Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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

#122879 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Actual predictions of ToE have invariably FAILED.
Nested hierarchies is not a "prediction"... It is a rationalization of observations in a pathetic attempt to force ToE into the real world.
Please, we have gone over this many times over. That is a lie.

Perhaps your problem is a misunderstanding. Let's hear some of these "failed" predictions of yours.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#122880 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, we have gone over this many times over. That is a lie.
Perhaps your problem is a misunderstanding. Let's hear some of these "failed" predictions of yours.
1. Failed junk DNA debacle
2. Failed paradigm of genetic determinism
3. Failure of homology... Homologous outcomes by non homologous genes
4. Failure of Lamarckism
5. Failed Miller Urey experiment
6. Failure to propose a plausible theory of abiogenesis
7. Failed fossil record... No proven transitional species in hundreds of millions of fossils spanning a
Supposed geological time period of over 500 million years.
8. Failure to propose a genetic mechanism of addition of information.
9. Failure to logically defend the innumerable challenges of irreducible complexity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122881 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Failed junk DNA debacle
You failed on your "failed junk DNA" claim. Even the ENCODE people say now at the most 20% functionality. In other words 80% junk DNA.
2. Failed paradigm of genetic determinism
What the heck is that? It sounds like some made up creatard bullsit.
3. Failure of homology... Homologous outcomes by non homologous genes
Nope, that claim of yours has been shown to be wrong too.
4. Failure of Lamarckism
What? Are you telling jokes now? That is in support of Darwinian evolution. You just shot yourself in the foot with this claim.
5. Failed Miller Urey experiment
Wrong again. The Miller/Urey experiment was highly successful. How do you thik it failed?
6. Failure to propose a plausible theory of abiogenesis
Double fail on your part. First abiognesis in not evolution. Second abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage, that means they are working on it. They have been making regular progress and are nowhere near failure.
7. Failed fossil record... No proven transitional species in hundreds of millions of fossils spanning a
Supposed geological time period of over 500 million years.
What? There are countless transitional forms. Don't you know it is against your own rules to lie?
8. Failure to propose a genetic mechanism of addition of information.
Now I know you are an idiot. That has been shown countless times over too.
9. Failure to logically defend the innumerable challenges of irreducible complexity.
Totally wrong. It is the other way around. No charge of irreducible complexity has ever held up under investigation.

You are 0 for 9 their How's That for Stupid.

Care to try again?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122882 Mar 10, 2013
HTS, you failed to find one failed prediction of the theory of evolution. In fact some of your errors were roll on the floor funny.

Why don't you pick out the very best one and we will debunk it fully.

Of course if we debunk your very best one that indicates rather strongly that you are wrong in all of your other claims too.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#122883 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
....
4. Failure of Lamarckism
......
WTF!!!!

You ARE kidding when you quote this as evidence against ToE surely?

If not it demonstrates that you don't have the first clue about the subject you are arguing against.

Ohh.. Sorry got it now - my bad
HTS

Mandan, ND

#122884 Mar 10, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF!!!!
You ARE kidding when you quote this as evidence against ToE surely?
If not it demonstrates that you don't have the first clue about the subject you are arguing against.
Ohh.. Sorry got it now - my bad
Have you read Origin of Species?
Darwin repeatedly reference Lamarckism and how it must have been operational in the acquisition of instinctive behaviors. He relied on false mechanisms of inheritance.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122885 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read Origin of Species?
Darwin repeatedly reference Lamarckism and how it must have been operational in the acquisition of instinctive behaviors. He relied on false mechanisms of inheritance.
Please, provide some links that demonstrate this.

I call bullshit.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#122886 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your chariot wheel is that its consistent with anybody living in that region in that time with chariots, and a wheel getting submerged for just about any reason at all. Maybe a boat carrying a chariot sank.
The ToE with common ancestry predicts nested hierarchies because they are the ONLY possible outcome of the ToE with common ancestry. They are embedded in the core logic of evolution, unavoidably, and were from the outset. You will just have to think it through to see it for yourself.
And for the 437th time, it has nothing to do with atheism!
It's laughable how you rationalize observations in favor of your worldview.
Chariot wheels admixed with bones of horses and humans, strewn over 11 miles of ocean floor at the historic site of the crossing.... And you explain it away that they fell of an ancient ship? And you have the gall to assert that there is no evidence for the Bible?

