Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120406 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>And I am observing the universe and everything in it and conclude. based on scientific logic, that the world in which I live loudly proclaims intelligent design.
It's laughable to hear you deluded DarwinBots imagine that evolution makes "predictions".... Darwinism hasn't predicted anything. As ReMine observed,
"Evolution adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape..."
No, once again, you don't even know what the scientific method is. You don't understand scientific evidence and you are merely a creatard flapping your arms.

Did you ever stop to think that if the theory of evolution was correct that it would seem to adapt to evidence? In other words it looks like ReMine is complaining about evolution because it is true.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120407 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No one is saying that there is a scientific consensus validating god. It is curious, however, that the vast majority who have contributed to the progress of science have believed in God.
Really, why do you think it is curious? Your religious beliefs in the world depend more upon where and when you were born than anything else. If you were brought up all of your life being told that an invisible sky father will torture you forever after you die if you don't follow his rules and everyone around you reinforced that belief odds are you would believe that too. Oh wait, you do!

The fact that many of them have shrugged off the chains of their false beliefs is even more impressive to me. There are literally thousands of different gods believed in around the world. Why don't you believe in Allah? Vishnu? Thor? Zeus? Hades? Ra? Seriously, why aren't those gods just as real as the one you were raised with? What scientific evidence do you have that they are not real?

You are almost as much of an atheist as we are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120408 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that Eldridge co-founded the concept of P.E.... which contradicts your claims that the fossil record has billions of transitionals... so which side are you on? I didn't take anything out of context. Both Darwin and Eldridge saw inconsistences between the fossil record and gradualism.
Viruses change... they do not "evolve". "Change" is not necessarily "evolution". No one is arguing microevolution, you bringing it up is a pointless smokescreen. Microevolution is not how birdsd supposedly developed flight and land mammals evolved into whales.
Until you demonstrate a wall exists between micro and macro evolution there is only evolution. Creationists always claim this, but they can never demonstrate it. They will sometimes make a stupid claim like "a dog cannot evolve into a cat", and evolutionists would agree with that statement. That would only show that you do not understand the theory you are arguing against. That alone dooms you to failure.

And how does the concept of P.E. belie the fact that technically all fossils are transitional fossils?

How many times have lists of transitional fossils been linked here? How many times have you ignored or misunderstood those links? I guess that those two numbers are the same.

If you want evidence then first you have to learn what evidence is.

And without any evidence your side loses. A little bit of evidence beats no evidence at all. Actually we have a LOT of evidence, you still have none.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120409 Feb 27, 2013
Seriously HTS or any other creationists out there. I am willing to give to you for free one of evolution's strongest weapons. The ability to realize what evidence is.

It seems that you are afraid to learn this simple bit of the scientific method.

Hmm, I wonder why?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120410 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, why do you think it is curious? Your religious beliefs in the world depend more upon where and when you were born than anything else. If you were brought up all of your life being told that an invisible sky father will torture you forever after you die if you don't follow his rules and everyone around you reinforced that belief odds are you would believe that too. Oh wait, you do!
The fact that many of them have shrugged off the chains of their false beliefs is even more impressive to me. There are literally thousands of different gods believed in around the world. Why don't you believe in Allah? Vishnu? Thor? Zeus? Hades? Ra? Seriously, why aren't those gods just as real as the one you were raised with? What scientific evidence do you have that they are not real?
You are almost as much of an atheist as we are.
I suppose your atheistic beliefs are the result of pure, objective science. Your robotic "evolutiondidit" mentality came as the result of unbiased analysis of facts, fueled only out of a desire for truth? If you truly had that attitude, you would not be zealously preaching your religion on this forum. You would not dismiss compelling evidence against evolution in one broad sweep as you habitually do. You're transparent, SZ.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120411 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you demonstrate a wall exists between micro and macro evolution there is only evolution. Creationists always claim this, but they can never demonstrate it. They will sometimes make a stupid claim like "a dog cannot evolve into a cat", and evolutionists would agree with that statement. That would only show that you do not understand the theory you are arguing against. That alone dooms you to failure.
And how does the concept of P.E. belie the fact that technically all fossils are transitional fossils?
How many times have lists of transitional fossils been linked here? How many times have you ignored or misunderstood those links? I guess that those two numbers are the same.
If you want evidence then first you have to learn what evidence is.
And without any evidence your side loses. A little bit of evidence beats no evidence at all. Actually we have a LOT of evidence, you still have none.
Publishing a list of transitional fossils doesn't prove that they are transitional.

P.E. contradicts that billions of fossils are transitional, as you claim. If they were, there would be no reason for atheists to fabricate another ad hoc theory.

