Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
119,901 - 119,920 of 172,630 Comments Last updated 21 min ago

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

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123060 Mar 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, really, all you have is a collection of books written decades or more after the purported facts. Actually the earliest of these, Mark, is minimal on the miracles and "Jesus = God" angle, and we see these claims becoming progressively more grandiose as later books are added.
As for Genesis agreeing with science, its rubbish as soon as you get to specifics...and anyway I could retrofit just about any creation myth to science if I took your approach of ignoring the glaring discrepancies and merely citing the similarities. That is not Science, Russell, thats not even logical or objective thinking.
You are merely a case study in extreme cognitive bias.
Why don't you take a close look at the discrepancies between these decades-after-the-purported-fa ct accounts?
The geological column and relisation that the Earth could not be as young as the Bible claims, predated evolution by many decades. Claims by "Creation Scientists" that what we observe can be squeezed into <10,000 years are the biggest fraud perpetrated on a bunch of dumb Cultists ever recorded.
The best evidence for creation is the law of biogenesis

Preprogrammed design

And the young age of the universe

And the absense of transitionals or intermediates in the fossil record.....aka the Cambrian and Edicaran explosions

The absense of innovation by mutations

No life except from life
----------

http://creation.com/cherry-lewis-the-dating-g...

See also

•Brennecka, G. A., Weyer, S., Wadhwa, M., Janney, P.E., Zipfel, J., and Anbar, A.D.(2010) 238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating. Science, v. 327(5964), p. 449-451.

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Jan10/Curium-247.h...

Its a start....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123061 Mar 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Problems with the Oort Cloud--->

No observational support.11 Therefore it’s doubtful that the Oort Cloud should be considered a scientific theory. It is really an ad hoc device to explain away the existence of long-period comets, given the dogma of billions of years.

---Sagan, C. and Druyan, A., Comet, Michael Joseph, London, p. 175, 1985

--------

Collisions would have destroyed most comets: The classical Oort cloud is supposed to comprise comet nuclei left over from the evolutionary (nebular hypothesis) origin of the solar system, with a total mass of about 40 Earths.

But a newer study showed that collisions would have destroyed most of these, leaving a combined mass of comets equivalent to only about one Earth, or at most 3.5 Earths with some doubtful assumptions.

--Bailey, M.E., Where have all the comets gone? Science296(5576):2151–2153, 21 June 2002

---------

The ‘fading problem’: The models predict about 100 times more NICs than are actually observed. So evolutionary astronomers postulate an ‘arbitrary fading function’.

A recent proposal is that the comets must disrupt before we get a chance to see them.

--Levison, H.F. et al., The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296(5576):2212–2215, 21 June 2002

-----
"It seems desperate to propose an unobserved source to keep comets supplied for the alleged billions of years, then make excuses for why this hypothetical source doesn’t feed in comets nearly as fast as it should."

Sayeth Dr Sarfati, physical chemist and NZ chess champ...and creationist, of course

http://creation.com/comets-portents-of-doom-o...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123062 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
The best evidence for creation is the law of biogenesis
Preprogrammed design
And the young age of the universe
And the absense of transitionals or intermediates in the fossil record.....aka the Cambrian and Edicaran explosions
The absense of innovation by mutations
No life except from life
----------
http://creation.com/cherry-lewis-the-dating-g...
See also
•Brennecka, G. A., Weyer, S., Wadhwa, M., Janney, P.E., Zipfel, J., and Anbar, A.D.(2010) 238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating. Science, v. 327(5964), p. 449-451.
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Jan10/Curium-247.h...
Its a start....
Too bad for you that none of those exist.

There is no "law of abiogenesis"

There is no evidence for a young universe. In fact you have to deny all science since and including Isaac Newton to even begin to believe this. Are you in Jimbo's camp on this Rusty? He thinks that gravity is caused by "spin".

I have never even heard of "programmed design". I can assure you there is no scientific theory of it.

The Cambrian and other explosions do not deny the existence of transitional fossils. We have thousands of them. You are falling for a creatard lie if you believe that nonsense.

Rusty, come on. Try harder. This has all been debunked before.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123063 Mar 11, 2013
I know, it is too much of a challenge for Rusty or for any of the other creatards to find any scientific evidence to support their claims.

So since they in effect admit that they have lost the argument by using only creatard sites for their "science" I propose changing the methodology of the debate a bit.

First off we have won. Yes, I will use easier sources too, but I have on occasion when challenged gone to the actual peer reviewed articles to support my case. And as I said we know the creatards cannot do this. So I propose that we let them quote from their fallacious sources, but we must demand that they both link and quote what they think is the strongest evidence from that article.

Of course quote mining is still wrong. Any quote mining must be shouted down as lying.

Sorry, late at night and rambling a bit.

