Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123036 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't properly reference your quotes.
This is the internet, you can easily include a link.
Failure to do so is indicative that you are lying by quote mining. Since you have been caught doing this so many times you no longer can claim "innocent until proven guilty" which is a legal standard anyway. Since you have been shown to be guilty of quote mining so often you are "guilty until proven innocent".
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
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123037 Mar 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Bible teaches abiogenesis, except there a magic spell was used.
Are you claiming that you don't believe your own Bible now?
Evolutionists have been trying to explain abiogenesis for donkey's years

Joseph McCabe (1867-1955)

"One of the giants of not only English atheism, but world atheism, Joseph McCabe left a legacy of aggressive atheist and antireligious literature that remains fresh and insightful today. His many works– he wrote nearly 250 books–could constitute a library of atheism by themselves."

He wrote in 1912

1912-----> One hundred and one years ago

The question of the origin of life I will dismiss with a brief account of the various speculations of recent students of science. Broadly speaking, their views fall into three classes. Some think that the germs of life may have come to the earth from some other body in the universe; some think that life was evolved out of non-living matter in the early ages of the earth, under exceptional conditions which we do not at present know, or can only dimly conjecture; and some think that life is being evolved from non-life in nature to-day, and always has been so evolving. The majority of scientific men merely assume that the earliest living things were no exception to the general process of evolution, but think that we have too little positive knowledge to speculate profitably on the manner of their origin.

The first view, that the germs of life may have come to this planet on a meteoric visitor from some other world, as a storm-driven bird may take its parasites to some distant island, is not without adherents to-day. It was put forward long ago by Lord Kelvin and others; it has been revived by the distinguished Swede, Professor Svante Arrhenius. The scientific objection to it is that the more intense (ultra-violet) rays of the sun would frill such germs as they pass through space. But a broader objection, and one that may dispense us from dwelling on it, is that we gain nothing by throwing our problems upon another planet. We have no ground for supposing that the earth is less capable of evolving life than other planets.

Other students suggest other combinations of carbon-compounds and water in the early days. Some suggest that electric action was probably far more intense in those ages; others think that quantities of radium may have been left at the surface. But the most important of these speculations on the origin of life in early times, and one that has the merit of not assuming any essentially different conditions then than we find now, is contained in a recent pronouncement of one of the greatest organic chemists in Europe, Professor Armstrong. He says that such great progress has been made in his science — the science of the chemical processes in living things — that “their cryptic character seems to have disappeared almost suddenly.” On the strength of this new knowledge of living matter, he ventures to say that “a series of lucky accidents” could account for the first formation of living things out of non-living matter in Archaean times. Indeed, he goes further. He names certain inorganic substances, and says that the blowing of these into pools by the wind on the primitive planet would set afoot chemical combinations which would issue in the production of living matter.

[* See his address in Nature, vol. 76, p. 651. For other speculations see Verworn's "General Physiology," Butler Burke's "Origin of Life" (1906), and Dr. Bastian's "Origin of Life" (1911).]

CONT in next post
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123038 Mar 10, 2013
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
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123039 Mar 10, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
When did this "fallen creation" occur? We have examples of parasites, famine,... even cancer from millions of years back in the fossil record.
Long before humans came on the scene.
Can you point to a verse in the bible that defines the fall?
Where does it say that he will
"The concept for the fall of man is extrapolated from Christian exegesis of Genesis 3"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man
So where does it say God will make humans and animals have disease, virus, pests, cancer, genetic disorders,.......
He basically said they have to work for a living, have babies and deal with the real world.
You SURE that isn't a metaphor for something?
REALLY?
That is why corruption occurred AFTER the sin of Adam aka The Fall

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.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min deutscher Nationa... 134,835
How would creationists explain... 1 hr Chimney1 451
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 1 hr Chimney1 13,644
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 1 hr Al the Scot 1,000
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 18 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 18 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 21 hr spiderlover 77
More from around the web