Why don't you prove that a dog can evolve into a cat. Why should I be required to disprove it. You're the one who claims that man evolved from a worm.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120412 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Seriously HTS or any other creationists out there. I am willing to give to you for free one of evolution's strongest weapons. The ability to realize what evidence is.
It seems that you are afraid to learn this simple bit of the scientific method.
Hmm, I wonder why?
What are you talking about?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120413 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that Eldridge co-founded the concept of P.E.... which contradicts your claims that the fossil record has billions of transitionals... so which side are you on?

No, P.E. does not decrease the number of transitionals. The term transitional can be used in different ways, however, and certainly there are not (yet) billions of Major transitionals. You are quoting a source from 1985, however. That was over 25 years ago. Scientific knowledge is doubling ever 3-5 years. His book "Eldredge, N. 2000. The Triumph of EvolutionÂ….And the Failure of Creationism." is certainly a lot more recent. Maybe you want to read that one.

There is no "side" to take. Darwin wrote over 150 years ago and was right on an incredible number of things. I know he is wrong on many issues (but not the one that started this discussion).

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> I didn't take anything out of context.

I am sorry, but that is either a lie or a mistake (meaning you got the quote from a creationist site who quoted it out of context).

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Both Darwin and Eldridge saw inconsistences between the fossil record and gradualism.

True. They were both aware that gradualism is not always what happens.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Viruses change... they do not "evolve". "Change" is not necessarily "evolution". No one is arguing microevolution, you bringing it up is a pointless smokescreen. Microevolution is not how birdsd supposedly developed flight and land mammals evolved into whales.

I think you are confused again.

Microevolution is to macroevolution as a second is to a decade.

The first is a measure of the quantity of evolution and the second is a measure of the quantity of time.

If evolution is defined as a change in a population over time then viruses do evolve.

If evolution is defined by its mechanisms in action then a virus still evolves.

Mechanisms of evolution:
Descent
Mutation
migration (gene flow)
genetic drift
natural selection
coevolution.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120414 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Until you demonstrate a wall exists between micro and macro evolution there is only evolution..
Macroevolution has never been observed.
Macroevolution involves a directional change produced by mutations... not analogous to microevolution. I don't have to prove that a wall exists... It is a self evident fact that species are incapable of major changes. We have proven that through selective breeding for thousands of years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120415 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, science has a few weirdos. Every occupation does. Look at Jimbo, he is the ultimate weirdo of the carpet laying world. He pretends that he can do science when he cannot do simple math.

Actually I know a few other carpet layers. I have not met a "normal" one yet. Really makes me wonder.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#120416 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You refer to me as "sleazy" because I request scientific answers and am not pursuaded by the number of articles that you say validates ape-human evolution?
No, a__hole, I told you quite SPECIFICALLy why you are sleazy and dishonest -- because you posted a quote-mined passage form a book purporting to oppose evolution and I posted a clear rebuttal showing how you assertion is false.

And you refuse to engage and answer the rebuttal.

THAT'S why you are sleazy and dishonest.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120417 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not going to respond to worthless regurgitated atheist BS that has been thoroughly debunked over and over again. When you guys are interested in a scientific discussion, let me know.

First, I am not an atheist.
Second, it is not BS, it is obvious you cannot respond.
Third,(and this may be a minor quibble) I did not write the bulk of the post, it was my quote of SZ.

You implicitly suggest that you ARE interested in a scientific discussion, however:
1. You ain't got no science.
2. You provide assertions that you cannot and do not usually support.
3. You repeat creationist (sorry, no better word) lies and expect us to stand up and salute.
4. You are provide evidence that you are wrong and seem to care no more than a broken record cares that it is broke. It just repeats over and over and over and.....
5. You ain't got no science.(I know that this is a repeat of #1, but it bears repeating).





Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you cannot respond. What makes you think we cannot see through your transparency, Mr. Cellophane?
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Debate has ceased. No one of any regard whatsoever does not believe the theory of evolution.
There are no serious creation scientists. We have challenged you and your kind many times for peer reviewed creationist science and none can be supplied. That is because the real world does not support creationism and the few scientists who believe your creationist nonsense know it. They also know that claims of bias by scientific journals are bullshit too. Otherwise they would try to take their case public. They know what the problem is with that too, even nonscientists would see that their was no merit for their case.
Here again is a very simple way that they could demonstrate bias. First write a scholarly article dependent upon creation "science". Second submit it to a highly regarded professional journal. Third, keep copies of all notes and correspondences detailing why their article was rejected. Bring it to the press and show how they were incorrect in rejecting the creationist article.
Why haven't they done this simple task if there is a widespread conspiracy against them? Conspiracies hate the light of day. If they are real shining light on them makes them die a quick death. If they are not real the light of day makes the lunacy of the conspiracy theorists apparent.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#120418 Feb 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
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.
...but it kinda stomps on your previous contention.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120419 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
>
I think you are confused again.
Microevolution is to macroevolution as a second is to a decade.
The first is a measure of the quantity of evolution and the second is a measure of the quantity of time.
If evolution is defined as a change in a population over time then viruses do evolve.
If evolution is defined by its mechanisms in action then a virus still evolves.
Mechanisms of evolution:
Descent
Mutation
migration (gene flow)
genetic drift
natural selection
coevolution.
Your micro- to macro- extrapolation is an embarrassing self evidence fallacy, obvious to anyone acquainted with science.

