Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
117,561 - 117,580 of 172,497 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120672 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> That is horizontal microevolution and is a non-issue. No one disputes microevolution.
Good! Because macroevolution and microevolution are the same exact thing. The only difference is the amount of time involved.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120673 Feb 28, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why we say someone has eyes like an octopus? instead of like an eagle?
How about some real challenges that have not been done to death and refuted ages ago?
Our inverted retina is great design...
How would you arrange for heat dissipation and gas exchange?
The choroid can't go in front of the retina......its opague!
It contains the red blood cells...in the blood vessels carrying the blood supply for the retina's very metabolically active retinal pigment epithelium (RPE).
This is necessary to regenerate the photoreceptors, and to absorb excess heat.
Dr Jonathan Sarfati has said:
"The retina can detect a single photon of light, and it’s impossible to improve on this sensitivity!
More than that, it has a dynamic range of 10 billion (1010) to one; that is, it will still work well in an intensity of 10 billion photons.
Modern photographic film has a dynamic range of only 1,000 to one.
His Ph.D. thesis and published papers in secular journals largely involve a technique called Raman spectroscopy, which analyzes extremely weak scattering at a slightly different frequency from that of the incident laser radiation.
The major equipment hazard for Raman spectroscopists is scanning at the incident frequency—the still weak Rayleigh scattering at the same frequency would blow the photomultiplier (the newer ones have an automatic shut-off).
He managed to safely scan the Rayleigh line (for calibration) only by using filters to attenuate the intensity of light entering the photomultiplier by a factor of 10-7 to 10-8. But having to take such an extreme safety precaution made him envious and admiring of the way the eye is so brilliantly designed to cope with a far wider range of intensities.
Dr John Stevens, an associate professor of physiology and biomedical engineering, pointed out that it would take ‘a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times each second.’
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chap...
http://creation.com/is-our-inverted-retina-re...
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwin...
http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-...
__________
"Cephalopods don’t see as well as humans, and the octopus eye structure is totally different and much simpler. It’s more like ‘a compound eye with a single lens."
AND, Cephalopods are likely colour blind
Jonathan D. Sarfati (born 1 October 1964) is a young Earth creationist and former New Zealand national chess champion (1987-1988) Sarfati has PhD in chemistry and works for Creation Ministries International (CMI), a non-profit Christian Apologetics ministry.

More bull crap references. Was he in the same home school class as you? Did you score each other's tests?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120674 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
One more point, you cannot "scrape shellac off".
Do you even know what shellac is? It is the forerunner of most modern furniture finishes. On a sedimentary rock it would penetrate the surface pores. That is one of the reasons it helps to hold fossils together. To scrape if off you would have to scrape off the outer layer of the fossil
Also, the lab that was used did not date fossils. Why? Well as Potholer54 put it: "OY!! There's no "bleeping" carbon in it. So they would not expect to get a shellac coated sample. Why would some idiot send in a shellac coated sample for C14 testing, oh wait, because those people were complete and utter creatards.
HTS, you are wandering into Jimbo idiocy here. Admit that you are wrong and let it go.
Shellac could be easily scraped off...Your uncontrolled ranting only demonstrates to everyone that you're losing the argument miserably. The bone obviously could be radiocarbon dated because it had collagen and blood vessels in it... so why are you referring to those who reject evolution as "creatards" when they were only attempting to date what appeared to be organic material? If you found a dinosaur bone that had residual bone histology visible, wouldn't you want to know what radiometric C-14 had to say?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120675 Feb 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Good! Because macroevolution and microevolution are the same exact thing. The only difference is the amount of time involved.
Your absurd logic has been soundly debunked repeatedly. Anyone remotely familiar with science understand that wild extrapolations such as you propose are nearly always invalid.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120676 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The references you posted did not document what I was requesting. In practice, is radiometric dating invariably used to date a fossil?

Invariably? I don't know. I am not comfortable with the absolute term.'Almost always' would be a Yes.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Has radiometric dating documented the assigned dates of australopicithine fossils?

