Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,817

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

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#120346 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>In the first place, gradualism does not "predict" nested hierarchies. You only think they are predicted because that is what observed. Darwin went at great lengths in Origin of Species to rationalize away the existence of nested hierarchies with his theory. He admitted that gradualism predicted that the whole of nature would be characterized by numerous transitional forms, living and in the fossil record.
Second, there is no point in explaining your imaginary stories. The linear progression of which you speak is nothing more than Darwinian kool-aid.
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.
Um, you really should read what is posted before you reply to it. I stated we see the nested hierarchies, they are there, they are not a prediction, they exist. Explain how they exist.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#120347 Feb 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
From 10 inbreds? Oh no, that is not what happened at all. Look at how he made the MA-R line:
"For the current study, each line remaining after 240 generations of mutation accumulation was separately expanded and maintained at large population sizes by transferring agar chunks containing well over 1000 individuals to fresh plates with a sterilized scalpel every four days (equivalent to approximately one generation)(hereafter referred to as MA-R lines for mutation-recovery)."
There would have been plenty of genetic variation in the population to mix and produce healthy nematodes in those populations without any need for the creation of new "beneficial" mutations to replace the harmful ones (which is impossible and unsupported anyway).
I don't have the article handy, but thought the individuals were self-fertilizing. Could be wrong.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#120348 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I understand that the entire foundation for your belief in evolution rests on false assumptions about God.
What you need to do at this point is restrict your evaluation to whether nature shows empirical evidence of some form of intelligent design. No one is attempting to prove through science one warped version of the God of the Old Testament. You are restricting your options to a false dichotomy.
Where is the evidence of your god existing?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120349 Feb 27, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...
Let's look at your Leakey quote-mine IN CONTEXT, shall we?
Curiously, you never did respond to this post. I wonder why?
LOL!
Scientific truth is not established by simply counting the number of journal articles written to support a theory. Nothing has changed since 1981 other than the progressive corruption of the scientific method by those philosophically committed to Darwinism. Incessant repetition does not validate a scientific theory. To begin with, no one can document the purported ages of alleged pre-human ancestors. Secondly, no one can prove that the very small differences that are observed are not attributable to random genetic variability rather than macroevolution.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120351 Feb 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, you really should read what is posted before you reply to it. I stated we see the nested hierarchies, they are there, they are not a prediction, they exist. Explain how they exist.
That is the way they were intelligently designed. What's your problem? Do you presume to know how life should have been designed? Are you calling your religious opinions "science"?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#120352 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>That is the way they were intelligently designed. What's your problem? Do you presume to know how life should have been designed? Are you calling your religious opinions "science"?
Um ... what evidence do you base that on? Since the hierarchies exist, supported by genetics, anthropology, and pretty much every study of biology, there has to be a reason for it. We know things evolve, we have seen a lot of small changes over time in various species, we have even seen one species become a different species, see ring species for one of the best examples.

We see no evidence of a god involved in anything so far. So what evidence are you basing the assumption that they were created?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120353 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I understand that the entire foundation for your belief in evolution rests on false assumptions about God.
What you need to do at this point is restrict your evaluation to whether nature shows empirical evidence of some form of intelligent design. No one is attempting to prove through science one warped version of the God of the Old Testament. You are restricting your options to a false dichotomy.
Have you read some of Rusty's posts? You might want to restate your opening sentence.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120354 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>We're talking about migratory instincts, and you simply assume that evolutiondidit, while chiding me for not understanding what evidence is. What am I missing here? Do you think you have presented any "evidence"?
No, I don't simply assume. Again, that is what you do.

And no, I don't need to provide any evidence. The fact that you will not learn what evidence is makes that step unnecessary. When you take the time to learn what is and is not evidence then we can discuss evidence. Until then you will have to remember that unlike creatards I have not been caught lying on this forum.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120355 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So, now you're saying that I should accept evolution because it has been acknowledged by Baptist preachers?
No, that is not his point. It is obvious that evolution does not oppose God, it is not "atheistic" since it is supported by Baptist ministers and you cannot find Christians that are much more serious than Baptists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120356 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your charicatures of religion do nothing to validate Darwinism.
Wow! Again the point sails way over How's That's head.

