Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#120759 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If. You accept their theory that complex traits are uncovered by mutations of regulatory genes, you're left with several serious problems:
1. How did the genes coding for the core processes evolve?
2. Even if 25% of the genome has regulatory functions, you're still left with millions of possible sites for mutation
In a 6 billion nucleotide genome. Regardless of how simple you might imagine DNA to be, you are still left with a level of complexity that cannot logically be positively changed by random mutations.
The fundamental problem with Darwinism is in my view the utter refusal of biologists to squarely confront improbability issues.
OK, here's why your "improbability barrier" issue is stupid;

In any given sex act 300,000,000 sperm are released. Only ONE can fertilize the egg. The odds that YOUR's is the sperm that gets through is 1 in 300,000,000.

This is a sufficiently high improbability barrier that it is nigh impossible that you exist.

See how stupid that is? Bet not!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120760 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a huge problem for evolution, because you and others deny mathematical probability barriers by the contention that evolution can take any of a number of pathways.

Since there is no such thing as a "mathematical probability barrier to evolution" it is a moot point.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Scientific observations contradticts that belief.

No, the scientific observation of evolution does not contradict evolution. However, observational science does contradict:

a 6,000 year old earth
a 6,000 year old universe
6,000 year old life forms,
The literal believe in the early chapters of Genesis
Da flood

.......
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you consult your bible, talkorigins, Theobald declares that evoltuion could be falsified in feathers were found in bats and lactation in birds. Why? Because complex identical endopoints could not be achieved independently by chance. That is no different than conversion. You have just given the process a different label convergent "evolution", and believe that you've solved the problem.

Convergent evolution is observable in the fossil record. You are confused about what evolution says. It is tiresome trying to teach someone who will just repeat the same (now refuted) argument a day later.


HTS

Mandan, ND

#120761 Feb 28, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, here's why your "improbability barrier" issue is stupid;
In any given sex act 300,000,000 sperm are released. Only ONE can fertilize the egg. The odds that YOUR's is the sperm that gets through is 1 in 300,000,000.
This is a sufficiently high improbability barrier that it is nigh impossible that you exist.
See how stupid that is? Bet not!
As stupid as your perverted logic.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#120762 Feb 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to stop anthropomorphizing genetics and biology, it's not like a computer or machine, two very different types of things.
You are stuck in a Darwinian paradigm. Tell me specifically, with references to experimental biology, why DNA is not analogous to a computer code.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120763 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first place, you're mixing up C-14 and radiometric dating of igneous rocks.

No, I am not mixing it up at all. C-14 dating is one type of radiometric dating.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Second, none of the "millions-of-years" dates that you suppose are accurate have been proven. They are scientifically invalid because they ultimately rely on evolutionary assumptions. Now we have a chance to validate the methodology, and it falls flat.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Radiometric dating methods have been cross correlated with other dating methods and are highly accurate. Had you been paying attention you would know that those dates have all been from absolute dating methods that have known error rates. When 3 or 4 dating methods are used the accuracy improves.

In real science if several dating methods are used and one is way off from the others then it is regarded as an outlier and is dealt with accordingly. That does include seeking an explanation of why it is so far off.

Now we have 40 dating methods that say one thing and 1 example of one measure done on questionable samples that say another. There is no question as to which way science leans here.


“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#120764 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are stuck in a Darwinian paradigm. Tell me specifically, with references to experimental biology, why DNA is not analogous to a computer code.
No need for all that, it's a chemical reaction and computers are digital, two very different types of concepts. A code is reactionary, a chemical reaction just happens when the correct chemicals are present.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#120765 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If. You accept their theory that complex traits are uncovered by mutations of regulatory genes, you're left with several serious problems:

1. How did the genes coding for the core processes evolve?
2. Even if 25% of the genome has regulatory functions, you're still left with millions of possible sites for mutation. In a 6 billion nucleotide genome. Regardless of how simple you might imagine DNA to be, you are still left with a level of complexity that cannot logically be positively changed by random mutations.

The fundamental problem with Darwinism is in my view the utter refusal of biologists to squarely confront improbability issues.
"In your view", huh?

I'm quite sure the entire scientific community is taking notice of "your view".

Meanwhile, SERIOUS research is being done concering your points above.

"Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

Within the conclusions of this paper is this:

"Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question:“why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology."

<<end cut/paste>>

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120766 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Plugging observations into a predetermined speculative paradigm is not useful.

Actually, that is how an incorrect theory/hypothesis is refute. Observations brings limits of the paradigm to light. 150 years of observations that are consistent with evolution is a problem for pseudoscience and tends to make creationists irritable.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
While in medical school, no references to evolution were made, except perhaps in embryology where observations were noted that contradicted evolution.

