Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178696 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

#123040 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing or not knowing are irrelevant to SZ
He earned the title Marshmallow Terminator for good reason
Rusty admits that he is a marshmallow.

That's interesting.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123041 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, they didn't.
There was one article in a popular magazine where an artist, not a scientist, drew an illustration of what he thought Nebraska Man would have looked like.
Please when you tell a lie try to make it seem at least plausible.
And again by your "logic" Christianity is debunked since it has had fakes, frauds and mistakes thousands of times more and worse than any evolution has had.
At least when we make fun of your fraudulent beliefs we don't have to lie.
How can a scientist confuse a pig tooth with the ancestor of humans?

That is unforgiveable

They even depicted Nebby's wife.....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123042 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Touche
But meaningless to SZ
Don't make him do any work
He's just not used to that
No tushy for you.

I get tired of proving that liars have lied when I have proved it many times over.

HST knew he was lying. You know he was lying. I don't think he is fooling anyone with his lies.

Let me see..

Has anyone been taken in by any of e How's Thar for Stupid's lies?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123043 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, your philosophy dictates that anything that is not addressed on talkorigins must by definition be false.
You've nailed it HTS

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123044 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub Dud
You will scream "quote mine" regardless of whether a reference is linked or posted
-- IF the content disturbs your evo-tardism in any way
Really?

Show one time that HST pulled that garbage where he was not lying by quote mining.

I am getting tired of smacking creatards around. It is fun, but it does not accomplish much.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123045 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How can a scientist confuse a pig tooth with the ancestor of humans?
That is unforgiveable
They even depicted Nebby's wife.....
I don't know. I am not an expert in teeth and neither are you.

Here is an image of the "Nebraska Man" tooth along with some other teeth. Please note that part of the root is missing making the identification more difficult.

And you are still making much ado about nothing. If we apply this sort of "logic" to Christianity it is totally debunked. Is that the sort of reasoning that you want to use?

It was never widely accepted. It was the claim of one mistaken scientist. Continued study showed that it was wrong.

If some idiot uses Christianity for fraudulent means does that mean all Christianity is fraudulent? That is what you are claiming for evolution.

Try to be consistent with your logic for once Rusty.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123046 Mar 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there were.
If you look at Homo erectus, there is NO forehead apparent and the brow-ridges form a virtually horizontal aspect with the top of the head.
If you look at Rudophensis or Heidelburgensis, there is a heavily sloping forehead.
If you look at archaic sapiens, there is still a very sloping forehead but far more vertical.
And modern foreheads range from slightly sloping to very vertical, with or without visible brow ridges.
Looking at your horse examples, we see over the period from Eohippus to intermediate forms, a gradual reduction in the peripheral toes and the dominance of one...though even in modern horses an extra vestigial toe sometimes appears.
Now why don't you stop cutting and pasting stupid claims from every creotard site you can find, and actually take a look at the evidence? Oh, I forgot, you do not care about the truth, ever. You only care about taking down know-it-all scientists, lawyers, doctors, teachers...or just about anyone better educated than you are.
Education has nothing to do with it
A 4 year old child when presented with the "facts" about evolution could tell its phony nonsense

Sloping forhead...
Visible brow ridges...

Do you mean like this?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images...

Or this

http://t0.gstatic.com/images...

