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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122017 Mar 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I capiche. <ducks>
LOL!

Totally unrelated but I just found an interesting article that I would like to share:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23240-t...

It seems that we may have to push back the date for Y-Chromosomal Adam by quite a bit. Our old "Adam" may not be the single male line for all of humanity.

And bonsai is not pronounced the same as Banzai!! The first Japanese word is pronounced "Bone-sigh" and is a method of growing very small trees. The latter is pronounced with a short a sound and a "z" sound or "Bahn-zigh" {I know, I have no English spelling for "zai")
One way or another

United States

#122018 Mar 7, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What good is it to explain science to somebody who insists that he's overturned the greatest theory in all of the history of physics despite having no evidence AND despite his own admission that out of nine planets, his "hypothesis" fails about a quarter of the time? How's your cat piss invention doing?
As with all you morons, you respond to a post, but not the subject. Thanks idiot.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122019 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it is an article from Creatard.com . Written by totally debunked author John Sanford.
Don't ever let anyone tell you that you don't have a sense of humor Rusty.
CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122020 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
CREATION RACIST BIGOTRY
Wrong. Your creationist site has been shown to be wrong and dishonest many times over. If you had a real scientific claim you could find a valid scientific source to back your claims. You know you have nothing. We know you have nothing. You can't fool anyone here.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122021 Mar 7, 2013
Chimney---

Ducks

--Cretaceous duck ruffles feathers, BBC news, www.bbc.co.uk , 20 January 2005

--Clarke JA, Tambussi CP, Noriega JI, Erickson GM, Ketcham RA. Definitive fossil evidence for the extant avian radiation in the Cretaceous. Nature. 2005 Jan 20;433(7023):305-8. PubMed PMID: 15662422.

Also,

--Brown JW, Rest JS, García-Moreno J, Sorenson MD, Mindell DP. Strong mitochondrial DNA support for a Cretaceous origin of modern avian lineages. BMC Biol. 2008 Jan 28;6:6. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-6-6. PubMed PMID: 18226223; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2267772.
----------

Squirrels

Mesozoic Squirrel, Nature 444:889–893, 2006.

--Meng J, Hu Y, Wang Y, Wang X, Li C. A Mesozoic gliding mammal from northeastern China. Nature. 2006 Dec 14;444(7121):889-93. Erratum in: Nature.
2007 Mar 1;446(7131):102. PubMed PMID: 17167478.

----------

A mammal with a dinosaur in its stomach

Dinosaur-eating mammal discovered in China, www. nhm.ac.uk,14 January 2005.

Hu Y, Meng J, Wang Y, Li C. Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs.Nature. 2005 Jan 13;433(7022):149-52. PubMed PMID: 15650737.

----------

Parrot

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n67...

http://www.nature.com/news/1999/990527/full/n...

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#122022 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Totally unrelated but I just found an interesting article that I would like to share:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23240-t...
It seems that we may have to push back the date for Y-Chromosomal Adam by quite a bit. Our old "Adam" may not be the single male line for all of humanity.
And bonsai is not pronounced the same as Banzai!! The first Japanese word is pronounced "Bone-sigh" and is a method of growing very small trees. The latter is pronounced with a short a sound and a "z" sound or "Bahn-zigh" {I know, I have no English spelling for "zai")
Technically "zai" is like "sigh" but with a hard s, English letters, when used for other languages, are treated as transliterations, meaning they take on a more Latin/Germanic sounding pronunciation. Thus a = "ah," i = "ee," etc. Basically, just pronounce it as if it was pure German. This standard is not a hard law, mind you, but is now pretty much an accepted standard, as to avoid the mistake of misspelling Riah and Anpu as Ra and Anubis again. Though I still cannot for the life of me figure out why Anpu was originally transcribed as Anubis. perhaps the same reason Bast was originally transcribed as Bastet?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122023 Mar 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Your creationist site has been shown to be wrong and dishonest many times over. If you had a real scientific claim you could find a valid scientific source to back your claims. You know you have nothing. We know you have nothing. You can't fool anyone here.
You have already been utterly and thoroughly fooled

Hoodwinked.....

By evolutionary lies...