So you're telling me that, if given enough time, man could take a carrot or a worm and selectively breed a giraffe or a kangaroo or any living thing from it...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120421 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your micro- to macro- extrapolation is an embarrassing self evidence fallacy, obvious to anyone acquainted with science.
So you're telling me that, if given enough time, man could take a carrot or a worm and selectively breed a giraffe or a kangaroo or any living thing from it...

I would love for you to show me where I said anything at all like that.

Selective breeding USES some of the MECHANISMS of evolution, but is not (genetic) evolution. It DECREASES genetic diversity.

You cannot *fully* predict the directions evolution will take. Mutations are random, much less guide that evolution.

Evolution is NOT directional. All you can say for certain is that surviving populations will be more fit for a (consistent) environment than previous generations. It cannot say for certain IN WHAT WAY they will become more fit.

That said, macroevolution is made up of many microevolutions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120422 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What are you talking about?
How many times have I offered to give you science's greatest weapon? That weapon is the ability to detect evidence, whether for you or against you. It is nice to know what the evidence really is.

If you understood scientific evidence you might have a small hope of winning a debate, without the ability you will continue to lose badly.

Are you sure that you want to continue to ignore this free gift?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120423 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Publishing a list of transitional fossils doesn't prove that they are transitional.

Not if you don't even LOOK at the list.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> P.E. contradicts that billions of fossils are transitional, as you claim.

Where do you get this stuff? I know there are a lot of fundy, zombie, wacko, anti-science sites out there, but which one says this?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If they were, there would be no reason for atheists to fabricate another ad hoc theory.
Why don't you prove that a dog can evolve into a cat. Why should I be required to disprove it. You're the one who claims that man evolved from a worm.

? This last paragraph does not make enough sense to refute. Clearly the author does not have clue #1 as to what evolution actually says.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120424 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose your atheistic beliefs are the result of pure, objective science. Your robotic "evolutiondidit" mentality came as the result of unbiased analysis of facts, fueled only out of a desire for truth? If you truly had that attitude, you would not be zealously preaching your religion on this forum. You would not dismiss compelling evidence against evolution in one broad sweep as you habitually do. You're transparent, SZ.
I was not always an atheist. My continued learning of science and the countless contradictions and falsehoods in the Bible did lead me to the conclusion that is was not true. I do get zealous at idiots who would try to brainwash innocent children into believing a myth merely because the truth subverts their misplaced faith in a terrorist god.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120425 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose your atheistic beliefs are the result of pure, objective science. Your robotic "evolutiondidit" mentality came as the result of unbiased analysis of facts, fueled only out of a desire for truth? If you truly had that attitude, you would not be zealously preaching your religion on this forum. You would not dismiss compelling evidence against evolution in one broad sweep as you habitually do. You're transparent, SZ.


Logic gets gang raped. Story at 11.



The fact that you have never provided even one titbit of this "compelling evidence against evolution" is very telling.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120426 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever stop to think that if the theory of evolution was correct that it would seem to adapt to evidence? In other words it looks like ReMine is complaining about evolution because it is true.
Minor adjustments to a theory are to be expected. Major failures of making predictions as has been the case with Darwinism should call the entire theory into question. The fact that evolution repeatedly fails to make predictions is obvious, and you have the audacity to suggest that it is actually useful in making predictions.... that is absurd beyond belief.
What about the failed junk DNA paradigm? Have you forgotten how just a few years ago intellectuals were loudly proclaiming that 98% of human DNA was useless, and that such an observation was predicted by evolution. Now the same voices are disavowing themselves from their previous statements and are saying that evolution "predicts" any of a wide range of percentages of non-functional DNA.

What about human behavior? Evolution predicts altruism and paternal nurturing as a means of survival of the species... but it also "predicts" greed and infidelity as a result of competition for limited resources and of the environmental pressure to spread one's genes. Evolution is useless in making predictions. Nature is observed, and biologists imagine that evolution predicted those observations. Biologic realities are simply forced into a predefined paradigm.

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) 58 min thetruth 40,472
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr thetruth 16,001
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 hr Igor Trip 104
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 2 hr THE LONE WORKER 14
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr THE LONE WORKER 201,234
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) 7 hr LOU BARRETO 94
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 10 hr One way or another 10
More from around the web