Absolutely yes.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> I don't think so, and I'm waiting with an open mind for documentation that I'm wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus...
(first paragraph)

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/origins/aus...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22763449

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21903808

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19443017

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683788

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378812

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21392817

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536914

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120677 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The independent evolution of pentadactylism in two separate lineages logically suggests that evolution needed to take a specific course to arrive at a specific endpoint.
No. Look at various images of lobed fishes. The forerunners of the radius and ulna are already obvious. You keep claiming that pentadactylism appeared on its own between your two examples. Do you have links that say so? As far as I know the earliest land life was pentadactyl. I would like to see something that claims the opposite.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120678 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I went to the two links you posted. I didn't read every word, but I couldn't find anything that specifically stated that radiometric dating was used in practice to date new fossils. ChristineM posted references of prehuman fossils authoritately stated to be 4-7 million years old. How are those numbers generated...specificially? I know in the past it was through biostratigraphy. My posts are claimed to be outdated. If that is true, where is the documentation that anything has changed in the practice of assigning dates to fossils?
As to how often **ABSOLUTE** dating methods are employed in dating fossils as compared to biostratigraphical or other relative dating methods.....that is a question I cannot answer. The fact that those techniques ARE there (over 40 different forms of radiological dating methods now), are enough to suggest that their use is enjoyed VERY frequently.

But Morris was being deceptive in his post. The impression he left the reader(s) with suggested that the ONLY method employed in dating fossils was biostratigraphical/relative. By the time Morris wrote his book, other, radiological methods were available and in use in paleontology.

But then, keep in mind that Morris ALSO thought that craters on the moon were formed as battle scars due to cosmic wars being waged between Satan and the Archangel Michael.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120679 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your absurd logic has been soundly debunked repeatedly. Anyone remotely familiar with science understand that wild extrapolations such as you propose are nearly always invalid.
And yet the entire medical community is basing further advances in medical science on macroevolution. Imagine that!! I must be pure serendipity that they are successful. It couldn't be that you are an idiot, now could it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120680 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Shellac could be easily scraped off...Your uncontrolled ranting only demonstrates to everyone that you're losing the argument miserably. The bone obviously could be radiocarbon dated because it had collagen and blood vessels in it... so why are you referring to those who reject evolution as "creatards" when they were only attempting to date what appeared to be organic material? If you found a dinosaur bone that had residual bone histology visible, wouldn't you want to know what radiometric C-14 had to say?
Once again, no. You have no clue what shellac is if you think that could be done with ease. One of the reasons that it is used is that it PENETRATES THE PORES OF THE SAMPLE.

And no, the bone did not have cartilage. You are conflating two different events. The dinosaur bones dated had no cartilage.

One more time, it is not my fault if your computer is not working. Watch the YouTube video. If you can't watch it you will have to take my word for it.

By the way, the reason that they are creatards is that their dishonesty gave them bad results and then they used those bad results as if they were genuine.

Seriously, are you Jimbo stupid today or what?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120681 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Shellac could be easily scraped off...

I am assuming you have never tried to remove shellac from a bone. I haven't either, but I see it a being a big problem. Still, if the sample was large enough that would not be an issue as you could cut away the external layers. Fossil can be porous, however, so contamination could still occur. I still don't think this is the explanation, but it is possible.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Your uncontrolled ranting only demonstrates to everyone that you're losing the argument miserably. The bone obviously could be radiocarbon dated because it had collagen and blood vessels in it.

No, radiocarbon dating is only good for about 60k years. Some work has been done with larger samples that try to push that limit to over 100k, but generally even 60k years is pushing it. So the existence of collagen and blood vessels (in a dehydrated, oxygen free, microbe free environment) could potentially last nearly forever.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> . so why are you referring to those who reject evolution as "creatards" when they were only attempting to date what appeared to be organic material?

The ONLY reason such a test would be done at all is to appease the "creotards". There is no scientific value in dating something that has been dated with other methods with a destructive test that cannot possibly provide a valid result.


[QUOTE who="HTS"]<quoted text> If you found a dinosaur bone that had residual bone histology visible, wouldn't you want to know what radiometric C-14 had to say?

