explain anything in terms of macroevolution (i.e., from one type of organsim to another; vertical evolution, transmutation of species, etc.)
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119416 Feb 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Rusty shows he has no idea of what the Theory of Evolution says, or the concept of clades.
Yes, cows will always have cows, etc. and so on.
Once an animal is in a clade all of its descendants are in the same clade. Which is how we know we are apes. Our ancestors were biologically apes so of course we are apes too.
Rusty, you cannot debunk a theory you don't understand. Otherwise you make incredibly stupid posts like you just did.
Evidence that are ancestors were apes?

Any evidence?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#119417 Feb 24, 2013
The article that didn't refute Sanford assumed the recovered fitness of the worms was due to beneficial muations but say nothing to back up that claim. Just more junkfood for the darwinist mind.
Russell

Canberra, Australia

#119418 Feb 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Rusty throws in the towel and admits defeat.
Thank you Rusty.
Like your observations of evolution....

This observation...that I have "thrown in the towel"....is unsupported by evidence

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119419 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Check that statement..
Were amino acids really found in a meteorite?
Research it

Yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteor...

Just one example. Has 17 different amino acids.

You might want to check before you say dumb thing. You would post a lot less and your posts might actually have some value to them.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119420 Feb 24, 2013
And please note that along with admitting that he lost Russell had to throw in another dig at Haeckel. This time he listed his source. The funny thing is that his source did not say what was wrong with Haeckel's drawings. Only that they were "fraudulent". Could it be that the idiots at Creatard.com have no clue either? Probably so. Creatards tend to copy anything promising that another creatard writes. If it is against evolution that is good enough for them.

Of course some creatard sites are worse than others. The people at Answers in Genesis at least have recognized some of the most idiotic creatard mistakes there are. And this is another creationist site. Of course those are the arguments that Rusty and How's That for Stupid use.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119421 Feb 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I see that atheists have perverted axioms of physics as well,

It appears you don't understand. Read it again.


LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG. It's people who don't understand what entropy is who need the word "order" or "disorder" to define entropy.
If I have a bottle half-filled with water, and half-filled with oil, and they're in two distinct layers, and I then shake the bottle, thereby turning the oil into little beads suspended in the water, was there greater entropy before I shook it or after I shook it?


Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119422 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Like your observations of evolution....
This observation...that I have "thrown in the towel"....is unsupported by evidence
Actually it is. You broke Godwin's Law. That mean's you lost the debate. Anyone who has been on the internet as long as you have is aware of that law so breaking it is the same as throwing in the towel.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 16 min Dogen 1,418
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 25 min u196533dm 32,462
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Genesis Enigma 163,074
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr Aura Mytha 222,270
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Aug 19 Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web