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
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121474 Mar 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
And who is to say that the inspiration for dragons was not lizards? The Komodo Dragon, a large monitor lizard, can be found not all that far from China. All Chinese depictions of Dragons that I have seen are drawn as large lizards, not as dinosaurs.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#121475 Mar 5, 2013
Evo Baby wrote:
Many talk about evolution as possible with enough time. But I once heard someone ask the question, "How many changes does it take for a cat to evolve into a dog?" I'm assuming that they meant that there would have to be so many compounding changes as to be extremely unlikely that it could ever happen. Does anyone want to tackle that premise or point me to some source that does? Thanks!
Yes. The problem is within the criticism itself. People who don't understand evolution demand they be convinced of evolution by someone presenting evidence of total violations of nested hierarchies, though in actuality such a violation would falsify evolution.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121476 Mar 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
This thing creates universes as a hobby. Such limits are irrelevant.
What thing?

Are they?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121477 Mar 5, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
...
And how do you know what dinosaurs ate?
There are several ways to identify what a dinosaur ate

Fossilisation of stomach contents
Fossil of the prey
Tooth shape and wear
Fossilised dung
Minerals absorbed in the fossils
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121478 Mar 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand homology. If you have nonhomologous chromosomes creating the structure it is not homology. It is convergent evolution. In other word similar tools evolved for similar uses. The two are very different and yet you can't seem to understand them.
Do you seriously believe that the re-labeling of terms solves any barriers? Are you that dense?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121479 Mar 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, good. In that case you have no problem with evolution producing new genetic information as we have previously demonstrated.
.
Dude, why do you consider "junk DNA" as you call it to be "new genetic information"?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121480 Mar 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
If you have mathematical evidence that God is impossible, then let's see the math. To this point all you've provided is BS.
And, by the way, Einstein believed in God...."the more I study science, the more I believe in God..."

Now you're saying that behavior is not hardwired into DNA? What a load of tripe... No reputable biologist believes that. I see you must embrace scientific fallacies in order to believe in your fairytale world of evolution.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#121481 Mar 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Selective breeding is not evolution. You apparently have nothing if that's the most compelling example you can come up with.
So, change in allelic frequency in a population over time is not evolution? Weird, because that's exactly the definition of evolution.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121482 Mar 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, that is not the way evolution works. It is a foolish question.
Evolution is not goal oriented. You are making the mistake of looking at the present day state of life an thinking that was a goal.
Evo Baby knows more about evolution than you do. According to the ToE, evolution has no limits. A turnip could evolve into a giraffe, if billions of years were allowed. After all, they share over 50% homologous nucleotide sequences. YOu just don't have the nerve to acknowledge what you believe.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121483 Mar 5, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, change in allelic frequency in a population over time is not evolution? Weird, because that's exactly the definition of evolution.
No, change in allelic frequency is not evolution... it is selective breeding.
The evolution of a land mammal to a whale is not accomplished by simply "changing allelic frequency.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121484 Mar 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. The problem is within the criticism itself. People who don't understand evolution demand they be convinced of evolution by someone presenting evidence of total violations of nested hierarchies, though in actuality such a violation would falsify evolution.
Are you telling me that the evolution from a microbe to a blue whale is not violating nested hierarchies? If you believe in evolution, you believe that a turnip could be selectively bred into a bottlenose dolphin. The only problem is lack of time.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#121485 Mar 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You have never defined complexity.
Your posts are composed of nothing but recycled atheist BS.
You consistently dodge questions and refuse to acknowledge that complexity exists or can be objectively evaluated.

I never said or implied that complexity is measured by the number of cells. Why do you find a need to constantly misrepresent what I say?

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) 25 min Aura Mytha 132,562
How would creationists explain... 4 hr Dogen 331
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr ChromiuMan 529
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 8 hr Brian_G 13,618
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 21 hr Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web