Evolution does not predict nested hierarchies. That is propaganda that's been thrown at you from talkorigins.
If birds evolved from reptiles, one would expect to see transitions between scales and feathers in multiple living species.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122887 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Actual predictions of ToE have invariably FAILED.

This is a lie.
I have DEMONSTRATED that this is a lie.
Others have demonstrated that this is a lie.
Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Are you too stupid to learn?
Do you refuse to learn?
Do you simply like lying?
Do you think we all had strokes and will suddenly forget the truth?

Why then?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Nested hierarchies is not a "prediction"...

False

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/CDhie...


Add the above to the list of things you have said and we have refuted outright.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122888 Mar 10, 2013
Hmm, I must make a minor correction. Darwin believed some aspects of LaMarckism but it was not central to his theory. And even today LaMarckism is not totally dead. As we go through life the environment we are in can turn certain genes "on" or "off". Though that is not a change in the genome those changes in activations of genes can be passed on for several generations. That is one reason that people with chemical dependencies might have children that also have a tendency to develop chemical dependencies.

Those are not evolutionary changes since if the environment changes the genes go back to their previous state in several generations.

Darwin was never thought to be perfect. He of course was working under limitations since genetics had not been developed as a science at that time. But with the limited knowledge of the time he still did some amazing work.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#122889 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable how you rationalize observations in favor of your worldview.
Chariot wheels admixed with bones of horses and humans, strewn over 11 miles of ocean floor at the historic site of the crossing.... And you explain it away that they fell of an ancient ship? And you have the gall to assert that there is no evidence for the Bible?
Evolution does not predict nested hierarchies. That is propaganda that's been thrown at you from talkorigins.
If birds evolved from reptiles, one would expect to see transitions between scales and feathers in multiple living species.
I must have missed the link of chariot wheels and horse's bones.

I did see one photograph submitted by MikeF that showed a round coral growth. It might have been growing around an old chariot wheel, or it could be just a circular growth.

Show us the evidence.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#122890 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

HTS said "Failure of paradigm of genetic determinism"

What the heck is that? It sounds like some made up creatard bullsit.
<quoted text>
?
?
SZ, your philosophy dictates that anything that is not addressed on talkorigins must by definition be false.

Genetic determinism has crashed with the completion of the human genome project.

   The results of the 13-year research consortium, completed in 2003, were disappointing to those who had staked their careers on the evolutionary predictions of genetic determinism. Dr. Craig Venter, the chief gene sequencer of the project, announced, "We simply do not have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to be right."* Based largely on evolutionary presuppositions, researchers had been expecting as many as 140,000 genes to be discovered.* The results of the project indicated that around 30,000 genes in the human genome exist.*

*"Human Genome Map Spells Death of Genetic Determinism", Isis News (UK), Edited by Mae Wan Ho,, No.7, February 8, 2001

*Redford, Tim, " Gene code opens new fields of medicine", The Guardian, February 12, 2001

   In other words, the doctrine of genetic determinism, a belief that behaviors such as rape, homosexuality, and criminality are genetically based, was founded on conclusions drawn from evolutionary theory. When the human genome was mapped and functionality studied by hundreds of scientists, those predictions were concluded to be false. This means that DNA does not determine many of the traits that man possesses. The doctrine of materialism predicted that all of man could be defined by DNA, accompanied by the philosophical assumption that no spiritual dimension of man exists. A massive study of the human genome has lead to the conclusion that man is more than DNA, contradicting a fundamental tenet of Darwinism.
Entire fields of study that are appendages to Darwinism have been seriously undermined by these findings. For example, evolutionary psychology, which constructs theories regarding human intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, and deviant behaviors has relied heavily on the false evolutionary assumption of genetic determinism.
The collapse of genetic determinism and the junk DNA paradigm has compounded the problem of explaining the evolution of DNA. Geneticists are realizing that the human genome isn't large enough to account for all human traits, while evolutionists are insisting that large portions of DNA are nonfunctional. If human characteristics cannot be reduced to DNA or any other measurable materialistic explanation, then the possibility of the existence of a spiritual dimension seems to be a logical conclusion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122891 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read Origin of Species?
Darwin repeatedly reference Lamarckism and how it must have been operational in the acquisition of instinctive behaviors. He relied on false mechanisms of inheritance.
Yes, I have, and you are talking rubbish. Darwin specifically rejected acquired characteristics in favour of natural selection by inheritance.

And the nested hierarchy is the only way that Darwinian evolution with common ancestry COULD work. Too bad, you obviously do not understand the nested hierarchy either.