I only want to change the game a bit.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123064 Mar 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats funny, because chimps and gorillas do have hands strongly resembling humans.
The feet, well they are significantly different. But the consensus at the time was that Lucy had enough markers of bipedalism that putting humanish feet made more sense than apeish feet. Whats more, other afarensis remains corroborate a foot that is art least intermediate.
<quoted text>
Oh rubbish. Some museum curator makes a silly statement.
Creationists on the other hand have built entire Disney sized parks that are pure fantasy. Not even close. Its always a joke when you shameless liars try to present the few errors and frauds of science in the same light as your wholesale corruption of truth.
Your second picture is a reconstruction of two lines of evidence. A pair of quite human foorprints were found contemporaneous with the ONLY kinds of hominids that are known to have been in existence at the time. That's not lying, its just putting 2 and 2 together.
Putting 2 and 2 together and getting 1.97 million years

Its nonsense

‘Strictly on the basis of the morphology of the G prints [prints found at a site labelled ‘G’], their makers could be classified as Homo sp. because they are so similar to those of Homo sapiens, but their early date would probably deter many paleoanthropologists from accepting this assignment. I suspect that if the prints were undated, or if they had been given younger dates, most experts would probably accept them as having been made by Homo ….

‘If the prints were produced by a small species of Australopithecus then we must conclude that it had virtually human feet which … were used in a manner indistinguishable from those of slowly walking humans.… The feet that produced the G trails are in no discernible features transitional between the feet of apes … and those of Homo sapiens. They are like small barefoot Homo sapiens.’

---R. H. Tuttle,‘Kinesiological inferences and evolutionary implications from Laetoli bipedal trails G-1, G-2/3 and A’, Leakey and Harris, Ref. 1, Chapter 13.3, pp. 503—523.

And

"In sum, the 3.5 million year old foot print trails at Laetoli site G resembles those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are.

"If the G foot prints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus, Homo"

--Tuttle, R H, The pitted pattern of Laetoli Feet", Natural History, Mar 1990, Pg 64

----------

In terms of accepting the dates of human footprints

This fiasco tells a fine tale or evo-yarn spinning-->

40,000 year old date did not fit the evo-paradigm

Then 250,000 wasn't very nice either

Finally, 1.3 million years was too terrible to contemplate...

"If the features observed on the tuff are indeed footprints, their 1.3 Ma antiquity would be truly remarkable, predating by far any other evidence for human presence in the Americas and in fact predating the evolutionary emergence of Homo sapiens (in Africa) by more than 1 Ma. We conclude that the identification of these features as syn-depositional human footprints is likely erroneous. "

So, guess what?

The evo-story stays

The human foot prints are discarded......

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n70...

http://royalsociety.org/summer-science/2005/o...

http://alunsalt.com/2005/12/02/alleged-40000-...

Renne, P. R.; Feinberg, J. M.; Waters, M. R.; Cabrales, J. A.; Castillo, P. O.; Campa, M. P.; Knight, K. B., Age of the Xalnene Ash, Central Mexico and Archeological Implications, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #U42A-04, Dec 2005

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.U42A....

---
The evo-story stays....

The footprints go....

----------
I thought science was unbiased?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#123065 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Too bad for you that none of those exist.
There is no "law of abiogenesis".
It's BIOGENESIS.....

Its a law indeed....just look around you
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence for a young universe. In fact you have to deny all science since and including Isaac Newton to even begin to believe this.
How so?

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never even heard of "programmed design". I can assure you there is no scientific theory of it.
Its pure science

Unlike evo-story yarn spinning

Observable, testable, repeatable...
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The Cambrian and other explosions do not deny the existence of transitional fossils. We have thousands of them. You are falling for a creatard lie if you believe that nonsense.
Rusty, come on. Try harder. This has all been debunked before.
Show me the airtight cases....should be billions of them...

You have two major explosions

No transitionals

Plenty of soft bodied organisms as well

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#123066 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Another obvious lie by HST.
HST, why do you do these quote mines?
Especially after admitting that lying is wrong according to your rules. Quote mining is lying. We know that you are quote mining since you did not link the source.

You called it....quote mine.

Talk Origins:

<<begin cut/paste>>

It's actually on page 144, and here is the full quote and context, starting on the previous page:

<<begin of original quote>>


"And one might ask why such a distortion of the grosser patterns of the history of life has come about. For it truly seems to me that F. J. Taggart was right all along. The approach to the larger themes in the history of life taken by the modern synthesis continues the theme already painfully apparent to Taggart in 1925: a theory of gradual, progressive, adaptive change so thoroughly rules our minds and imaginations that we have somehow, collectively, turned away from some of the most basic patterns permeating the history of life.<p144> We have a theory that -- as punctuated equilibria tells us -- is out of phase with the actual patterns of events that typically occur as species' histories unfold. And that discrepancy seems enlarged by a considerable order of magnitude when we compare what we think the larger-scale events ought to look like with what we actually find. And it has been paleontologists -- my own breed -- who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom we owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns really look like.