If I were you

I would be OUTRAGED by the lie that is evolution

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#122024 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
Chimney---
Ducks
--Cretaceous duck ruffles feathers, BBC news, www.bbc.co.uk , 20 January 2005
--Clarke JA, Tambussi CP, Noriega JI, Erickson GM, Ketcham RA. Definitive fossil evidence for the extant avian radiation in the Cretaceous. Nature. 2005 Jan 20;433(7023):305-8. PubMed PMID: 15662422.
Also,
--Brown JW, Rest JS, García-Moreno J, Sorenson MD, Mindell DP. Strong mitochondrial DNA support for a Cretaceous origin of modern avian lineages. BMC Biol. 2008 Jan 28;6:6. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-6-6. PubMed PMID: 18226223; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2267772.
----------
Squirrels
Mesozoic Squirrel, Nature 444:889–893, 2006.
--Meng J, Hu Y, Wang Y, Wang X, Li C. A Mesozoic gliding mammal from northeastern China. Nature. 2006 Dec 14;444(7121):889-93. Erratum in: Nature.
2007 Mar 1;446(7131):102. PubMed PMID: 17167478.
----------
A mammal with a dinosaur in its stomach
Dinosaur-eating mammal discovered in China, www. nhm.ac.uk,14 January 2005.
Hu Y, Meng J, Wang Y, Li C. Large Mesozoic mammals fed on young dinosaurs.Nature. 2005 Jan 13;433(7022):149-52. PubMed PMID: 15650737.
----------
Parrot
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v396/n67...
http://www.nature.com/news/1999/990527/full/n...
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/...
Yes, what's your point in posting that? It sort of helps the theory of evolution quite a bit.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122025 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already been utterly and thoroughly fooled
Hoodwinked.....
By evolutionary lies...
If I were you
I would be OUTRAGED by the lie that is evolution
Stop, you're killing me. You are the next Jerry Lewis.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122026 Mar 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As to the rattlesnake, I will look into your claims that it was omitted because it did not fit.
As the authors themselves have stated....it disappeared from phylogentic trees in 1969

Do also provide an explanation for how the insulin of a sperm whale and a fin whale is identical to that of a dog and a pig, but different from that of a sei whale.

And, looking at the cytochromes C in two closely related organisms, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans and Desulfovibrio vulgaris

.....They have marked differences in their amino acid sequences.

And what is your explanation for the rattlesnake conundrum?

By the way, I found this rather intriguing challenge:

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#122027 Mar 7, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I explain more than science does in cases and I offer different thinking, that I give evidence for.
No one here has refuted what I write. You are obviously too stupid to see that I argue only science.
If you can show otherwise, show the proof. Lol, there is not one of my posts using religion or god in any argument.
But since you're obviously too stupid to have a thought all your own, using religion is all you and the other Evo morons have.
No you don’t, you give personal opinions, that is not evidence and that is not explanation – look up the meaning of the words and educate yourself.

I have, as have several others, the thing is as a good godbot you ignore that. You have never provided citations or links to scientific papers that show what you say is science.

The very post to which this reply is addressed uses godbot terminology and godbot abuse, but I suppose you are too used to hiding behind your religion to actually see that

Yet another godbot guess, when they have no facts to work with the typical godbot will make up BS and attempt to discredit or mock the opposition. Honey I have had this from godbots since I was 5 years old, It’s attitudes like your that are the very reason I am no longer with the church.

Honey, if you don’t like the comeback I suggest you don’t pee into the wind…

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#122028 Mar 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Everytime you bring up the recyled "goddidit" argument you are acknowledging that you have so scientific explanations, so you assume "evolutiondidit".
No, what makes you say that? Is it because you have nothing else to argue?

Not really surprising when you deliberately ignore scientific explanations because you are of the uneducable mind that goddidit.

Unlike you I do not assume anything, I research and learn, consider, contrast and compare. That’s what happens when you educating yourself, but you would not understand that.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#122029 Mar 7, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
But but but but, science has dark matter, for which they have nothing but wishful thinking. No evidence you simpleton, just like the rest of evolution.
Wrong, dark matter exists, it is know to exist and it can and is being measured and it’s effects can be observed

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_0...

http://gaitskell.brown.edu/physics/talks/0408...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122030 Mar 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Haven't even checked it. A hand that might be slightly too human on a model (and after all, even a chimp hand is very human) is just pissing into the wind compared to the wholesale fraud of your Creatard Fantasy Parks. Don't make me laugh. As for the feet, other aspects of the anatomy showed bipedalism so at the time it would not have been a strange assumption to make.
"Ape-woman' statue misleads public: anatomy professor"

The St Louis zoo in Missouri, USA, has a $17.9 million exhibition majoring on evolution, which includes a statue, purportedly a reconstruction of the famous australopithecine part–skeleton 'Lucy', showing remarkably human–looking feet

http://t1.gstatic.com/images...