Since it was not that lofty of a post it leads to the conclusion that How's That is a mental midget.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#120357 Feb 27, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have the article handy, but thought the individuals were self-fertilizing. Could be wrong.
I think you're right. I think they go both ways. So this might mean that other, sexually reproducing species would have even more built-in genetic variety. Good point.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#120358 Feb 27, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is the CONCLUSION reached when comparing and compiling 150 years of evidence in biology, DNA, fossil research, etc.
It ALL points to common descent. NONE of the evidence points to instant special creation by your creepy Jesus 6000 years ago.
And if you didn't feel the need to "defend" that Bronze Age fable as literal, historical fact, you would see that too.
That's what you claim. But you don't have any evidence to show me. And I have PLENTY to show you why macroevolution is impossible.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#120359 Feb 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what you claim. But you don't have any evidence to show me. And I have PLENTY to show you why macroevolution is impossible.
Then why haven't you shown any?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120360 Feb 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what you claim. But you don't have any evidence to show me. And I have PLENTY to show you why macroevolution is impossible.
Urb, you have yet to show any evidence that supports your claims.

All you have supplied so far was an unsupported, untested hypothesis that failed the first time it was tested. The writer of your failed hypothesis never even attempted to test it himself, nor did he run his nonsense through peer review before publishing it. Both of those scream "fraud" to a scientists. Sanford's work is busted. So what evidence do you have?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120361 Feb 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The molecular clock is obviously a big fail for evolutionists...
For example the Fitch and Margoliash phylogenetic tree has primates (humans and monkeys) split off before the split separating the kangaroo, a marsupial, from the other placental mammals.
This is certainly not helpful to your cause.
This is not helpful either....:
http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/6/R109/figure...
Nor this, from a non-random and intelligently designed site:
"Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution........
.....For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64 –69%).
There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.
The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%).
Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%).
Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome &#8594; fish &#8594; amphibian &#8594; reptile &#8594; mammal or bird.
Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems).
For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants.
In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved."
----------
Don't back a losing horse, Chimney
Jump ship now
Evo-god will care not one whit!


Whomever you are getting your information from does not understand genetics, molecular clocking nor cyto-c.

After about a hundred incorrect statements I quit reading.

It is apparently too much to ask for creationists to actually understand what they are talking about.


"The same result was observed when bacteria were added to the tree a few years later. There's an approximate molecular clock. Of course by that time Kimura and others (including Fitch) had published on Neutral Theory and that explained the approximate molecular clock. The changes in amino acid sequence are neutral and they become fixed by random genetic drift. Since drift is a stochastic process, the rate of fixation of these neutral alleles is approximately constant over time.1 The astonishing conclusion—which most people still don't grasp—is that the vast majority of all evolutionary change is by random genetic drift, not natural selection."
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/01/modern-m...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120362 Feb 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what you claim. But you don't have any evidence to show me. And I have PLENTY to show you why macroevolution is impossible.

One cannot claim that an observed reality is impossible. Science seeks to explain observed reality, not to guess at why it can't be possible.

Reference: science

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120363 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>That is the way they were intelligently designed. What's your problem? Do you presume to know how life should have been designed? Are you calling your religious opinions "science"?

Nested Hierarchies were predicted by evolution. There is no reason an all powerful god needed to pick the only creation route that would look EXACTLY like evolution.

Whatever insults you want to throw at the ToE it is a hallmark scientific theory. It has it all including multiple lines of evidence from multiple fields (the gold standard in science).

And whatever failings the ToE might have it is still the best explanation for the Fact of Evolution found in nature.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120364 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Scientific truth is not established by simply counting the number of journal articles written to support a theory.

No, but a theory is founded on scientific truth. For evolution this truth is the observed fact that populations of biological organisms change over time.

The ToE does what a good scientific theory does; it explains and it predicts.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Nothing has changed since 1981 other than the progressive corruption of the scientific method by those philosophically committed to Darwinism.


blah, blah, blah. A batch of, religious based, unsupported assertions, with no science to be found.

Incessant repetition does not invalidate a scientific theory. To begin with, ono one can document the purported ages of alleged pre-human ancestors. Secondly, ono one can prove that the very small differences that are observed are not attributable to random genetic variability rather than macroevolution.

Invisible purple ping-pong balls forever, ya'll!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#120365 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've read Origin of Species. Darwin saw inconsistencies in the fossil record with what he knew would be predicted by gradualism. Because of this, he gave a long drawn out special pleading argument that the fossil record was consistent with gradualism. Biologists do the same thing today. This is not making a scientific prediction... it is accomodation of a theory through rationalization with the observed facts of nature. The theory of evolution has never been able to predict anything. Your entire commen t is nothing but raw conjecture.
Darwin also predicted punctuated equilibrium.

Also, why do we have to make new flu vaccines every year?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#120366 Feb 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what you claim. But you don't have any evidence to show me. And I have PLENTY to show you why macroevolution is impossible.
Right. Like magical properties of water. Pardon us if we have a hard time taking you seriously.

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 min Denisova 16,658
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 27 min Gillette 604
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 38 min Gillette 5
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 44 min Denisova 140,950
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 46 min Agents of Corruption 149,305
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 6 hr paul porter 1
Human Activity Has Accelerated Climate Change 16 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web