Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,180

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

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121454 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a very common error...
This is precisely how the erroneous evolutionised thinking even affects Bible translations
The underlying wrong presumption being that humans and dinosaurs co not have co-existed
Rhinos and elephants do not have tails like "a cedar tree"..
Please see:
http://www.creationliberty.com/images/dino24....
Versus
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/images/...
Yes, we have nothing to back this presumption except the 61 million year gap between the last dinosaur fossils and the very earliest hominid ones. Silly us.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121455 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Mathematical evidence that God doesn't exist? What a joke. Maybe someone should have run the math by Einstein, who believed in God.
Yes, there are skeletal differences between Modern man and Cro-Magnon. So what? There are skeletal differences between a greyhound and a bulldog... and they are ONE SPECIES
What do you mean "behavior is not evolution"...? Then how did behavior appear? Instincts are hardwired into the DNA or species, and there is no evolutionary explanation for it other than "evolutiondidit" through mutations and natural selection, ie, magic. You can add to the challenge of migratory instincts in whales... explain how naviagtion evolved, even though you don't understand how it works.
All you can do is cite papers attesting to the accuracy of radiometric dating... but you cannot logically explain what I have repeatedly asked for... Why does dating a rock or volcanic ash next to a fossil provide insights into when an animal perished?
Predictably you have to conclude your post with the old reliable "incredulity" card... expecting me to accept your evolutionary faith without scientific explanations. You arrogantly expect skeptics to accept what call a scientific theory without being given scientific explanations. Whenever a DarwinBot pulls out the "incredulity" card, it is code for "I don't have a scientific explanation", ie, "I've lost the argument".
The mathematical evidence was shown by Einstein in his mass/energy equivalence formula but in your deliberate ignorance you were not to know that. And you seem to be quite an accomplished liar – Einstein DID NOT believe in god. He cited this on several occasions and he often wrote of his aggravation of godbot liar misquoting.

So what? Evolution, that’s what. Cro-Magnon and modern human are one species, what are you trying to say here that humans are the product of selective breeding? Please offer any evidence for such a wild statement?

Educate yourself, I am not here to put you throughout 3 years of psychology class in 4000 characters. Behaviour is NOT hardwired into the DNA but some behavioural traits may (MAY) have a genetic influence - http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/16.Evol...
http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/research/beh...
Oh look some more links you can ignore, never mind here’s a wiki, it’s more you level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psy...

I cite papers that explain what you have asked for, I will repeat, I am not here to teach you but may I ask when you EVER asked me “Why does dating a rock or volcanic ash next to a fossil provide insights into when an animal perished?” Lying again? My comment related directly to dating artefacts, not the surrounding material, however that’s yet another confirmation that you are too stupid to understand. Seeing as how you are attempting yet another strawman may I suggest you search for “geological column”

Project much? Maybe that’s how you learnt the goddidit with bronze age Jew magic mantra but it does not work on people of more intelligence than you.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC PAPERS LISTED IN MY LINKS.

Because you IGNORE them simply proves you own DELIBERATE IGNORANCE, because you deny their existence simply confirms that proof

And again you are a LIAR, you are no sceptic, you are an out and out, deliberately ignorant denier who ignores proof and does not want to educate himself.

No incredulity there, it’s just basic common sense that brick walls are not a nice thing to bang your head against. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word, oh wait a moment, you are too deliberately ignorant to learn such things – right?

And still you have nothing to offer except re-hashed denial and outright lies?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121456 Mar 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but there's no such thing. For a minute there I thought apologetics got a promotion to scientifically falsifiable.
E=MC^2 shows that no omnipotent god as descried in Revelation KLV 19:6 can exist in this universe at the same time as any matter, people are matter.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121457 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Could Dragons be Dinosaurs?
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dragon....
Also, remember that Dr. Mary Schweitzer found sound stinky, rotting dinosaur flesh, complete with bone and blood cells still fresh! They even smelled it!
{head/desk}

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121458 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
However, the theory of evolution does not allow for a earlier ancestors to have a higher C-values than the later species on the same branch. That is why it is called a paradox. This is major contradition.
Firstly, there is no reason why a genome cannot shrink as a lineage evolves. But your actual error is much sillier...

its similar to the one where you think an amphibian's genome should be much more similar to a bacterium's "according to evolution".