Associate professor of anatomy and neurobiology at the nearby Washington University, Dr David Menton (interviewed in Creation 16(4),16–19) says that these feet are not based on the fossil facts.

The usual artistic licence in reconstructing the fleshly features of 'apemen' from bones allows evolutionary bias enormous free rein. However artists do not usually misrepresent the bones. This statue's feet and hands are simply wrong and mislead the public.

Menton cites evolutionary sources which show that creatures in this species had hands and feet which were 'not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long curved fingers and toes'—even more so than apes today that live mostly in the trees.

Canadian school teacher David Buckna has weighed in on the debate by posting an Internet challenge to this 'misleading' statue. He says that if people visiting this exhibition were to see an accurate replica of Lucy in the trees, with features typical of tree–dwelling primates, it would make them question the whole notion of human evolution; Lucy would be seen as just some sort of extinct ape.

Dr Menton, who first complained about it in 1989, says,'I think the zoo owes it to all the people who helped pay for that exhibit to give (Lucy) an honest presentation.'

Bruce Carr, the zoo's director of education, has no plans to alter the exhibit.'We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence,' he says.'What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.'

Dr Menton points out that if Lucy's feet were accurately shown, it would be obvious they could never fit into the famous Laetoli fossil footprints. These are 'exhibit A' for evolutionary belief in upright walking by Lucy's kind, whereas in fact they are identical to bare-foot humans.

Professor Betsy Schumann, evolutionist expert at Menton's university, admits that the statue's feet 'probably are not accurate', but when asked whether the statue should be changed, she says,'Absolutely not'.

In other words, it doesn't matter if people get indoctrinated into evolution by wrong evidence, because 'evolution is a fact'. Christians need to realise that we are facing a full–scale religio–cultural war!

Deceptive museum displays contribute to the worldwide push to replace the Christian worldview with that of evolutionary naturalism ('everything made itself—we are answerable to nobody'). Sadly, many millions of dollars of taxpayers' money support such museum displays.

-----Based on information from Dr Menton and the St Louis Post–Dispatch , July 22, 1996.

Lying, deceit and fraud for evolution
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122031 Mar 7, 2013
Did Lucy walk on her knuckles?

"Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil
evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago1 , and perhaps earlier2 , hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism, and despite nearly a century of research
on existing fossils and comparative anatomy, there is still no consensus concerning the mode of locomotion that preceded bipedalism3±10. Here we present evidence that fossils attributed
toAustralopithecus anamensis(KNM-ER 20419)11 andA. afarensis (AL 288-1)12 retain specialized wrist morphology associated with knuckle-walking. This distal radial morphology differs from that
of later hominids and non-knuckle-walking anthropoid primates, suggesting that knuckle-walking is a derived feature of the African
ape and human clade

< http://www.exn.ca/html/templates/htmlpage.cfm... ;, 22 March 2000; Walk Like an Ape,

< http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyN... ;, 22 March 2000; Early Man walked on all fours,

< http://www.telegraph.co.uk >, 23 March 2000; based on Brian G. Richmond and David S. Strait, Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776), 23 March 2000.

So,

No Chimney

Lucy was not bipedal

Defending the indefensible....

Tsk, tsk..........

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122032 Mar 7, 2013
Rusty, why the big reaction to the fact that they used artistic license for making Lucy's feet?

Evolution is already settled science. As long as they weren't ridiculous you have no valid complaint. Now ridiculous feet would be modern shaved feet, or feet with wings on them as some of you theist types seem to believe happens now and then.

When you show in any way that evolution has not occurred then you may have a valid complaint. As things stand now you don't.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#122033 Mar 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you hadn't noticed other genetic variation in the human population Russell? And you want to claim, as Urban Cowboy appears to be doing, that aside from a few defects, every human genome has precisely the same number of nucleotides?
It's the sequences that are varying Chimney, not the number of nucleotides. C-Value refers to the constancy value (genome size) of a species.

