Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120559 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Ah,... a good laugh refreshes me.
As if we could breed backwards and forwards with full intention without being able to control even for mutations.
Is this really your understanding of evolution. If it is then I really don't know where to start with you.
Unlearning is about as hard as unevolving.
And this from a guy who claims to be a physician and who criticizes ToE without even a high school understanding of it. Laughable.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120560 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Hmm, let's look at the evolutionary changes HST wants done in an analog. Now each evolutionary change is literally a one out of a billion chance of occurring. Actually one of three billion. We don't know the genetics of the common ancestor, though we could derive what many of them were. If a cat and a dog shared a gene the odds are almost certain that the common ancestor had that gene. So this is not a totally blind expedition. And let's say there are only 10,000 difference between a dog and a cat. So somehow with guided evolution we have to steer backwards through 10,000 changes each at an odds of one in a billion of occurring.
Do you start to see the problem with even guided evolution for an existing goal? Evolution works by "good enough". If a change is good enough for a species to keep breeding it lives on. If it does not evolve to meet changes in the environment it dies out. If there are no changes in environment there is no pressure to evolve and the existing species stabilizes around the existing alleles.
I think it impossible. To UN-evolve, one would have to have to be able to determine what the previous genetics were - as you correctly point out.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#120561 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not letting you off the hook on this, SZ... The proposed evolution of similar outcomes in unrelated species is a serious blow to Darwinism... and it's not just isolated to vertebrate and cephalopod eyes. Supposedly pentadactylism evolved inteo deifferent lines independently. It means that specific pathways are followed. How do you reconcile this with probability considerations?
Since when has finding a solution that works been a blow to Darwinism?

That fact that there are similar solutions to similar problems demonstrates how easy evolution is.

Coincidentally just a couple of weeks ago I was watching a program hosted by Professor Brian Cox that focussed some time on the evolution of the eye

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qm913
http://weirderthanyouthink.wordpress.com/2013...
http://inagist.com/all/298185535745294336/ The great David Attenborough thinks the evolution of the eye is a key piece of evidence for Darwin's theories
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations/Visua...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120562 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>if infinite numbers of pathways to evolution, there would be no convergence such as similar complex image-forming eyes in humans and cephalopods. Your innumerable pathways are imaginary and your intuitions are not borne out be scientific evidence.
Sight is a survival advantage. It is no surprise that it developed multiple times. See PAX6 gene.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120563 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Simply divorcing yourself from abiogenesis doesn't answer anything. ToE says that no ID exists. If it can be shone that abiogenesis is impossible, then the central premise of ToE has been demolished.
Nope. ToE addresses the diversity of life not it origins. It works no matter how life started.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120564 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> OK...if it makes you feel any better... You can start with a petri dish of E. coli...If you don't think it's possible to selectively breed a giraffe, you're embracing a theory that proposes that what happened once could never happen again.
Incredible as it sounds, you are correct. What happened once - in nature - will not happen again.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120565 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is one of the articles that addresses non drug-using female prostitutes...
http://www.duesberg.com/subject/rrbprostitute...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg#C...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120566 Feb 28, 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
*IF* and intelligent designer existed, he could have. The evidence says otherwise.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120567 Feb 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
If all genetic lineages that provide a survival advantage survive and the remainder die off, why WOULDN'T they follow similar or even the "same" path ways?
Especially in the same or similar environment.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120568 Feb 28, 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.
{head/desk}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120569 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Goal or no goal... The proposed pathway is directional, ie, gradual evolution toward flight.
This is called "hindsight".

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120570 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't swallow the BS about "feathered dinosaurs". Where is the proof that filamentous imprints are feathers? That is wishful thinking. Do you dutifully believe everything you're told that supports your cherished beliefs, without any objective questioning? Do you seriously think you're engaged in science? Have you ever had the courage to squarely address the innumerable impossibilities to evolution?
Swallow this:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/d...
HTS wrote:
Your unbridled arrogance is seriously impairing your quest for truth. You think you have everything figured out. You think you understand feather evolution. No one... even Dawkins, has a logical explanation...so don't pretend that I'm naive and ignorant because I don't get it. Only an arrogant fool would imagine that he has even close to all the answers.
No one is pretending. You *are* naive and ignorant as shown by many of your comments here.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120571 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely where your brain usually resides as well...
Are you related to Charles Idemi?
HTS

Williston, ND

#120572 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
100% of AIDS patients are HIV positive.
That's because AIDS by definition requires HIV positivity. The correlation is man made. Thousands of patients with clinical ADIS are HIV negative. If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV positive, he has AIDS. If a person has tuberculosis and is HIV negative, he has tuberculosis.

Why are you so committed it the HIV/AIDS connection? You have not studied both sides. You have predetermined that I am wrong...and you're obviously just trying to win an argument. I don't expect you to just believe what I'm saying...
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120573 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>SZ, Russell is obviously very intelligent. According to you, anyone who doesn't share your ridiculous religion of atheism is ignorant... And that must include Einstein, Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, and many others.
Only in the small minds of anti-science, anti-intellectuals such as you and your ilk.
HTS

Williston, ND

#120574 Feb 28, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know? You have not read them you are just ranting and putting forward unfounded rejection and denial based on deliberate ignorance and creationist incredulity because such tests disprove your faith which is built on nothing other than you donít understand it must have been goddidit by magic.
As indicated, some of those documents are simply museum literature based on scientific investigation and were included because I considered the childrenís section was more or less the level you could comprehend. Other documents are peer reviewed and reference the type of testing used, times, dates, places, artefacts measured, equipment used and itís calibration certificate information, those present, those doing the tests and their qualification, the acknowledged accuracy of that testing, those verifying the tests and their qualification etc, etc. In other words correct scientific testing using correct scientific procedural methods.
The documentation is laid out in such a way so that any other interested party can repeat those same experiments, test and procedures so that peer review can be accurate and if required offer criticism or methods and offer alternatives
In other they are falsifiable, as true scientific work must be.
in the first place, no Radiometric dating was done to validate those assigned dates. Secondly Radiometric dating is not reproducible,...not even close.,if it were, there would be no purpose for biostratigraphy
HTS

Williston, ND

#120575 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Swallow this:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dinosaurs/d...
<quoted text>
No one is pretending. You *are* naive and ignorant as shown by many of your comments here.
None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120576 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...
In other words, creationists.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120577 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of that proves anything. What proof do you have that those aren't modern feathers? Are you familiar with down and every other modern iteration of feather morphology? Those photos prove nothing. You believe them only because you want to believe them. Where is the peer review? I'm not referring to perfunctory rubber stamping by other atheist stooges... I'm referring to review by histologists and anatomists who aren't committed to Darwinism...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/16...
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120578 Feb 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
Mike..... Don't you know science magazines are propaganda tools of Satan and the Darwinist crowd.

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 6 min Dogen 639
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr replaytime 133,653
How would creationists explain... 8 hr TurkanaBoy 393
Science News (Sep '13) 9 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web