Here's the best reconstruction of our ancestor for comparison

http://t2.gstatic.com/images...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123047 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
PART 2---> How not much in the world of abiogenesis has changed in 101 years
McCabe quote made in 1912:
It is evident that the popular notion that scientific men have declared that life cannot be evolved from non-life is very far astray. This blunder is usually due to a misunderstanding of the dogmatic statement which one often reads in scientific works that “every living thing comes from a living thing.” This principle has no reference to remote ages, when the conditions may have been different. It means that to-day, within our experience, the living thing is always born of a living parent. However, even this is questioned by some scientific men of eminence, and we come to the third view.
Professor Nageli, a distinguished botanist, and Professor Haeckel, maintain that our experience, as well as the range of our microscopes, is too limited to justify the current axiom. They believe that life may be evolving constantly from inorganic matter. Professor J. A. Thomson also warns us that our experience is very limited, and, for all we know, protoplasm may be forming naturally in our own time. Mr. Butler Burke has, under the action of radium, caused the birth of certain minute specks which strangely imitate the behaviour of bacteria. Dr. Bastian has maintained for years that he has produced living things from non-living matter. In his latest experiments, described in the book quoted, purely inorganic matter is used, and it is previously subjected, in hermetically sealed tubes, to a heat greater than what has been found necessary to kill any germs whatever.
Evidently the problem of the origin of life is not hopeless, but our knowledge of the nature of living matter is still so imperfect that we may leave detailed speculation on its origin to a future generation. Organic chemistry is making such strides that the day may not be far distant when living matter will be made by the chemist, and the secret of its origin revealed. For the present we must be content to choose the more plausible of the best-informed speculations on the subject."
----------
NOTHING'S CHANGED
Wrong. I have provided links and videos in the past. Do you need them again?

Do you like people to point out that you are a total idiot Rusty?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123048 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You've nailed it HTS
No, TalkOrigins just happens to be a VERY useful and reliable source. It debunks practically every creatard claim there is with references to peer reviewed science. Something that no creatard source can do. It is as useful when arguing against creatards as Clavius.org is when arguing against Lunar Landing Conspiracy Nuts:

http://www.clavius.org/

If someone else has already done all of the work, and done it very very well why not use it?

I see you retards going again and again to the same idiotic creatard sites that openly admit they do not use the scientific method.

It is fine to openly say that you will defend a particular viewpoint. To do so and proclaim that you will ignore science is pathetic. Your sites do that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123049 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Education has nothing to do with it
A 4 year old child when presented with the "facts" about evolution could tell its phony nonsense
Sloping forhead...
Visible brow ridges...
Do you mean like this?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images...
Or this
http://t0.gstatic.com/images...
Here's the best reconstruction of our ancestor for comparison
http://t2.gstatic.com/images...
Rusty's family portraits. The last one is Rusty coming in from a weekend in the Outback.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123050 Mar 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
Darwin did not believe that the ToE "predicted" nested hierarchies.
In Origin of Species, he wrote,
"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?*
*Origin of Species, pg. 143
He then tried to explain away how the paradigm of evolution could be reconciled with what is observed. That is not a scientific prediction.
If you think the above is in disagreement with the nested hierarchy, then you do not understand the nested hierarchy.

At base its pretty damned simple. When a species is split, eg. through geographical isolation, the two populations will gradually diverge until "sub species" and finally species appear. This is the point at which they have diverged to the degree than interbreeding cannot occur. Darwin spends a great deal of space in his book discussing this along with hybridization and establishing where its possible limits are, etc.

Now, when such a split has occurred, you have a fork in the road - one element of the nested hierarchy. If it happens again to one of the original sub-branches, you have another branch. The whole of life, according to evolution, consists of those branches tracing back ultimately to a common ancestor.

By this process, the ONLY POSSIBLE pattern we will see is a nested hierarchy.

And the only life we have seen which may have violated this pattern includes bacteria (plasmid horizontal gene transfer) and the formation of eukaryotes by the direct absorption of previously independent bacterial organelles, a different process than classic evolution by variation arising within a species.

In complex life, though, the nested hierarchy rules as firmly as ever. It is a CORE prediction of evolutionary theory. Unlike your straw men such as "genetic determinism", "junk DNA", which are NOT core predictions of evolution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123051 Mar 10, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Education has nothing to do with it
A 4 year old child when presented with the "facts" about evolution could tell its phony nonsense
Sloping forhead...
Visible brow ridges...
Do you mean like this?
http://t2.gstatic.com/images...
Or this
http://t0.gstatic.com/images...
Here's the best reconstruction of our ancestor for comparison
http://t2.gstatic.com/images...
Jimbo asked me for a series of gradations and I gave it to him, not ignoring the fact that there is still a great deal of variation today in the angles of slope. However, you are ignoring the point.