What amphibian's genome can we directly measure?
What creature's genome size can we directly measure?

Only the one's living TODAY, not the ones ancestral to other species TODAY.

You are as usual ignoring the fact that both branches of any split KEEP EVOLVING. Neither of them are the same today as they were at the time of the split.

Therefore, for both these reasons, your "C-value paradox" is just more typical creationist junk.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121459 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only are dinosaurs described in the Bible, depictions of them are found carved, and numerous stories and legends exist suggesting they were once among us. Interesting that the Chinese calendar has 12 animals. Guess which is the only one not around today?
Why do creationists assume that dinosaur bones were not found in antiquity? And that legends and stories didn't grow up around those finds, leading to stories of dragons?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121460 Mar 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
E=MC^2 shows that no omnipotent god as descried in Revelation KLV 19:6 can exist in this universe at the same time as any matter, people are matter.
This thing creates universes as a hobby. Such limits are irrelevant.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121461 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, Dude...
Igor, one of your own, already acknowledged that complexity exists (something that to this point you have refused to do). He said that a snake is more complex than a worm. So your chirping in is at best a distraction.
On the contrary, you're lying like a big fat typical fundie scumbag.(shrug)

Multiple times over I have not only NOT denied the existence of complexity, but also demonstrated it in an objectively verifiable manner. And not only that, but also demonstrated that the mechanisms of evolution CAN and DO produce such complexity. So far you've not addressed that.

In the meantime you keep babbling on about "complexity" but are unable to formulate what exactly it means in relation to your arguments, which renders your arguments moot.

Nothing distracting in my posts. Indeed it cuts to the very heart of your problems.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121462 Mar 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, there is no reason why a genome cannot shrink as a lineage evolves. But your actual error is much sillier...
its similar to the one where you think an amphibian's genome should be much more similar to a bacterium's "according to evolution".
What amphibian's genome can we directly measure?
What creature's genome size can we directly measure?
Only the one's living TODAY, not the ones ancestral to other species TODAY.
You are as usual ignoring the fact that both branches of any split KEEP EVOLVING. Neither of them are the same today as they were at the time of the split.
Therefore, for both these reasons, your "C-value paradox" is just more typical creationist junk.
Hardly. I haven't even found reference to it in Creationist cicles. This was actually my own idea and just searched genome size comparison and found the C-Value Paradox in the Secular arena. Now unless you can demonstrate how genome sizes can vary upwards and downwards with time I don't see that you have an argument. There is no paradox with Creation but a good one with evolution. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals. Genome size. C-values. Another headache for Chimney.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121463 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen Richard
You evo-tards have come up with nothing about how life began....in oh...lets say since Darwin
No explanation or evidence that evolution is fact in ....oh....let's say since Darwin
No experimental evidence of evolution has been provided....ANYWHERE or ever
Evolution is Never observed in nature....NEVER
Not seen in the fossil record...not even once
YOU claimed that the genome was mainly junk...
YOU have been resoundingly proven wrong
To the contrary, you're lying like a typical dishonest lying fundie creationist scumbag.(shrug)

Not one of your claims there had any basis.
Russell wrote:
And you shamelessly return like a dog to its vomit
Screeching like a banshee...about....what ? Exactly?
Yes, yes, you love hyperbole, we get it.