"Yet on the other hand, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works in nature, but that we know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Ever since Darwin, as philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has occasionally played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has been bland, and **we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not.** And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about. We'll look at some of the larger patterns in the history of life in the next chapter -- along with the hypotheses currently offered as explanations. Throughout it all, adaptation shines through as an important theme; there is every reason to hang on to that baby as we toss out the bathwater. But before turning in depth to these themes, we need to take just one more, somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs."

<<end of original quote>>

So: Eldredge is agreeing that evolution occurs, and that adaptation via natural selection is real and important. He is saying that (as at 1985) paleontology needed to be more explicitly about the fact that evolution is not slow and steady, but rapid and static in turns. The snippet that is quoted is deliberately chosen to suggest that Eldredge is admitting some deep error in evolutionary biology; but what he is saying is that some biologists have overlooked some data they should factor in, and that we should not expect that evolution will be gradual.

<<end of cut/paste>>

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/p...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123067 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Problems with the Oort Cloud--->
No observational support.11 Therefore it’s doubtful that the Oort Cloud should be considered a scientific theory. It is really an ad hoc device to explain away the existence of long-period comets, given the dogma of billions of years.
---Sagan, C. and Druyan, A., Comet, Michael Joseph, London, p. 175, 1985
--------
Collisions would have destroyed most comets: The classical Oort cloud is supposed to comprise comet nuclei left over from the evolutionary (nebular hypothesis) origin of the solar system, with a total mass of about 40 Earths.
But a newer study showed that collisions would have destroyed most of these, leaving a combined mass of comets equivalent to only about one Earth, or at most 3.5 Earths with some doubtful assumptions.
--Bailey, M.E., Where have all the comets gone? Science296(5576):2151–2153, 21 June 2002
---------
The ‘fading problem’: The models predict about 100 times more NICs than are actually observed. So evolutionary astronomers postulate an ‘arbitrary fading function’.
A recent proposal is that the comets must disrupt before we get a chance to see them.
--Levison, H.F. et al., The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296(5576):2212–2215, 21 June 2002
-----
"It seems desperate to propose an unobserved source to keep comets supplied for the alleged billions of years, then make excuses for why this hypothetical source doesn’t feed in comets nearly as fast as it should."
Sayeth Dr Sarfati, physical chemist and NZ chess champ...and creationist, of course
http://creation.com/comets-portents-of-doom-o...
This post of yours has all sorts of inaccuracies and other dishonesty in it. Plus your link to your favorite creatard site also has some outright lies.

For example it mentions how as of 2003 that only 600 some Kuiper Belt objects had been discovered. What they did not say gives the lie to their claim. Finding objects in the Kuiper belt is very difficult and uses a new technology. There were only two Kuiper Belt objects discovered in 1993. That means in the next ten years over 600 were discovered. Now that number is more than doubled:

http://www.universetoday.com/97126/what-has-t...

It is true that the Oort cloud is still considered to be hypothetical in science. That means there is some evidence for it but not enough for scientists to be definitely sure about it.

We do have evidence for the Oort cloud. Long period comets follow courses that are consistent with the existence of the Oort cloud. By definition that is evidence for the Oort cloud.

Of course creatards would not recognize scientific evidence if it bit them on the ass.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123068 Mar 11, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
It's BIOGENESIS.....
Its a law indeed....just look around you
Nope, there is no such law. Who came up with it? What science books can it be found in?
I see nothing but mistakes, outright lies, and dependence upon debunked scientists there. Try finding what you think is the best evidence in that mess. I don't feel like debunking the whole thing. I will debunk your source even though both of us know that it is a worthless lying source.
<quoted text>
Its pure science
Unlike evo-story yarn spinning
Observable, testable, repeatable...
No, you don't get to call your made up crap "pure science". You have not shown how 'Programmed design" is science in any way. Where the theory of evolution meets all of your challenges.
<quoted text>
Show me the airtight cases....should be billions of them...
You have two major explosions
No transitionals
Plenty of soft bodied organisms as well


Nope, you cannot demand evidence until you understand evidence. Both you and How's That for Stupid will not take the basic course. We have linked examples of transitional fossils many times. The fact that you don't recognize them as transitional fossils is only evidence that you don't even know what a transitional fossil would look like.

Again, since life is evolving all of the time all fossils are "transitional". Lucy is an example of a transitional fossil in our heritage. Archeopteryx is an example of a transitional fossil in the dinosaur to bird evolution.

If you have the wrong idea of how evolution works you will have the wrong idea of what a transitional fossil is. You have a lot of learning ahead of you before you can demand anything at all.

As I said you have already been shown to be wrong many times over and we are doing you a favor of discussing anything in creatard.com .

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 MikeF 115,340
Science News (Sep '13) 39 min Ricky F 2,849
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 49 min Chimney1 346
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 51 min MikeF 350
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 136,419
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 9 hr DanFromSmithville 224
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••