Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,961

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

#122785 Mar 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem
I have read the literature
Evo-story telling always comes apart at rhe seams when you actually check the fossils out
The trick is to keep focused on the facts....
Discard the evo-tales that accompany the description of the finds
THAT is not science
So when you see the clear trend of the intermediate hominid species, from the early Australo's through habilis, erectus, heidelbugensis, archaic and then modern Sapiens, what part of this series of intermediates that conform perfectly to evolution's predictions do you find is "coming apart at the seams"?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122786 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are there any modern horses in strata from 10 million years ago?
No
Are there any fossils from 10 million years ago that show strong resemblance to a horse but also some significant differences?
Yes.
Do these fossils extend back 20 million years ago?
No.
Are there any fossils from 20 million years ago that show some resemblance to the creature of 10 million years ago that itself showed strong resemblance to a horse but also some significant differences?
Yes.
Do THOSE creatures exist 40 million years ago?
No.
Are there any fossils from 40 million years ago that show some resemblance to the creatures of 20 million years ago that itself showed a lot of resemblance to a creature 10 million years ago that itself showed resemblance to a horse?
Yes.
Final question. Does this pattern suggest evolution through time or ex-nihilo creation of all kinds separately all at once right at the beginning?
You answer that one, if you can. Perhaps all you creationists can chip in and help, as we all know that "One way or another" has some cognitive limitations.
Obviously it supports evolution and not the creation of all species at one time. We don't find modern horses 20 or 40 million years ago. We only find them recently. We don't find the 20 million year specie 40 million years ago or even further back, we only find them in a specific window. This again supports the theory of evolution and not the creation of all species at once.

What was the point of that post Russell. Were you aiming at your foot?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122787 Mar 10, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that believing leprechauns are real does not make someone delusional.
Your argument is funny but its little more than a straw man.

The underlying question is whether the universe created intelligence or intelligence created the universe.

Nobody really knows the answer to that.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122788 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the fossils support only the theory of evolution. Creationists have yet to find a way to explain the fossil record.
The Genesis Flood

What explanation have you?

And why have you ignored my post about the Coconino sandstone forming a knife-edge contact with Hermit shale?

Providing me with a picture of tundra or sand is not helpful nor honest

I had also linked pictures of Another formation also requiring an explanation

This time with 20 million years of missing erosion

http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol31...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122789 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you quite sure?
If I look into it .....
Will I be convinced of the veracity of your claim?
Evolutionists today speak of intermediates rather than transitionals, for good reason.

If you define a transitional as THE link between X and Y, you presume too much. Before you go running off on a creationist tangent, listen to my point.

When we look at the fossil record, we can often see a number of candidate transitionals and all we can say with clarity is that they are all intermediate, meaning they have traits that are measurably between X and Y.

Often any one of them could be THE transitional. Or, there could be another species that really was THE transitional but we haven't even discovered it yet.

However, what is not doubtful is that the fossil record shows the pattern of

a/ gradual divergence from modern species

b/ gradual convergence of contemporary species with each other towards a common root,

as we go back in the fossil record.

In the case of horses, recently raised, we see this pattern. We cannot be sure exactly WHICH of the many equine species provided exactly THE steps to the modern horse. But we can see a pattern of species gradually less horse-like and more generically similar to the root stock as we go back in time. Same with humans. Same with just about everything.

Creationism does not even begin to predict that, but evolution predicts it and explains it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122790 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The Genesis Flood
What explanation have you?
And why have you ignored my post about the Coconino sandstone forming a knife-edge contact with Hermit shale?
Providing me with a picture of tundra or sand is not helpful nor honest
I had also linked pictures of Another formation also requiring an explanation
This time with 20 million years of missing erosion
http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol31...
Nope. The Genesis flood cannot explain why the fossils appear in the order that they do. Nor can they explain how hundreds of millions of years worth of corals can accumulate in one year. Or forty millions of years of corals or all sort of other sedimentary rocks.

The sedimentary rock record cannot be explained by the Genesis flood. You will not find one serious creationist that even believes this.

I have not checked out your other picture yet but it seems you still don't understand even the extremely simple concept of erosion.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122791 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So when you see the clear trend of the intermediate hominid species, from the early Australo's through habilis, erectus, heidelbugensis, archaic and then modern Sapiens, what part of this series of intermediates that conform perfectly to evolution's predictions do you find is "coming apart at the seams"?
Please

Evo-whining becomes tiresome

Every contender in the so-called human ancestral lineage is either ape or fully human

Or a fake.........

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122792 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The Genesis Flood
How do you even begin to explain the pattern in the fossil record with a year long flood? Please do not make me laugh out loud with the "fastest runner to higher ground" hypothesis.

