Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#119452 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
Yeah
I know
Thinking Jesus is a copy cat of Mithra...
Quite nauseating....
Thinking Magic Jesus existed...Quite silly...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#119454 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Check that statement..
Were amino acids really found in a meteorite?
Research it
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33...

"Researchers have spotted other extraterrestrial biological molecules in meteorites before, including amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The new study looked instead at nucleobases, ring-shaped compounds used to store information in RNA and DNA molecules, which carry life’s genetic blueprints."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/...

"Amino acids have already been found in a variety of carbon-rich meteorites formed under relatively cool conditions.(See asteroid and comet pictures.)

But this is the first time the substances have been found in meteorites that had been naturally heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,100 degrees Celsius)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11542462

"The amino acids of the Murchison meteorite (CM2) have been extensively analyzed and 52 amino acids have been positively identified. Thirty three of these amino acids are unknown in natural materials other than carbonaceous chondrites. Thus the Murchison meteorite has recently been the major source of new naturally-occurring amino acids."

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119455 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s called genetic variation
Evolution it ain’t
If the job of evolution were to simply produce allelic variety from existing genes...then we could all be happy, pack up and go home
But evolution has to create multi-cellularity from single cells, then produce every living thing imaginable via mutations, selection and fixation.....and as any geneticist will tell you...
...That ain’t possible in 4.5 billion years
Oh and naturalistic processes have to also create life first...still within that time frame
How would you know what is possible and what is not in 4,500,000,000 years?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#119456 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
"Majority of the available evidence?"
What's the majority of 'none'?
ERV remnants
LowellGuy

Stirling, NJ

#119457 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor you
It sucks!
But look at me?
I have to deal with a 'christian' who thinks the bible is wrong and that Jesus did not believe in creation
<quoted text>
This is what the Dude said:
<quoted text>
I have provided exactly what he required
Exactly as you claim I have not provided else where...
He said no honest scientist who objectively looked at the facts could possibly believe evolution is false
I have provided him with two examples out of the very many I could have referenced
Please read what I have written more carefully
Your skim reads are letting you down
At best, the Bible is, at best, third person hearsay. At least, that's what my uncle heard from his buddy at the docks.
LowellGuy

Stirling, NJ

#119458 Feb 24, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evolutionists should ask themselves: What is the basic mechanism for their macro changes? Must be beneficial mutations right? Now, ask the following:
How often do we observe beneficial mutations? Never!
How often do we observe harmful mutations? Always!
So how can they accept a theory that depends entirely on something that has never been observed and is prevented from what is always observed?
Is sickle cell anemia beneficial or harmful to the ability of people to reproduce in malarial regions?

Remind us why lactose tolerance is not beneficial in any way.
LowellGuy

Stirling, NJ

#119459 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Specified
Purposeful
What purpose has crystal replication?
The same purpose all replication has. Continued existence.
LowellGuy

Stirling, NJ

#119460 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
"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...
What is objective about authoritarian fiat?
LowellGuy

Stirling, NJ

#119461 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Let's go so far as to say the larynx is a full foot from the giraffe's brain (which it isn't). Why wouldn't it be smarter to make a separate 12" nerve for the larynx rather than having it branch off after a 15 foot journey up and down the neck? All the embryology in the world doesn't make it a good design, because simplicity is a hallmark of design. A 15' loop of branching nerves to connect the brain to something less than a foot away is not simple, any more than driving 80 miles of back roads is simpler than taking a turnpike. But, if you think a squiggle is simpler than a straight line, fine. Be stupid.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119462 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The objective history book I prefer is the Bible...the unadulterated version...
I believe as Jesus believed

LOL. You have no clue as to what Jesus believed especially if you are so uninformed as to believe that the bible (as it exists today) is the "unadulterated version". We are not on the same page educationally there.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119463 Feb 24, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Perversion of mathematical concepts of order and complexity lie at the heart of Darwinism. Their religion is so supreme in their minds that, in their profound arrogance, they refuse to yield even to laws of mathematics. They think that a random assembly of nucleotides has information. They are now denying that entropy is defined as an increase in disorder, because their religion requires them to reject the existence of disorder. They actually believe that the proverbial monkey will one day type Shakespeare.

Perversion of mathematical concepts of order and complexity lie at the heart of creotardism. Their religion is so supreme in their minds that, in their profound arrogance, they refuse to yield even to laws of mathematics. They think that magic poofing creates information. They actually believe that the proverbial monkey "LITERALLY cannot" one day type Shakespeare.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119464 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Empirical science demands evidence via observation, testability and repeatability

Which creationism has never produced.

Evolution has been observed, tested, makes predictions, can be falsified, is empirical,....

Creationism cannot be tested.
It’s not science

If you mean “evolution” is like “physics”, a science...
Then you are quite right
__________
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Many would deny evolution happens...
Many scientists
Lay people
Engineers
Mums and dads
Lawyers
Authors
And oh yes, geneticists
And, oh yes, biologists
No one denies “electricity”

It is not important what ignorant people believe. Less that .5% of biologists (including genetics) deny evolution.

The ones that do deny some aspect of the THEORY of evolution. Fewer still deny the observed fact of evolution.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119465 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Life first existed when God called it into existence
6,000 yrs ago

Yet the evidence is that life has been around for 3.5+ billion years. So your belief defies what is known in geology, paleontology, physics and chemistry (which have developed the techniques for dating the earliest life and all life and geological process on the earth).

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Since then, life has been faithfully reproducing after its kind....just as God ordained

Except that is not what has been shown to be true in the fossil record, in DNA analysis nor in field studies.