Joe's fundy church and medical school?

Frankly I have seen no reason to believe you ever took a college science class, much less that you were in medical school. Your complete ignorance of science and reliance of pseudoscience fundy information and you complete lack of understanding and disregard for the scientific method are always in evidence in your posts.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples:
1. mammalian and reptilian kidneys are homologous, but arise from nonhomologus embryologic structures.
2. The bladder and urethra, although they form a continuous functional conduit, arise from separate unrelatived primordial cell lines.
Explain those observations by "survival of the fittest."

Explain them by magic poofing. They are evidence for evolution.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120767 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there is no such thing as a "mathematical probability barrier to evolution" it is a moot point.
<quoted text>
Nice try, Dogen...

You attempt to dismiss all probability barriers to evolution in one clean sweep. Do you have any mathematical justification for that? Of course, a belief in evolution requires you to imagine that nothing is impossible... that randomly throwing charges of dynamite at a rock formation could result in Mt. Rushmore.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120768 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume that anything that doesn't fit with your predetermined paradigm must by definition be corrupt.

No, we assume that you misunderstand/misrepresent everything that does not fit your world view.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You would have alot more credibility if you simply acknowledged the challenges to and conceded that serious obstacles exist.

What challenges and obstacles exist? To date you have not shown any that are not bat guano crazy.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> I read Origin of SPecies. Darwin at least showed respect for skeptics, and acknowleged that the obstacles that were presented to his theory were serious problems.

150 years ago there were problems with his theory. There were lots of unknowns. Today skeptics are respected in every area of science. But having a world view that one is trying to rationalize is not scientific skepticism.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You, on the other hand, cavalierly blow off any and all objections that threaten your worldview, making unsubstantiated accusations.

No, he makes SUBSTANTIATED accusations. You can pretend the weight of science is on your side, but we all know better.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120769 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume that anything that doesn't fit with your predetermined paradigm must by definition be corrupt.
You would have alot more credibility if you simply acknowledged the challenges to and conceded that serious obstacles exist.
I read Origin of SPecies. Darwin at least showed respect for skeptics, and acknowleged that the obstacles that were presented to his theory were serious problems.
You, on the other hand, cavalierly blow off any and all objections that threaten your worldview, making unsubstantiated accusations.
If you are not an expert in embryology and really want to know, google "bladder and urethra embryology" and verify what I'm telling you. The paradigm of gradualistic evolution is extremely simplistic and unsophisticated, and proponents of evolution consistently misrepresent what would be required to create complexities through random mutations and natural selection.
Wrong, I have learned from experience that almost all creationists are corrupt. Look at you. You use sources that have been shown to be tainted time after time. That shows that you are dishonest.

Do you know why there are no honest intelligent creationists? Because they very soon realize that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

So, please don't make incorrect assumptions about me. It only shows your weak attempt to defend a failed paradigm.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120770 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe's fundy church and medical school?
Frankly I have seen no reason to believe you ever took a college science class, much less that you were in medical school. Your complete ignorance of science and reliance of pseudoscience fundy information and you complete lack of understanding and disregard for the scientific method are always in evidence in your posts.
<quoted text>
Explain them by magic poofing. They are evidence for evolution.
Your idiotic characterizations say more about yourself than me. Ask anyone who's been through medical school how much relevance Darwinism has to medical science. Most doctors I know think Darwinism is utter BS.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120771 Feb 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"In your view", huh?
I'm quite sure the entire scientific community is taking notice of "your view".
Meanwhile, SERIOUS research is being done concering your points above.
"Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
Within the conclusions of this paper is this:
"Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question:“why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology."
<<end cut/paste>>
So, why then do you believe that science backs your claim that man evolved from molecules without intelligent design? I didn't read the article, but the concluding statement that you posted reads essentially, "I HAVE NO IDEA".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120772 Feb 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we assume that you misunderstand/misrepresent everything that does not fit your world view.
<quoted text>
What challenges and obstacles exist? To date you have not shown any that are not bat guano crazy.
<quoted text>
150 years ago there were problems with his theory. There were lots of unknowns. Today skeptics are respected in every area of science. But having a world view that one is trying to rationalize is not scientific skepticism.
<quoted text>
No, he makes SUBSTANTIATED accusations. You can pretend the weight of science is on your side, but we all know better.
I have presented numerous obstacles.

