Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 173,718

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
One way or another

United States

#123683 Mar 15, 2013
People that use ad homonym show their desperation. The lancet proves such.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#123684 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What did Tiktaalik's reproductive system look like?
Tell me about Tiktaalik's integumentary.system.
If you can't answer these questions, you can't assume transitional status.
By your logic, we shouldn't be able to tell which skull is human and which is elephant, nor determine anything about what the rest of the body would look like, nor diet, nor anything else. Have you met marksman11?
Dong

Kent, WA

#123685 Mar 15, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying mudskippers are impossible. That's rather odd to say, since they do actually exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper

Kitten,

I hope someday you have sex with a man, at least just to try it. It would be interesting to see if you liked it or not.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123686 Mar 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
As I recall, Tiktaalik was just a fish, and it's fish fins could not possibly ever support the weight of its body on land because there is no skeletal support connecting the fins to the body. Just more wishful thinking by the evos.
Not so. That is mere wishful thinking by creatards.

Now it did not have fully functional legs like modern creatures do, but it still had much more than mere fins. That is why it is called a transitional species. Still a fish, but it has some of the characteristics of a tetrapod:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123687 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just being idiotic.
No one assumes transitional species, we observe it. If you want to dispute it you have to become an expert.
We all know that you are an idiot HST, you don't have to shout it in capital letter with each and every post that you make.
Take a lessson from the coelacanth...
Yet another embarrassing failed prediction of Darwinism.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123688 Mar 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you slip fact right out of your argument, perhaps it’s an issue of your deliberate ignorance
Please show any “genuine” documentation (not creation.com fabrication and BS) to show his drawings were produced to convince anyone that early embryos looked virtually identical
As it happens mammalian embryos do tend to look similar. In general terms aquatic, even amphibian embryos have a marked similarity to mammalian embryos, the key word is similar.
Mouse embryo
http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/img/origina...
similar to a human embryo
http://matthew2262.files.wordpress.com/2012/0...
Note these are photographs, not sketches.
Please show where, on improving his knowledge the drawings were not edited, really, does this advancing information retrieval constitute fraud? Or are you just a hate filled liar who has found something to latch on to and is a little short of facts?
There is no one continuing to publish those drawings in relation to biology or evolutional education, the drawing are in older books, or hyped to hell on creationist websites. Where they are published in modern books it is to show the difference in understanding between early biological sciences and modern biological sciences
Just because you are unwilling to invest in modern education is no ones fault but your own, and of course it shows in you posts.
It's laughable to watch you try to defend a veritable quack in your desperate attempts to prop up your religion. If you were interested in science, you would plainly acknowledge the fraudulent nature of Haeckle's drawings. However, your quest for truth is superseded by your desire to defend your atheistic religion.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123689 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a lessson from the coelacanth...
Yet another embarrassing failed prediction of Darwinism.
How is the Coelacanth embarrassing?

Another embarrassingly idiotic post by HST.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#123690 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable to watch you try to defend a veritable quack in your desperate attempts to prop up your religion. If you were interested in science, you would plainly acknowledge the fraudulent nature of Haeckle's drawings. However, your quest for truth is superseded by your desire to defend your atheistic religion.
More creationist B.S. from an anti-science, anti-intellectual radical. Atheist follow no religion.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#123691 Mar 15, 2013
Dong wrote:
Kitten,
I hope someday you have sex with a man, at least just to try it. It would be interesting to see if you liked it or not.
How do YOU like sex with men? Pitcher or Catcher?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123692 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How is the Coelacanth embarrassing?
Another embarrassingly idiotic post by HST.
Look at history instead of hiding your head in the sand.
The coelacanth was a classic transitional species... the poster child of organic evolution until 1938 when an actual specimen became available for dissection.
Now it's been relegated to a peripheral branch of the tree of life.
Unfortunately, paleontologists have not learned a lesson in humility and continue to make bold, unsubstantiated claims that they cannot prove. They keep searching in vain for transitional species, constantly lower their standards as to what constitutes "transitional".
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123693 Mar 15, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>More creationist B.S. from an anti-science, anti-intellectual radical. Atheist follow no religion.
I am "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" because I question politically correct dogma?