The slope (actually, the virtually horizontal aspect) of the Homo erectus profile with the brow ridges dominating is WAY out of whack with any conceivable structure that could pass for human today. If you saw it you would think birth deformity - which is how some of you creationists try to pass off specimens like H erectus. Might have worked if we had only found ONE of them...but we have found many in the range 1.5mya - 300kya , and NO modern humans during that time (although some archaic sapiens in the later half of the erectus period).

Since then we see a gradual increase in the forebrain and verticalisation of the slope, increasing with every step towards the modern. This does not mean everyone today should have the same slope, it means that the norm is more vertical than it was AND the slope has increased by the "small gradations" as Jim demanded.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123052 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
PART 2---> How not much in the world of abiogenesis has changed in 101 years
McCabe quote made in 1912:
....Professor Nageli, a distinguished botanist, and Professor Haeckel, maintain that our experience, as well as the range of our microscopes, is too limited to justify the current axiom. They believe that life may be evolving constantly from inorganic matter....
Evidently the problem of the origin of life is not hopeless, but our knowledge of the nature of living matter is still so imperfect that we may leave detailed speculation on its origin to a future generation....
----------
NOTHING'S CHANGED
A lot has changed.

Nobody is today suggesting that life emerges spontaneously every five minutes. Scientists are looking for the conditions wherein life or the components of life might arise naturally, and they have made good progress, but they accept that the conditions are not likely to be found in the world today.

However, to remind you yet again, evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. They could verifiably disprove natural abiogenesis TOMORROW and the evidence for evolution and an old earth would STILL be overwhelming an thoroughly compelling. Do you really think that disproof of natural abiogenesis would give ANY credence at all to your collection of fairy tales?

Why can't you understand this?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123053 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How can a scientist confuse a pig tooth with the ancestor of humans?
That is unforgiveable
They even depicted Nebby's wife.....
Give it up. One claim from the 1920's, never accepted into the mainstream. Like the trivial inappropriate hand on a wax museum model.

Your feeble attempts to bring evolutionary science down to the level of craven dishonesty exhibited daily by creationist liars is merely the perfect way to contrast the two approaches.

Evolution takes the moral high ground because it has found and revealed errors and fraud. The scientists themselves challenge every claim made, putting it through the wringer of evidential and critical analysis...and that process never ends, even for old finds. Science is geared to produce truth, albeit imperfectly and with some errors remaining for some years, but still it works.

You cannot do that, because of your dogmatic "bible is true coz it sez its true" approach puts blinkers on your rational mind and forces you to lie when reality fails to match your expectations.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123054 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Examples of the "ostrich defense" employed by evo-tards...
1. Abiogenesis... It is irrelevant to ToE
2. Non existence of Oort Cloud... It is irrelevant to ToE
3. Convergence... It is actually "predicted" by the ToE
4. Chariot wheels in the Red Sea... They must have fallen off an ancient ship.
5. Failed ERV paradigm... A useless inserted sequence of DNA must have enabled the parasitized host to survive.
6. Failure of homology... Let's re-define terminology, so that any homologous outcomes created by non homologous genes is "parallel evolution"
7. Probability... Let's just ignore math entirely.
8. Irreducible complexity... Evolutiondidit with pixie dust
9. Genetic entropy.... Sanford is a creatard
10. Any challenge to evolution... "Argument from incredulity", ie, The infidels need to accept our religion on faith.
Here is a more accurate rendering:

1. Abiogenesis... It is irrelevant to ToE correct

2. Non existence of Oort Cloud.. how do you know its nonexistent?

3. Convergence... It is actually "predicted" by the ToE. Correct, by Darwin right from the outset. You said you read Origin...another lie?

4. Chariot wheels in the Red Sea... They must have fallen off an ancient ship. More generally, there are perfectly ordnary explanations without invoking GODDIDIT and there is ancient flotsam on the sea bed all over this region.

5. Failed ERV paradigm... A useless inserted sequence of DNA must have enabled the parasitized host to survive. False characterisation. 99% of ERV's appear to be utterly useless to the host. Finding one or two that have become entwined in useful function does not render the whole "ERV paradigm" invalid.

