Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#121694 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False. Evolution is constrained, and highly derived forms such as turnips and giraffes can only move forward in an evolutionary sense if the incremental changes, generation over generation, are selectively beneficial to survival.
Turnip physiology is highly derived from a base of photosynthetic food production. Its a complex organism that has already followed a specific pathway and reversal of that pathway is not likely to be pro-survival.
Irreversibility....

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121695 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Most physicians I know think evolution is pseudoscience.
The physicians I know think goddidit is pseudobabble and have said that you cannot be a good physician if you do not understand how medicine works. Perhaps that helps to explain your continuing mental state

The Louis Finkelstein Institute recently conducted a survey of American medical doctors on their beliefs concerning evolution and intelligent design.

On the 3 possible response question
1 humans were created by God essentially as they are now
2 humans have evolved with God guiding the process
3 humans have evolved without God’s guidance.

22% of doctors selected option 1
15% of doctors selected option 2
63% of doctors selected option 3

I.e. 78% of doctors for those doctors surveyed believe in evolution

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121696 Mar 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Who understands evolution?
Certainly not evolutionists
They believe "change" is evolution and refer to this as variation in allelic expression over generations
ITS A CROCK
Well what do you believe “variation in allelic expression over generations” is? Magic, goddidt? It does not happen? If I rant long enough it will go away?

Just because you don’t want to understand does not make it a CROCK – it just means that you don’t want to understand (or are incapable of understanding)

Evolution is completely understood, hey even a lay person can understand it if they are not being deliberately blinded by the goddidit mantra

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121697 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious.
Straw man argument at its worst.
So perhaps now you can explain WHY your so called C-paradox should be a problem for evolution anyway, because as far as anyone who understands evolution is concerned, its not.
You seem to be regressing.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#121698 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Urban Cowboy asked for an answer to his non-problem, and I gave it.
Do you love your mummy?
Run along now.
That wasn't an answer. You didn't even reply to the main post.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121699 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Are going to tell me that the evolution of microbe to man can be explained entirely by changes in allelic frequency?
No, because microbes don't evolve into complex life forms.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121700 Mar 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
All that BS and not one shred of evidence in your post. Ha! Normal for a deceitful little biotch like you chimney.
It is not his fault you are uneducated.
HTS

Williston, ND

#121701 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been shown it.
e.g.
Progressive development of the 3-boned middle ear showing in the therapsid fossil sequences.
The nested hierarchy of variation in pseudogenes, ERV's, and ubiquitous proteins.
Tiktaalik. Miacids. Ambulocetus. Homo erectus.
30+ avian/dino species at the convergence point between these two types.
You simply ignore what you do not like.
tell me specifically why any of your "evidence" is not entirely consistent with intelligent deign.

You demolished any credibility of your "evidence" when you mentioned tiktaalik, ambulocetus, and homo erectus. There is no evidence that those fossils represent transitional species,

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121702 Mar 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't an answer. You didn't even reply to the main post.
Of course I did. I explained that neither the growth nor the shrinkage of the genome would be any problem at all for evolution.

In other words, you have presented a straw man argument and nothing more. I answered what was necessary to answer and gave you some examples to boot.
HTS

Williston, ND

#121703 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because microbes don't evolve into complex life forms.
So you're saying that what happened before could never happen again? This you call "science?"

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121704 Mar 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be regressing.
And you seem to be unable to explain why your c-paradox is any problem at all for evolution.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121705 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying that what happened before could never happen again? This you call "science?"
Microbes never evolved into complex life forms, they evolved in stages which eventually became more complex than they were. I thought you wanted to talk about science not repeat canards.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#121706 Mar 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
So where does the term C-Value derive its name? This was an observation that genome size is constant within species.
"In 1948, Roger and Colette Vendrely reported a "remarkable constancy in the nuclear DNA content of all the cells in all the individuals within a given animal species",[1] which they took as evidence that DNA, rather than protein, was the substance of which genes are composed. The term C-value reflects this observed constancy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma
OK. Maybe we sort of knew that but stop to think about it. Take any particular species, even the ones whose populations are in the millions of members and within that species, all the members have exactly the same genome size. Every individual has exactly the same C-Value.
Every species therefore has a standard fixed-length genome. Very profound.
But wait! Fish were supposed to come before reptiles, right? So you expect reptiles to have a higher C-Value than fish right? Wrong! Fish have the higher C-Value. Same with Fish-Birds, Fish-Mammals, amphibians-mammals, Birds-Reptiles, etc.
And before you say the rule is progressively smaller genomes is the pattern, it is just as common for the opposite to occur, i.e, amphibians have a higher C-Value than fish, etc.
But keep in mind that within any particular species, the C-Value is constant. Is there any evidence for shrinking or expanding genomes anywhere? None.
This obviously tells me all the kinds were uniquely created for their specifically designed purpose.
This evidence causes great difficulty for the idea that life evolved from a common ancestor. This C-Value Paradox combined with the lack of any genetic mechanism for vertical evolution is a direct rebuking of macroevolution.
Reposted so Chimney can dodge it again.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#121707 Mar 6, 2013
So Chimney, how can there be differences in the millions of nucleotides between "same branch, common successor ancestors"; some way less, some way more, when these species all have a constant C-Value (genome length)? Perhaps this "paradox" is above your pay grade.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121708 Mar 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
And you're a fruking moron, that never once brought anything of value to this board.
Piss off idiot.
Pour yourself another one, you drunken idiot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#121709 Mar 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is credited with have created all nested hierarchies. There's nothing in the ToE that says it couldn't create more. There is no "forward" or "backward" in your paradigm. If you believe in ToE, you believe that a turnip could be selectively bred into a giraffe.
It's like talking to a brick, isn't it?
One way or another

United States

#121710 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Urban Cowboy asked for an answer to his non-problem, and I gave it.
Do you love your mummy?
Run along now.
You are always long on BS and short on evidence. Deceit is just what you have. You're an idiot, but then its your choice.
One way or another

United States

#121711 Mar 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I did. I explained that neither the growth nor the shrinkage of the genome would be any problem at all for evolution.
In other words, you have presented a straw man argument and nothing more. I answered what was necessary to answer and gave you some examples to boot.
No you didn't moron, you copy and pasted another idiots claims. Bacteria are the only entities that can enlarge, due to their natural ability, hard wired into their species.

There is no other species that will show such. Thank a teacher for your cut and paste nonsense.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121712 Mar 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It's like talking to a brick, isn't it?
You get more sense out of a brick

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#121713 Mar 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You are always long on BS and short on evidence. Deceit is just what you have. You're an idiot, but then its your choice.
You are still projecting.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min Strel 171,726
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 1 min Strel 16
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min Marksman11 142,569
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Paul Porter1 20,572
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 6 hr Paul Porter1 266
Science Suggests That A Quantum Creation Force ... (Jun '14) 6 hr Paul Porter1 33
News Intelligent design 6 hr GTID62 2
More from around the web