Which is why your post had nothing at all to do whatsoever (not even a ickle tiny widdle bit) with what I posted.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121464 Mar 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do creationists assume that dinosaur bones were not found in antiquity? And that legends and stories didn't grow up around those finds, leading to stories of dragons?
We do. But not fossils, real bones.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121465 Mar 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
{head/desk}
{head/desk}
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121466 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
Creation.com is not the Bible, folks.....sorry to disappoint
It is an ancient book
It comprises 66 books
Written by Holy Spirit filled 40 different human authors separated by thousands of years
Hey bub, you're preaching again.(yawn)

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121467 Mar 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Could be an elephant, couldn't be a dinosaur. Dinosaurs never ate grass.
<quoted text>
Could be an elephant, could not be a dinosaur. They hatched from eggs and did not have navels.
<quoted text>
Or as translated more commonly, his tail moves like a cedar. Dinosaurs, like birds and reptiles, do not have exposed testicles. Could be an elephant, could not be a dinosaur.
<quoted text>
Could be either. Hey, an actual verse that could be applied to a dinosaur.
<quoted text>
Poetic nonsense that applies to nothing or everything.
So you have a couple of verses that apply only to elephants. And one that could apply to either. Overall the evidence says elephant. In other words another Rusty fail.
Not hardly. So your argument is that the Bible is describing an elephant and describes several delails but fails to mention the most prominent, obvious parts (the trunk, ears, tusks)? Pretty weak. Also, what does the verse really say about the testicles? And how do you know what dinosaurs ate?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121468 Mar 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Firstly, there is no reason why a genome cannot shrink as a lineage evolves.
Sounds like, again, some more "just-so" stories are being woven just as we speak.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121469 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Simplistic counting of nucleotides does not define complexity. An amoeba has more nucleotides in its genome than a human, but is obviously less complex.
Ah, good. In that case you have no problem with evolution producing new genetic information as we have previously demonstrated.

By the way, both ways of quantifying complexity are valid: Counting the number of DNA bases or counting the number of cells. So what your argument needs is to show why evolution can't produce more cells past a certain point. Something you have not been able to do yet, though mainly due to your uncertainty of how to define "complexity" as it pertains to your arguments in the first place. And your problem now is that since new DNA can produce new cells this means you have nothing to prevent evolution from occurring.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121470 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
{head/desk}
Urb, his response was due to your incredibly idiocy.

Please stop getting your "science" from sources that openly admit they will lie.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#121471 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We do. But not fossils, real bones.
And why not? Fossils are common enough that they would have been found by ancient civilizations. That would naturally have lead to the legends of dragons. Do you have any evidence of *living* dinosaurs while humans were also alive? Something that could not come simply from developing a legend around some fossils?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121472 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you're going to claim that this experiment proves that mutations can create complexity, you need to define complexity.
I have done.

Months ago.

You have not addressed it.

Now in my previous post you have just admitted that mutations can produce new bases. Your problem is that "complexity" applies only to the number of cells, not DNA in any way shape or form. Ergo if it can produce new DNA you have to deny that DNA is capable of producing cells.

This of course means that no-one was ever born.

Don't worry, it wouldn't be the first time fundies have destroyed all life to justify their beliefs. It's happened many times over. Just ask Russ.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121473 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not hardly. So your argument is that the Bible is describing an elephant and describes several delails but fails to mention the most prominent, obvious parts (the trunk, ears, tusks)? Pretty weak. Also, what does the verse really say about the testicles? And how do you know what dinosaurs ate?
Last question first, we know what dinosaurs ate because we know what was alive and when. Grasses first evolved 70 million years ago, just before the end of the Cretaceous. I suppose a few dinosaurs could have eaten grass the last 5 million years before the mass extinction of dinosaurs, but very few would have been evolved to eat it.

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/125/3/119...

I would think the most prominent part of dinosaurs is that the large ones have been dead for 65 million years.

The verse mentions the testicles of these beasts. The only way to see them in dinosaurs would have been to kill one and carve it open. Since it does not mention killing the beastie it is pretty safe to say that it was visual clues by observing a living one. In other words, not a dinosaur.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Chimney1 142,757
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min dirtclod 14,692
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr ChromiuMan 960
Why natural selection can't work 3 hr Chimney1 28
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 4 hr dirtclod 801
Last ditch bid to ban creationism in Scottish c... 23 hr paul porter 3
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) Wed Kong_ 455
More from around the web