I strongly suspect that you have not read Origin of the Species, or if you did it was so long ago that the substance of it is buried under the pile of junk science you have been over-consuming ever since.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#122892 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable how you rationalize observations in favor of your worldview.
Chariot wheels admixed with bones of horses and humans, strewn over 11 miles of ocean floor at the historic site of the crossing.... And you explain it away that they fell of an ancient ship? And you have the gall to assert that there is no evidence for the Bible?
Your claims keep inflating. All you have shown us is a photo of what might be a chariot wheel...oh wait that was Mike.

And yes, evolution predicts nested hierarchies. Pity if you cannot understand the logic. Its the only pattern that branching descent with common ancestry can produce.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122893 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Failed junk DNA debacle

Non coding DNA has been verified. See ENCODE project early results.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 2. Failed paradigm of genetic determinism

Are you making this up as you go?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 3. Failure of homology... Homologous outcomes by non homologous genes

You are confusing homology with Parallel evolution. Homology only makes this easier, it does not eliminate the possibility.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 4. Failure of Lamarckism

The failure of Lamarckism is WHY Darwin developed his theory.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 5. Failed Miller Urey experiment

???? This is one of the most successful experiments in the history of science. Any comprehensive book on science history includes this experiment.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/t...

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 6. Failure to propose a plausible theory of abiogenesis

Wrong field. This was to be about evolution, not chemistry.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 7. Failed fossil record... No proven transitional species in hundreds of millions of fossils spanning a
Supposed geological time period of over 500 million years.

Refuted many times. Now an outright lie. The bible commands you not to lie and there you go anyway.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 8. Failure to propose a genetic mechanism of addition of information.

google "mechansims of evolution"

Transpons, polyploidy,....

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 9. Failure to logically defend the innumerable challenges of irreducible complexity.

LOL. Funny.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122894 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are 0 for 9 their How's That for Stupid.
Care to try again?

Yep, that is the same score I got when I added up his total.

Frankly, if he were serious about defending creationism, I would expect him to try to find better objections than the long since refuted stuff. UC at least tries to do that.
LowellGuy

United States

#122895 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable how you rationalize observations in favor of your worldview.
Chariot wheels admixed with bones of horses and humans, strewn over 11 miles of ocean floor at the historic site of the crossing.... And you explain it away that they fell of an ancient ship? And you have the gall to assert that there is no evidence for the Bible?
Evolution does not predict nested hierarchies. That is propaganda that's been thrown at you from talkorigins.
If birds evolved from reptiles, one would expect to see transitions between scales and feathers in multiple living species.
I already posted the snopes article about that. Why did you ignore it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#122896 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you read Origin of Species?
Darwin repeatedly reference Lamarckism and how it must have been operational in the acquisition of instinctive behaviors. He relied on false mechanisms of inheritance.
Here is his entire chapter on instincts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapte...

Not one reference to lamarckism.

One reference to Lamarck

"The case, also, is very interesting, as it proves that with animals, as with plants, any amount of modification in structure can be effected by the accumulation of numerous, slight, and as we must call them accidental, variations, which are in any manner profitable, without exercise or habit having come into play. For no amount of exercise, or habit, or volition, in the utterly sterile members of a community could possibly have affected the structure or instincts of the fertile members, which alone leave descendants. I am surprised that no one has advanced this demonstrative case of neuter insects, against the well-known doctrine of Lamarck. "

So you are busted again. ssdd.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#122897 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, provide some links that demonstrate this.
I call bullshit.
Read Origin of Species. It's in there.
LowellGuy

United States

#122898 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable how you rationalize observations in favor of your worldview.
Chariot wheels admixed with bones of horses and humans, strewn over 11 miles of ocean floor at the historic site of the crossing.... And you explain it away that they fell of an ancient ship? And you have the gall to assert that there is no evidence for the Bible?
Evolution does not predict nested hierarchies. That is propaganda that's been thrown at you from talkorigins.
If birds evolved from reptiles, one would expect to see transitions between scales and feathers in multiple living species.
Feathers came before birds.

What is a bird? Define.

What is arhaeopteryx?

Also, nested hierarchies come straight from Darwin. I thought you said you read the book?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Into The Night 51,912
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min Regolith Based Li... 218,785
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 24,756
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Endofdays 157,534
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 20 hr scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... 20 hr scientia potentia... 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) Thu Dogen 1,137
More from around the web