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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#120487 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Giraffes did not evolve from E. coli.
You ideas, born of ignorance of the science of evolution, have been debunked. If you have no better than a straw-man idea of what evolution is then it is not reasonable to try to teach you anything above the basics.
Remember, selective breading uses some of the mechanisms of evolution, but is not evolution in that it restricts diversity rather than expand it as evolution does.
This is a very simple Bio 101 concept. Why are you having such trouble with it?
OK, I'll make it easier still... You can start with any microorganism.. Or you can genetically engineer one to your specifications... You're just dodging... You can't face up to the absurdity of what you believe.
And tell me ... If evolution can take any one of infinite numbers of pathways as you claim, what's preventing the selective breeding of human from a banana? We do share 60% genetic homology already... You're the one who doesn't understand evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120488 Feb 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh the convenience of it all...
Perfect feathers evolving at precisely the right time..
Then...
Bats got jealous and wanted to fly too....and evo-god kindly obliged
Dragonflies said: Whaabbout meeee....!!!!!
Voila!
All done
Feathers existed long before flight, dolt. They are also heat regulators.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120489 Feb 27, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
If an intelligent designer exists then why could he not have created all at once in 6 days?
Just as He has said He did
God said no such thing. You are treating stories by camel humpers as if they were the word of god. That is sacrilege to say the least.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120490 Feb 27, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
An example of a dog with a gene that no other dog has (mutation)
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wippet
"A 2007 study[28] identified a myostatin mutation particular to Whippets that is significantly associated with their athletic performance. Whippets with a single copy of this mutation are generally very fast; those with two copies have disproportionately large musculature and are known as "bully whippets".[29] These bully whippets experience no significant health problems beyond those experienced by a normal whippet, but may be more prone to muscle cramping.[30] The mutation has not been seen in Greyhounds or other sighthound breeds, or in heavily-muscled dogs such as Bullmastiffs, Bulldogs, Rottweilers or American Staffordshire Terriers"
Evolution creates new genes in the same species, this is microevolution, which is exactly the same thing as macroevolution over a shorter period of time.
No new gene was created... A trait was enhanced. No one disputes that mutations occur. They do not confer added information or complexity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120491 Feb 27, 2013
Okay, all caught up.

HTS, are you ready to restart your lesson on evidence?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120492 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a terminology issue. It would help if you understood enough about evolution to use terms correctly.
Evolution is not directional. Look it up.
Powered flight was the result of evolutionary changes that improved the survivability of species that developed that capacity.
"directional" implies a teleological end that evolution is working toward. That is just wrong.
Goal or no goal... The proposed pathway is directional, ie, gradual evolution toward flight.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#120493 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No female prostitutes that aren't also using drugs...
HELLO
HELLO

Sorry,not sure you can hear me with all the echos coming from the walls of the hole you have just dug yourself into.

Ok you have qualified your statement slightly with the drugs caveat (which suggests you were bending the 'facts' initially)

So do you now want to provide evidence that NO female prostitutes that are drug free have ever contracted HIV/AIDS.

I apologize to others for laboring this point - but as I mentioned goes towards your credibility.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#120494 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No female prostitutes that aren't also using drugs...
Oh and needlesticks ?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120495 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I'll make it easier still... You can start with any microorganism.. Or you can genetically engineer one to your specifications... You're just dodging... You can't face up to the absurdity of what you believe.
And tell me ... If evolution can take any one of infinite numbers of pathways as you claim, what's preventing the selective breeding of human from a banana? We do share 60% genetic homology already... You're the one who doesn't understand evolution.
Once again, all you have done is to show that you have no clue as to what evolution is. All you are doing now is embarrassing yourself horribly.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120496 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Cephalopod eyes only look quite similar to human eyes. That is because the job they do is quite similar. Genetically they are very and even their interior structure quite different from ours.
Add convergent evolution to the science that HTS does not understand.
Another irrelevant comment. The issue is whether evolution can take any number of infinite pathways. Convergence refutes that belief. Darwin believed that a functioning eye had to have a cornea, a lens, iris, etc.... In other words, innumerable pathways were not possible. So that's the course it evolution followed.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120497 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Feathers existed long before flight, dolt. They are also heat regulators.
. So you think that they just happened to have aerodynamic properties when they were only being used for insulation? Doesn't aerodynamic properties suggest an end goal...ie, intelligent design?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120498 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No new gene was created... A trait was enhanced. No one disputes that mutations occur. They do not confer added information or complexity.
Reread the article. This was a new gene. New genes are by definition added information. You still have not defined "complexity" so we cannot say if that applies.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120499 Feb 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, all you have done is to show that you have no clue as to what evolution is. All you are doing now is embarrassing yourself horribly.
Specifically tell me where I'm going wrong. What principle of Darwinism am I contradicting? You're being backed into a corner.and you know it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120500 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Another irrelevant comment. The issue is whether evolution can take any number of infinite pathways. Convergence refutes that belief. Darwin believed that a functioning eye had to have a cornea, a lens, iris, etc.... In other words, innumerable pathways were not possible. So that's the course it evolution followed.
Once again, no convergent evolution does not refute that belief. As I said, convergent evolution only covers appearance, it does not cover genetics. Two unrelated species that look very similar will not be able to breed together no matter how similar they look. Two related species may be able to breed together even though they look quite different.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120501 Feb 27, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He seems to have some notion about evolution working toward some fixed goal.
If he has ever taken a biology class his instructor is probably rolling over in her grave.
. If you say that feathers started out as heat regulators before flight, the ony logical conclusion is an end goal. Otherwise they would not have been pre-adapted for flight.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120502 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. So you think that they just happened to have aerodynamic properties when they were only being used for insulation? Doesn't aerodynamic properties suggest an end goal...ie, intelligent design?
No, an existing structure was evolved for a different job, that is all. And the aerodynamic properties evolved as the species evolved.

You are continually making unwarranted assumptions, that is not the scientific method at all.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120503 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>OK, I'll make it easier still... You can start with any microorganism.. Or you can genetically engineer one to your specifications... You're just dodging... You can't face up to the absurdity of what you believe.
And tell me ... If evolution can take any one of infinite numbers of pathways as you claim, what's preventing the selective breeding of human from a banana? We do share 60% genetic homology already... You're the one who doesn't understand evolution.

I am sorry you don't have enough knowledge to debate with. I have refuted this notion. There is where it stands.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120504 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No new gene was created... A trait was enhanced. No one disputes that mutations occur. They do not confer added information or complexity.

except that they do.

Look it up?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120505 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. If you say that feathers started out as heat regulators before flight, the ony logical conclusion is an end goal. Otherwise they would not have been pre-adapted for flight.
No, once again, an existing structure, i.e. feathers, evolved along with the creature as it started probably dropping or falling from trees. A half a wing is better than none for a falling animal. Dawkins demonstrated that years ago.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120506 Feb 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Goal or no goal... The proposed pathway is directional, ie, gradual evolution toward flight.

LOL.

And invisible purple ping-pong balls were created at the end of the universe and are working their way back through time.

This would help

http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Idiots-Gui...

If you would actually read it.


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) 31 min Richardfs 33,881
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min Blitzking 199,162
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 48 min Brian_G 14,803
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr ChristineM 151,277
News ID Isn't Science, But That's the Least Of Its P... 6 hr DanFromSmithville 27
My Story Part 1 15 hr JanusBifrons 1
Evolution in action Jun 20 Darth Robo 9
More from around the web