Nope. Nor would I want to know what my Ouija board had to say about it either. But at least the Ouija board would not destroy the sample.

I would not try to sequence for DNA either (not till after sequencing for simpler proteins, at least).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120682 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your absurd logic has been soundly debunked repeatedly. Anyone remotely familiar with science understand that wild extrapolations such as you propose are nearly always invalid.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplaine...

I hate to quote about.com , but it is still an accurate piece.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120683 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The independent evolution of pentadactylism in two separate lineages logically suggests that evolution needed to take a specific course to arrive at a specific endpoint.

No. If the logic was better I might have to respond at more length.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120684 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
I only need one link, not ten. Show me where the age of an australopicithine fossil is documented by radiometric dating.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120685 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. If the logic was better I might have to respond at more length.
It's no different than imagining that intelligent extraterrestrial life would look identical to life on earth. If you think that evolution takes one of billions of possible routes, then you can't explain convergence such as the independent evolution of pentadactylism in separate lineages.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#120686 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I only need one link, not ten. Show me where the age of an australopicithine fossil is documented by radiometric dating.
You don't bother with the one. Your mind is closed to the wonder that god has given us. Why do you piss on god's gift?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120687 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Look at various images of lobed fishes. The forerunners of the radius and ulna are already obvious. You keep claiming that pentadactylism appeared on its own between your two examples. Do you have links that say so? As far as I know the earliest land life was pentadactyl. I would like to see something that claims the opposite.
Ancestrals had any number of digits. Some as much as eight. Some had five. Big deal. This is simply plesiomorphy.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120688 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Look at various images of lobed fishes. The forerunners of the radius and ulna are already obvious. You keep claiming that pentadactylism appeared on its own between your two examples. Do you have links that say so? As far as I know the earliest land life was pentadactyl. I would like to see something that claims the opposite.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F97...
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120689 Feb 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the entire medical community is basing further advances in medical science on macroevolution. Imagine that!! I must be pure serendipity that they are successful. It couldn't be that you are an idiot, now could it?
What a load of BS. In four years of medical school, not one mention of "evolution" was made in any biological science... and after 30 years of practice, evolution remains irrelevant.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#120690 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, no. You have no clue what shellac is if you think that could be done with ease. One of the reasons that it is used is that it PENETRATES THE PORES OF THE SAMPLE.
And no, the bone did not have cartilage. You are conflating two different events. The dinosaur bones dated had no cartilage.
One more time, it is not my fault if your computer is not working. Watch the YouTube video. If you can't watch it you will have to take my word for it.
By the way, the reason that they are creatards is that their dishonesty gave them bad results and then they used those bad results as if they were genuine.
Seriously, are you Jimbo stupid today or what?
Why do you keep harping on the lack of cartilage in the specimen. A lot of bone fragments are devoid of cartilage. If you claim shallac to be a contaminant, the fact remains that most of the sample (at least 95%) would have been legitimate carbon-based organic material from the animal in question. If that sample were indeed 140 million years old, there would be no C14 in that organic material. If it had been diluted with 5% shallac, there is no way that it would have yielded anywhere close to dates of 9800 and 16,000 years. If the sample had been contaminated by 50% shellac, then it would have produced a date of around the half life of carbon-14, which is around 5800 years. I agree that if the sample was contaminated, then the dates are in question. But you can't simply dismiss the evidence with one broad sweep because there is no possible way that you can spin this to the conclusion that a layer of shellac alone resulted in those dates.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120691 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's no different than imagining that intelligent extraterrestrial life would look identical to life on earth.
You need to drop this bullshit. No one has made this claim.
HTS wrote:
If you think that evolution takes one of billions of possible routes, then you can't explain convergence such as the independent evolution of pentadactylism in separate lineages.
And birds and bats don't both have wings. Putz.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min Lawrence Wolf 115,102
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 52 min Gillette 172
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr TurkanaBoy 136,241
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 1 hr TurkanaBoy 296
Science News (Sep '13) 12 hr positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Wed Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... (Feb '14) Aug 14 The Dude 1,831
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••