So again you have a believe that is in conflict with the observable evidence from many fields of science. So you might as well believe in tooth fairy, which at least is not specifically contradicted by known science.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Life is complex, variation is immense

So?

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> 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


All this is necessary based on the ToE. Good thing we find these things to be true.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Your system requires a few errors escaping detection, being the right type of errors, AND being selected for AND fixed in a population

That is a bit of a straw-man version of evolution, but since it is better than your normal assertions we can start with that.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Ain’t enough time for that to have happened in your hypothetical scenario of 4.5 billion years

Actually, we seem to observe MORE evolution than would be predicted by the normal mechanisms of evolution in 3.7 billion years. But we may not have found all the mechanism of evolution yet.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119466 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in medicine depends on evolution
Much cancer medicine does.

As does our annually changing flu shot.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119467 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence that are ancestors were apes?
Any evidence?
Orthologous Endogenous Retroviruses are slam-the-door proof positive of the connection.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119468 Feb 24, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to Sanford. Sanford never said that. The article simply makes a unwarranted, speculative claim with no evidence at all. The article did not refute Sanford in any way.
No, that was Sanford who made the unwarranted speculative claim. You keep getting these things backwards.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119469 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
But how?
Where’s the science?
Where's the evidence?


You might want to read a book. Seriously. It is not like there is not a lot of information out there on this subject. It is not like there are not thousands of research papers. It is not like museums are not so crowded with this evidence that 99% of it is not in storage.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> There were and are massive insurmountable issues with the fossil record


No, this is creationist mythology. There are not even good enough arguments for me to argue against. It is just made up.

Not that there are not issues in any field of science. If there were not they would announce that "chemistry is solved" and send all the researchers home.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Where are the billions of transitional fossils?

There are now over 1 billion fossils in museums alone. The number in personal collections can only be guessed at.

Over 99% of all the species found in the fossil record no longer exist.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#119470 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists /atheists have no objective basis for morality
Neither do you Christians. All you have is wishful thinking to it MUST be so or SHOULD be so.
Prove your morality is "objective," whatever the hell that could possibly mean.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
“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.”
1.) Prove beyond all doubt that there is a "creator" to whom you are appealing.
2.) An "appeal" is nothing more than a subjective thought or belief.
In reality, you have nothing more than you claim atheists have.
Morality is and always has been RELATIVE. It cannot be anything else.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119471 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so
Animal breeding is not evolution

I never said it was. I said artificial selection uses the same mechanisms of evolution and does natural selection.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> You wish it was
But it is not

I don't wish for science to be other than it is. What is actually discovered is usually far more interesting than anything I could envision or wish for.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Your definition of evolution “change over time” could apply to frogs turning into tadpoles,...

changes in populations over time...

my omission.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> All of animal breeding utilises natural selection and the process is referred to as artificial selection

As I pointed out above.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> But this process results in less variability.....
A “mongrel” dog, that has a greater range of variability retained in its genome, is fitter, more able to adapt
This principle is applied in the preservation of the “wild type” in genetics labs
Unfortunately for evolutionists, this animal breeding can only proceed in one direction


You seem confused about this. Evolution REQUIRES variability. That is how new information is spread throughout the genome. That is the problem with bottlenecks.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Specialised breeds can not be reverse- bred back to the “wild type” or the mongrel
This is due to the loss of alleles during the course of selective breeding

You just confessed evolution. Ironically you did no with an incorrect implication. specialized breeds CAN be bread back simply by allowing them to breed with more diverse members of their species. Packs of wild but formally domesticated breeds eventually return to a population of rather average size and characteristics.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Therefore selective breeding results in a loss of fitness

Yes, as evolution predicts.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the opposite of evolution

No. It is evolution. Again, you are dealing with a wackodoodle version of what evolution actually says. You are right on many of the details but wrong on the implications.
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Therefore your statement that evolution has been in use for millennia, in animal breeding, is erroneous

I qualified this before and again above. You are misrepresenting what I said.

Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is a common mistake made by the uninitiated
It is however, simple punnet square genetics, thanks Mendel
All the animal breeding that has occurred since the dawn of time or thereabouts, does not fulfil any of the requirements of evolution
Cows is cows
Dogs is dogs
Chickens is chickens
Horses is horses

You are again mistaken. Chickens are entirely a domesticated breed. Chickens have only existed for 8-10k years. They are closely related to red junglefowl. BTW red junglefowl can fly.

You don't seem to understand general domestication vs. selective breeding. There are differences. Selective breeding is bad as the pool of genes is too small. But general domestication where animals are breed more or less randomly is a problem.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#119472 Feb 24, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And I am attempting to debate with this person.....

Why debate when you can learn. We know the probability with 100% certainty.

This is not a good forum for a 1:1 debate as it is a public forum in which anyone can chime in on any subject.



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I was not aware you were waiting for this.
I can help.
The mathematical probability that the Indianapolis Colts will win Super Bowl XLI is 100%.
We know this because it is historically recorded and observed.
The mathematical probability that evolution happens is also 100% for the exact same reason.
So, you now know that evolution is not only mathematically possible but the odds of it occurring is 100%.
This is not the sort of funny math that creationists like to use. This is proven reality.
I hope this helps.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Subduction Zone 70,420
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 12 min Subduction Zone 73
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 34 min Eagle 12 30,417
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 55 min Out of the Night 3,823
G-d versus Evolution? 1 hr Al Caplan 33
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 1 hr Out of the Night 78
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 10 hr Paul Scott 228
More from around the web