The variation that we see in life is the artist's palette of innate, hardwired variety of colors, tones, shapes, and sizes; the variety of life within each species. It's the same as fingerprints and irises and faces - no two are alike and no mutation is required.

Another point missed by evolutionists is that natural selection does not select from a set of 3 billion nucleotides; no, it selects the one whole person, completely unaware of what lurks within their genome.

As far as C-Value, you continue to dodge my post. Should genomes be longer or shorter the further out you go on the "ancestral branch"? And how does this fit in with your nested hierarchy theory?

Everything about the theory of evolution is either completely upside down or just plain wrong.
One way or another

United States

#122034 Mar 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, what's your point in posting that? It sort of helps the theory of evolution quite a bit.
Do tell how. You're an idiot that plays follow the other morons, pretending that your game is simply to piss others off, because you're too stupid to understand or have a thought all your own.

Run along idiot.
One way or another

United States

#122035 Mar 7, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, dark matter exists, it is know to exist and it can and is being measured and it’s effects can be observed
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_0...
http://gaitskell.brown.edu/physics/talks/0408...
Copy and pasting what other wishful idiots claim only makes a bigger fool for following them.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#122036 Mar 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ape-woman' statue misleads public: anatomy professor"
The St Louis zoo in Missouri, USA, has a $17.9 million exhibition majoring on evolution, which includes a statue, purportedly a reconstruction of the famous australopithecine part–skeleton 'Lucy', showing remarkably human–looking feet
http://t1.gstatic.com/images...
Associate professor of anatomy and neurobiology at the nearby Washington University, Dr David Menton (interviewed in Creation 16(4),16–19) says that these feet are not based on the fossil facts.
The usual artistic licence in reconstructing the fleshly features of 'apemen' from bones allows evolutionary bias enormous free rein. However artists do not usually misrepresent the bones. This statue's feet and hands are simply wrong and mislead the public.
Menton cites evolutionary sources which show that creatures in this species had hands and feet which were 'not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have long curved fingers and toes'—even more so than apes today that live mostly in the trees.
Canadian school teacher David Buckna has weighed in on the debate by posting an Internet challenge to this 'misleading' statue. He says that if people visiting this exhibition were to see an accurate replica of Lucy in the trees, with features typical of tree–dwelling primates, it would make them question the whole notion of human evolution; Lucy would be seen as just some sort of extinct ape.
Dr Menton, who first complained about it in 1989, says,'I think the zoo owes it to all the people who helped pay for that exhibit to give (Lucy) an honest presentation.'
Bruce Carr, the zoo's director of education, has no plans to alter the exhibit.'We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence,' he says.'What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.'
Dr Menton points out that if Lucy's feet were accurately shown, it would be obvious they could never fit into the famous Laetoli fossil footprints. These are 'exhibit A' for evolutionary belief in upright walking by Lucy's kind, whereas in fact they are identical to bare-foot humans.
Professor Betsy Schumann, evolutionist expert at Menton's university, admits that the statue's feet 'probably are not accurate', but when asked whether the statue should be changed, she says,'Absolutely not'.
In other words, it doesn't matter if people get indoctrinated into evolution by wrong evidence, because 'evolution is a fact'. Christians need to realise that we are facing a full–scale religio–cultural war!
Deceptive museum displays contribute to the worldwide push to replace the Christian worldview with that of evolutionary naturalism ('everything made itself—we are answerable to nobody'). Sadly, many millions of dollars of taxpayers' money support such museum displays.
-----Based on information from Dr Menton and the St Louis Post–Dispatch , July 22, 1996.
Lying, deceit and fraud for evolution
Have you actually read the piece?

There are some every relevant points and some allusions that are totally irrelevant – for example who EVER said Lucy made the Laetoli footprints? The size and shape of feet in humans (and most other mammals) varies enormously, is it not feasible that the size and shape of feet of Australopithecus also varied, assuming of course that the prints were made by Australopithecus, that in itself is not a certainty.

I have seen the Lucy fossil, not only is it obvious which parts were genuine and which where manufactured for the display but it is stated in the diagram and write-up alongside the fossil that the hands/feet and other skeletal parts were not found and that those displayed are for representation only.

There is no lying, no fraud and no deceit except by Creation who are misrepresent and misdirecting FACTS.

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) 18 min Chimney1 168,996
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr thetruth 19,801
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 141,855
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 21 hr thetruth 6,221
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? Fri Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Jul 2 Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Jul 2 Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web