Your deceiving yourself if you think atheism is not a religion. You worship at the feet of intellectual elites.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123694 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. That is mere wishful thinking by creatards.
Now it did not have fully functional legs like modern creatures do, but it still had much more than mere fins. That is why it is called a transitional species. Still a fish, but it has some of the characteristics of a tetrapod:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news...
The coelacanth has more than "mere fins".
It is not transitional.
It lives 1,500 feet deep in the ocean and is not about to venture out onto land.
Learn a lesson in humility.
Your storytelling is not science.
Mugwump

London, UK

#123695 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a lessson from the coelacanth...
Yet another embarrassing failed prediction of Darwinism.
Want to explain why?

Oh and I suggest if you are going to use the term living fossil - you look up its meaning first

Oh and the term species and family and genus

Oh and compare the fossils with the living examples and look for differences

Then you good to go
Elohim

Branford, CT

#123696 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" because I question politically correct dogma?
Your deceiving yourself if you think atheism is not a religion. You worship at the feet of intellectual elites.
No, you keep repeating debunked creationist B.S. Atheists do not follow any religion. Keep repeating your refuted creationist B.S. I enjoy laughing at you.
Dong

Kent, WA

#123697 Mar 15, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>How do YOU like sex with men? Pitcher or Catcher?
As the catcher since Im female.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123698 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at history instead of hiding your head in the sand.
The coelacanth was a classic transitional species... the poster child of organic evolution until 1938 when an actual specimen became available for dissection.
Now it's been relegated to a peripheral branch of the tree of life.
Unfortunately, paleontologists have not learned a lesson in humility and continue to make bold, unsubstantiated claims that they cannot prove. They keep searching in vain for transitional species, constantly lower their standards as to what constitutes "transitional".
And it still is a transitional species.

Do you think that all transitional species die out? Or do you think that evolution has a goal? Neither one of those occur. There is no reason that transitional species have to go extinct. The odds are that they will go extinct since over 99% of all species that ever existed went extinct. Of course with millions of species some will not have gone extinct.

Once again HST you clearly have a very poor idea of what the Theory of Evolution says or how it works. That means you will continue to make absolutely idiotic mistakes when you attack it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123699 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The coelacanth has more than "mere fins".
It is not transitional.
It lives 1,500 feet deep in the ocean and is not about to venture out onto land.
Learn a lesson in humility.
Your storytelling is not science.
And you do not know what the word "transitional" means.

'Nuff said.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#123700 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And it still is a transitional species.
Do you think that all transitional species die out? Or do you think that evolution has a goal? Neither one of those occur. There is no reason that transitional species have to go extinct. The odds are that they will go extinct since over 99% of all species that ever existed went extinct. Of course with millions of species some will not have gone extinct.
Once again HST you clearly have a very poor idea of what the Theory of Evolution says or how it works. That means you will continue to make absolutely idiotic mistakes when you attack it.
Look on any evolutionary tree of life.
The coelacanth is not considered transitional by taxonomists.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123701 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Dishonesty?... Really? After all the hoaxes, lies and downright ignorance of scientific fact by the evolutionist you dare call others dishonest?... Whatever

Dishonesty?... Really? After all the hoaxes, lies and downright ignorance of scientific fact by the creationist you dare call others dishonest?... Whatever

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123702 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Fits and spurts huh?... More like pick and place... Devil's in the small print.. Lol...

Indeed. You should look at the small print on creation.com


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>Again, this looks like more lies to those outsiders who don't know you. Yes, evolution is predicated upon and demonstrated by the fossil record (among many other things).

Gould and Eldridge agree that evolution is seen in the fossil record, but the notion of 'gradualism' was not well supported. Evolution goes more by fits and spurts and that observation is the foundation of PE.

What Darwin said about the fossil record was true in Darwin's day.

He would be very gratified at today's fossil record.

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) 1 hr reporterreport 116,642
New review critical of "Origins" 9 hr DanFromSmithville 17
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 11 hr Dogen 514
Need clarification on evolution 12 hr DanFromSmithville 5
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 137,094
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Wed Kong_ 62
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Wed thewordofme 166
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••