6. Failure of homology... Let's re-define terminology, so that any homologous outcomes created by non homologous genes is "parallel evolution" merely the convergence argument restated, i.e. already dealt with since Darwin.

7. Probability... Let's just ignore math entirely. We don't. You do. There is no way to apply probability to a system with non-random selection in the way that creationists try to. On the other hand, the existence of the nested hierarchy IS a death blow to arguments against common ancestry because its appearance in any other was WOULD be purely random.

8. Irreducible complexity... IC is an argument that fails from the first principles, as you have no way of knowing and limiting the possible evolutionary pathways to a particular state even in principle.

9. Genetic entropy.... Sanford is a creatard. Nope. Sanford has been refuted, argument by argument, and finally by experimental evidence that shows populations can recover fitness in way that would be ruled out if Sanford's hypothesis was correct.

10. Any challenge to evolution... "Argument from incredulity". The argument from incredulity merely states that just because YOU cannot right now think of how X or Y evolved, does not constitute evidence that it didn't.

So HTS, are you going to keep twisting and distorting what we have said, or will you at least make an effort to be honest? You are not doing yourself any favours with this nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123055 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what science is.
You're saying... Long life comets exists...therefore an Oort Cloud exists.
You've already assumed that your atheistic religion is correct.
Now that your atheistic religion is crashing, you point to comets as proof of an Oort Cloud.
The non existence of an Oort Cloud demolishes your religion. Deal with it...
Another distortion. Here it is, corrected:

There are comets, and they do not last millions of years. Granted.

This means either the universe is young

OR

There is a natural source for fresh comets to arise from at times.

Does the existence of an Oort Cloud fit within the known paradigms of gravity and solar system development as we understand them? Why YES! So its not even an extraordinary claim. It's merely a prediction: given the model of stellar development and gravity that we have, the existence of comets today provide the basis of a PREDICTION that an Oort Cloud should exist. By and by, that prediction will be confirmed or falsified.

In the meantime, comets have a plausible source within the current paradigm, so they are certainly not "proof" that the universe is young.
russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123056 Mar 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolutionists" DO admit it. If you ask a scientist about the ultimate origins of the universe, or multiverse, he will say we do not know, if you take the question back far enough.
Ask a religious person like you, and you will insist that you DO know and the answer is GOD. Yet that answers nothing.
Well, news flash. Nobody knows.
PS Nebraska man is such a joke - on you. It was not taken seriously by paleontologists even at the time...I had never HEARD of Nebraska Man until creatards started warbling about it. And Piltdown was discredited by evolutionists. And it was a century ago. Keep holding onto it though, its all you have in your mental blinkering against the overwhelming evidence of intermediate ape/hominid remains. That is the ONLY REASON you keep ranting about finds discredited before your grandaddy was born.
Incredible desperation. You have nothing.
Nope
The desperation lies firmly on the evolutionist side

This Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten of anthropology has a lot of explaining to do

He had poor foolish evo-tards duped for 30 years....

He dated a 240 year old skull as 27,400

The skull when examined was actually still stinking

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago,"
Another of the professor's sensational finds, "Binshof-Speyer" woman, lived in 1,300 BC and not 21,300 years ago, as he had claimed, while "Paderborn-Sande man" (dated at 27,400 BC) only died a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750.
"It's deeply embarrassing. Of course the university feels very bad about this," Professor Ulrich Brandt, who led the investigation into Prof Protsch's activities, said yesterday. "Prof Protsch refused to meet us. But we had 10 sittings with 12 witnesses.
---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/19...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/eur...

----------

Are you going to defend this chap with support for his shellac claims?

It would not surprise me at all

Its the usual evo-desperation

Defending the indefensible
----------

And....wait...

What have we here:

Benítez-Bribiesca L, Modiano-Esquenazi M. Ethics of scientific publication after the human stem cell scandal. Arch Med Res. 2006 May;37(4):423-4. PubMed
PMID: 16624638.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-d...