If you had the merest inkling of the depth and structure of the fossil record, you would know how ridiculous this is.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#122793 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is funny but its little more than a straw man.
The underlying question is whether the universe created intelligence or intelligence created the universe.
Nobody really knows the answer to that.
That's a ridiculous question

How can nothingness result in intelligence

Never mind

I sympathize

I too once did mental gymnastics to avoid Him

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122794 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Please
Evo-whining becomes tiresome
Every contender in the so-called human ancestral lineage is either ape or fully human
Or a fake.........
All of them are fully ape. You are an ape. I am an ape. All humans are apes. Don't believe me, look it up.

What do you mean by "fully human".

Duane Gish, who just passed away, and another creatard identified Homo erectus as the missing link. So even they disagree with you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122795 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously it supports evolution and not the creation of all species at one time. We don't find modern horses 20 or 40 million years ago. We only find them recently. We don't find the 20 million year specie 40 million years ago or even further back, we only find them in a specific window. This again supports the theory of evolution and not the creation of all species at once.
What was the point of that post Russell. Were you aiming at your foot?
Errrrmmm SZ, I wrote that post and it was addressed to our resident idiot Jim Ryan. So yes, it supports evolution!

BTW, I have not really found anything definitive on the pre-Cambrian pollen circa 1965 issue that Russell did raise. Its an interesting quandary.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122796 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Please
Evo-whining becomes tiresome
Every contender in the so-called human ancestral lineage is either ape or fully human
Or a fake.........
Oh dear. Backed into a corner, all you can say is there is an imaginary red line we should be putting somewhere in the sequence, but no creationist can even agree where (not surprising in an obvious continuum from apelike to human)...

Or the last resort, "its fake!!!! Piltdown Man!!!"

Can you be any less convincing?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122797 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Errrrmmm SZ, I wrote that post and it was addressed to our resident idiot Jim Ryan. So yes, it supports evolution!
BTW, I have not really found anything definitive on the pre-Cambrian pollen circa 1965 issue that Russell did raise. Its an interesting quandary.
It is well past my bedtime and I made a serious error. I kept reading that post and thought that Russell wrote it. Yet it clearly supported evolution.

My sincerest apologies. I wondered how a post that totally supported evolution could have been written by Russell.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122798 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a ridiculous question
How can nothingness result in intelligence
Never mind
I sympathize
I too once did mental gymnastics to avoid Him
I repeat - nobody knows the answer.

I will leave the mental gymnastics to you as you contrive to answer it with your self serving fairy tales.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122799 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is well past my bedtime and I made a serious error. I kept reading that post and thought that Russell wrote it. Yet it clearly supported evolution.
My sincerest apologies. I wondered how a post that totally supported evolution could have been written by Russell.
Yet us skeptics persist in believing in the miracle that mere evidence and logic could transform the thinking of a die-hard creationist!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122800 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear. Backed into a corner, all you can say is there is an imaginary red line we should be putting somewhere in the sequence, but no creationist can even agree where (not surprising in an obvious continuum from apelike to human)...
Or the last resort, "its fake!!!! Piltdown Man!!!"
Can you be any less convincing?
I love this "logic". Someone wrote made a false claim therefore all such beliefs are false. Hmmm, there have been thousands of frauds and cheats by Christians. For example didn't the world come to an end twice last year? I guess that means that Christianity is all a fraud too.
Right

Euless, TX

#122801 Mar 10, 2013
Iron Ranger wrote:
Absolutely NO "evolution" should be taught in schools.
The so-called theories of evolution have been shown to be false. Darwin made up a lot of "facts." He "filled in" when he had no proof.
God made us.
Don't be odd.
Get with God!
Testing

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122802 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I love this "logic". Someone wrote made a false claim therefore all such beliefs are false. Hmmm, there have been thousands of frauds and cheats by Christians. For example didn't the world come to an end twice last year? I guess that means that Christianity is all a fraud too.
Shown the undeniable succession of ape/hominid intermediates that have been unearthed in a time sequence consistent with evolution, these guys are simply forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Are you aware of the SCANDALOUS FACT that a museum somewhere left human-like feet on a display of Lucy after paleontologists showed there were some differences? Or another SCANDALOUS FACT that another museum somewhere or other had left the flippers on a presumed whale intermediate display after new fossil finds had shown that the creature did not have flippers?

Russell does, and he somehow thinks this is comparable on the "lie scale" to:

http://creationmuseum.org/

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122803 Mar 10, 2013
Right wrote:
<quoted text>
Testing
Fail.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#122804 Mar 10, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Another thought
I think we've all seen schools of fish swimming in circles, surely that has something to teach about spin.
Are there other entities that move in circles on purpose, besides astronauts and race car drivers?
This HAS to be a Poe

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
Dr. James P. Allison, presidential candidate Dr... 11 min MikeF 2
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min Denisova 149,778
The Natinoal Academy of Sciences Endorses Evolu... 29 min paul porter 2
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 54 min paul porter 16,849
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 58 min MikeF 22
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 1 hr Kong_ 709
Teach the controversy: Education bills contain ... 4 hr paul porter 1
More from around the web