Essentially, the response is "evolutiondidit with magic"

of

"argument from incredulity"

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#120773 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I have presented numerous obstacles.
Essentially, the response is "evolutiondidit with magic"
of
"argument from incredulity"
When you project like this, it betrays you are just lying for your religious nonsense.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#120774 Feb 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, I have learned from experience that almost all creationists are corrupt. Look at you. You use sources that have been shown to be tainted time after time. That shows that you are dishonest.
Do you know why there are no honest intelligent creationists? Because they very soon realize that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
So, please don't make incorrect assumptions about me. It only shows your weak attempt to defend a failed paradigm.
What a load of horse dung.

According to you, those who contradict your religion are by definition corrupt, while atheists alone are honest and have an unfettered thirst for knowledge and truth. You ridicule me for not believing in your idiotic stories about man evolving from worms and turnips and kangaroos sharing common descent. You naively think that millions of years is the panacea to create every complexity, when you have no scientific or mathematical basis for such a belief. Your views are formulated solely on your religion of atheism. Atheism REQUIRES evolution. Without evolution, your religion is falsified.

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make such absurd unsubstanatiated accusations?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120775 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolutionary assumption that fish preceeded reptiles, which preceeded mammals in evolutionary development.

This is not an assumption, this is a fact identified in the fossil and genetic records.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The evolutionary assumption that no catastrophic global flooding occurred.

Wow. Just when I think you can't get any crazier.

There is no evidence for a global flood 4,000 years ago and LOTS of evidence for a rock hitting the earth 65,000,000 years ago.

What does that tell you?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The evolutionary assumption that vast geologic time periods existed, thereby validating the assumption that fossils can be assigned dates by association of rocks within the strata in which they are found.


Evolutionary assumption??? Are you on crack? The geologic time scale comes from (drum roll) geology. The dating methods (absolute) come from physics and chemistry. The age of the earth also comes from astronomy and astrophysics. Evolution (biology) has NOTHING to do with the discovery of how old the earth is.

I am really starting to think you are mentally ill.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The evolutionary assumption that certain index fossils are confined to certain geological time periods.

This is not an assumption. This is based on 40 some dating methods that cross correlate with an amazing degree of accuracy.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. A lesson should be learned from the ceolacanth debacle.

What Coelacanth debacle?

Have you ever been hospitalized against your will?
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> The evolutionary assumption that all cambrian life was marine life.

All life discovered from the Cambrian was marine life.

The first land plants were 475 million years ago. proto-amphibians and insects some time after that. The Cambrian ended 485 million years ago, so there is simply no evidence of Cambrian land life.

I think we could make better progress if you would consult with a mental health professional in your area. I can make a referral if you like.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120776 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolutionary assumption that fish preceeded reptiles, which preceeded mammals in evolutionary development.
That is not an assumption that is supported by tons of evidence.
The evolutionary assumption that no catastrophic global flooding occured.
Again, that is not an assumption. There is zero evidence of a global flood and all sorts of evidence against it.
The evolutionary assumption that vast geologic time periods existed, thereby validating the assumption that fossils can be assigned dates by association of rocks within the strata in which they are found.[QUOTE]

Again, no assumptions. These are all evidence based.
[QUOTE]The evolutionary assumption that certain index fossils are confined to certain geological time periods.. A lesson should be learned from the ceolacanth debacle.
That is what is observed. Again, these are not assumptions, this is all evidence based. And the Coelacanth was not a debacle. That is only poor interpretation of evidence by creatards.
The evolutionary assumption that all cambrian life was marine life.
All observed Cambrian life was marine life. Why do you think this is an assumption.

It seems that you do not know what an assumption is. An item is assumed to be true if there is no evidence for that decision.

Your lack of knowledge of what is and what is not evidence is really making you look foolish.

Here is a clue for you, science makes very few if any assumptions. If you think that something was assumed you are very probably wrong.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#120777 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why is feathers in bats goal-origented and similar eyes in divergent species NOT goal-oriented? They are one in the same.
No, not at all. The ancestor that we shared with a cephalopod very very probably had the beginning of eyes. Different pathways were taken and our eyes are very different from cephalopod eyes. As I said, they only look similar. The structure is different the DNA is different. You are not proposing a body that looks like a feather, you said "feather". So no, they are not the same at all.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#120778 Feb 28, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why is feathers in bats goal-origented and similar eyes in divergent species NOT goal-oriented? They are one in the same.

I think we have dealt with "goal oriented" evolution. You can look up this subject if you like.

But lets pretend that there is goal oriented evolution.

It is still evolution (macro). enough said?

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 167,892
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Into The Night 93,373
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 3 hr Rose_NoHo 22
Womans Birth Cycle absolutely Proves Design and... 5 hr Rose_NoHo 72
What's your religion? (Sep '17) 7 hr Critical Eye 1,150
News Intelligent Design's One Valid Scientific Point Fri Aunty Christ 97
Did we evolved from Canadians? Fri Simon 2