Another failure for peer review

Don't believe everything you read Chimney

Jump ship now

----------
Incidentally

As regards Piltdown man

It took from 1912 to 1954 to discredit this hoax

This is despite Franz Weldenreich declaring that the jaw was not human in 1923

Worst of all

Piltdown man was cited as evidence by Clarence Darrow in the fake Scopes trial in 1925

Shame...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123057 Mar 11, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If the fossil record supported ToE "100%", what prompted Gould and Eldridge to come up with PE?
Let's see some intellectual honesty.
Chuck would be more embarrassed today by the fossil record than he was in 1859, because he relied on the apparent imperfections of the fossil record to prop up ToE.
Darwin also came up with PE from the start - positing variable rates of change depending on the stability of the environment.

Really, you know very little about the book you claim to have read.

Gould merely re-emphasised the original point, adding a bit of self promotional flair to the effort, and recasting the concept according to what is now known about genetics, continental drift, and catastrophic events that have affected the Earth.(All known sources of environmental instability providing grounds for accelerated change in populations)

Lets see some intellectual honesty from you for a change.
russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123058 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Rusty's family portraits. The last one is Rusty coming in from a weekend in the Outback.
You're not far off the mark

The Australian Outback is not for the faint hearted

I'm not even allowed in the house after I've been out bush until a hose down in the back yard

But

I'm pretty chisled and streamlined

And I don't wear furs....

....out...that is
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123059 Mar 11, 2013
Re-posting since....
Its so worth it...
And I was writing on an iPad and got the quote marks wrong...
----------
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its fine to be a Christian. If you can grant the obvious fact that most of what you know about Christ was written generations after His departure and you actually have no way of knowing what He believed about everything, or even that just because He said something, it was right.
AND what was written several hundreds of years before He was born
The Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity
With embarrassingly large amounts of irrefutable evidence from textual criticism, passing both internal and external reliabilty tests, archaeology and other parallel historical accounts
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people are Christians because they believe the general moral message He is purported to have offered is a good one. The same is true of all Buddhists, by the way, although they of course did not make the mistake of deifying their bringer of enlightenment.
God is about relationship
Do you believe in your mother because of her "general moral message" or because you have experience of her, her real-ness, her extraordinary love?
Such is the reality of relationship with God
Only thing is.....
He will not settle for a phone call every other weekend
He demands your ALL
Check out "When I survey the wondrous cross"
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder at your need to believe that one man on this earth was ever unconditionally right about everything.
And frankly elevating Jesus to the status of God is a violation of the monotheism you also supposedly uphold and no amount of "mystery" can absolve you of this simple logical fact. Jesus cannot be both God and the "son of God" except in the sense that all humans are the children of God, if one believes in God. That is why the Jews rejected your Cult and the Muslims saw the need to correct it, putting Jesus in his rightful place as a "prophet".
Jesus is the second Adam
Even Adam is referred to as 'son of God'
Jesus claimed to be God
Hence His execution.......which had to occur
Have you read C S Lewis? You should
Another worthwhile text is Josh McDowall's "Evidence that demands a verdict"
No correction WHAT SO EVER is required of the Bible
------I am on an iPad and it's pure misery trying to type with two fingers---but I have taken up my cross.....
You have to appreciate that even Eve understood that the Saviour was to come from her
She said at the birth of Cain..."I have brought forth a man, the Lord"
Her theology was correct......but timing was wrong
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I just go one step further. If there is a God, his creation is not described in fallible books and myths of humans, whether Bible or Torah or Quran, but revealed in the physical universe He created. When you read the book of nature, its clear that this universe is billions of years old and life evolved, no matter what primitive human societies believed before us.
No
You're wrong
You can not put Islam or Buddhism into the same sentence as Christianity
Jesus CLAIMED He is God
His tomb was empty
Creation is as Genesis has described
Like you, I wish we knew more....
The geological column is a necessity for biological evolution to be true
The 'old age' of the universe is quite easily the greatest hoax ever to be perpetuated by man

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 Intelligent design 19 min FREE SERVANT 23
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Chimney1 173,669
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr DanFromSmithville 143,921
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sun Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Sun Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Sun Paul Porter1 421
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Sun Paul Porter1 56
More from around the web