Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,462

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 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121439 Mar 4, 2013
By the way Urb, I bet that you cannot even name a flying dinosaur.

Care to take a shot?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121440 Mar 4, 2013
The C-Value Paradox contradicts common descent and Darwin's Tree and there's no solution.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#121441 Mar 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Once again you did not address the fact that you and your creatard friends misread your own book of mythology.
The book of Job does not say that the tail of the Behemoth looked like a cedar tree..
Evolutionary thinking is not the only reason that people deny Behemoth was a dinosaur. People who can read know that the book of Job described an elephant.
Job 40

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

10 Behold behemoth whom I made with thee, he eateth grass like an ox.
11 His strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly.
12 He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together.
13 His bones are like pipes of brass, his gristle like plates of iron.
14 He is the beginning of the ways of God, who made him, he will apply his sword.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121442 Mar 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
By the way Urb, I bet that you cannot even name a flying dinosaur.
Care to take a shot?
DO you think there are flying dinosaurs?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121443 Mar 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The descriptions in the Bible are not of dinosaurs, watch the video that I linked. And no, there are no sketches of dinosaurs globally. There are some bad fakes and some terribly misinterpreted blobs. Again, watch the video I provided.
The sketches of Dragons by the Chinese are closer to being sketches of lizards than of dinosaurs. If they intended it to be a dinosaur they would have drawn dinosaurs and not lizards.
They can't ALL be fakes Zony. The Bible, the drawings, the carvings, the legends, the soft tissue, Dino eggs, Dragon bone medicine, the Chinese Zodiac; Dragons =? Dinosaurs.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121444 Mar 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The descriptions in the Bible are not of dinosaurs, watch the video that I linked. And no, there are no sketches of dinosaurs globally. There are some bad fakes and some terribly misinterpreted blobs. Again, watch the video I provided.
The sketches of Dragons by the Chinese are closer to being sketches of lizards than of dinosaurs. If they intended it to be a dinosaur they would have drawn dinosaurs and not lizards.
I don't want to watch it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121445 Mar 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Job 40
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
10 Behold behemoth whom I made with thee, he eateth grass like an ox.
Could be an elephant, couldn't be a dinosaur. Dinosaurs never ate grass.
11 His strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly.
Could be an elephant, could not be a dinosaur. They hatched from eggs and did not have navels.
12 He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together.
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.
13 His bones are like pipes of brass, his gristle like plates of iron.
Could be either. Hey, an actual verse that could be applied to a dinosaur.
14 He is the beginning of the ways of God, who made him, he will apply his sword.
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121446 Mar 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
They can't ALL be fakes Zony. The Bible, the drawings, the carvings, the legends, the soft tissue, Dino eggs, Dragon bone medicine, the Chinese Zodiac; Dragons =? Dinosaurs.
Pick your best one then. I am not going to debunk them all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121447 Mar 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to watch it.
Great. Then you lose by default.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121448 Mar 4, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
DO you think there are flying dinosaurs?
Of course.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#121449 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Only truncated for space...
One would wish that the evo-story were so nice and tidy
But it just ain't so....
Here's a quote from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Science, Evolution and Creationism, 88-page anti-creationist booklet....
... that describes the fantasy you are banking on being true:
"Fossil discoveries have continued to produce new and compelling evidence about evolutionary history. New information and understanding about the molecules that make up organisms has emerged, including the complete DNA sequences of humans. DNA sequencing has become a powerful tool for establishing genetic relationships among species. DNA evidence has both confirmed fossil evidence and allowed studies of evolution where the fossil record is still incomplete.-–Jump ship now, Chimney---An entirely new field, evolutionary developmental biology, enables scientists to study how the genetic changes that have occurred throughout history have shaped the forms and functions of organisms. The study of biological evolution constitutes one of the most active and far-reaching endeavors in all of modern science."
This is not borne out when tested....sadly....
...for you...
‘Molecular data and the fossil record can give conflicting views of the evolutionary past.’
---Bininda-Emonds OR, Cardillo M, Jones KE, MacPhee RD, Beck RM, Grenyer R, Price SA, Vos RA, Gittleman JL, Purvis A. The delayed rise of present-day mammals. Nature. 2007 Mar 29;446(7135):507-12. Erratum in: Nature. 2008 Nov, 13;456(7219):274. PubMed PMID: 17392779.
Similarly-->
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9402-ba...
‘“I think this will be a surprise for many scientists,” says Norihiro Okada at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan.“No one expected this.”
‘Okada and his colleagues looked at genetic mutations caused by retroposons, lengths of DNA that can copy themselves into RNA and then reverse-copy themselves back into DNA at a different location on a chromosome. Closely related species share more of these mutations than more distant relatives. The analysis by Okada’s team forces a rethink of the relationships of many mammalian orders, which are currently classified by morphological and nuclear DNA sequence data.
‘“We need to look at fossils from a new point of view, because there must have been a common ancestor of bats, horses and dogs,” Okada says.’19
---Nishihara H, Hasegawa M, Okada N. Pegasoferae, an unexpected mammalian clade revealed by tracking ancient retroposon insertions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 27;103(26):9929-34. Epub 2006 Jun 19. PubMed PMID: 16785431; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1479866.
Also:
http://creation.com/saddle-up-the-horse-its-o...
SO,
INCLUDING in regions as required by you......not even LINEs bear out what the evo-tards need to make their fossil record gel with their crazy molecular clocks
----------
Jump ship now, Chimney
And when you do....
Swear you won’t become an annoying theistic evolutionist
My problem with your post is simple. None of it poses any problems at all for evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#121450 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Job 40
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
10 Behold behemoth whom I made with thee, he eateth grass like an ox.
11 His strength is in his loins, and his force in the navel of his belly.
12 He setteth up his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his testicles are wrapped together.
13 His bones are like pipes of brass, his gristle like plates of iron.
14 He is the beginning of the ways of God, who made him, he will apply his sword.
Only mammals have externally visible testicles.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#121451 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But this is way beyond neat and tidy. This is more common sense. A very very primitive organism has more DNA than the most complex evolved creature known? Come on...
Sounds way harder to explain that fact through intelligent design than through evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#121452 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The cherry picking of ENCODE conclusions is not science.
Correct. Its time creationists stopped this shameful behavior.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#121453 Mar 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
It was entirely 'faith' that drove Lyell and Hutton to carry on like idiots about Uniformtarianism
Its seems to be a preoccupation of creationists to warble on about the supposed "isms" of their opponents. Darwinism, materialism, atheism, uniformitarianism, etc.

Perhaps you fail to understand that this is more symptomatic of projecting your own dogmatic thinking style than having anything to do with how science works.

At best "uniformitarianism" is little more than the assumption that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the laws of nature do not change arbitrarily. A massive period of vulcanism or a meteor strike for example can occur within a "uniformitarian" framework as understood by scientists. However, the suspension of the laws of nature, such as "stopping the sun in the sky" temporarily, do not.

What you call an "-ism" and imply is an article of faith among scientists is no such thing. Its merely, in every case, a working hypothesis.

Are there some scientists who become dogmatic about such points? No doubt. That is the difference between the rational skeptic who says "there is no evidence for God" and the dogmatic materialist who claims "we have proof that God cannot exist".

Probably in your mind there is little distinction between those two statements, but to me they make a world of difference. The dogmatic materialist is just like you, just another effing cultist.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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.

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) 8 min deutscher Nationa... 117,443
Darwin on the rocks 27 min dog groomer 179
Humans DID evolve from apes! 2 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 4 hr John K 3
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 7 hr Zog Has-fallen 657
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 10 hr The Dude 14
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr polymath257 137,376

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE