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

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123710 Mar 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
That icon of evolution, the horse, and the series of images in textbooks and museums trying to depict the evolution of the horse from small to large, is now dead. ANother myth debunked. Throw out all the old textbooks, they're all wrong.(Again!)

Another lie.

Prove it or it is just another of your thousands of unsupported assertions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123711 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.

You have been reading too many creotard sites.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik3.html

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123712 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm not stupid enough to get any info from wiki which anyone can edit... And your wrong the Tiktaailk didn't have arms it had fins and they were not attached to the skeleton in any way...
You people will believe anything...
Man I should have sold used cars...

Chickenfeces.

No one ever said they had arms, dork.

Another straw-man creationist lie.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123713 Mar 15, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah there's a few of them on this thread...

Unable to deal with content you try to joke your way out of a corner.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123714 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.
What reasons do I have to accept your denials, lies and hatred on peer review when you are not even able to defend a 4000 years old un peer reviewed godbook of mythology and pseudo science that hypes the worlds biggest fraud and is incapable of peer review?
You are unwilling to even accept the existence of documented facts that I have shown you TWICE where evolutionary biology articles can most often (there are other sources) be found peer reviewed. You seem to be happy to lie in the face of fact by ignoring the evidence.
I am not defending the drawings, as I have already agreed they are inaccurate by today’s standards of hi resolution medical photography and 3D imaging, this is fact as shown by evolutionary scientists and modern technology/understanding, not as you claim by creatards. However for the standards of 140 years ago those drawings were acceptable. Time is the thing, the thing that creatards can never seem to get a handle on. 13.7 billion years, 4.5 billion years, 140 years, it all gets jumbled in the last 6000 years to them because facts screw up their objections
I have no tolerance for liars and the evidence shows categorically that there was no fraud. Therefore you are lying. Does lying for your belief make you hard? Does it give you an erection? Does it help you masturbate? These and deliberate ignorance are the only reasons to lie for you god.
You can always tell when a creatard is lying they always prefix there lies with either “clearly” or “obvious” meaning that they don’t actually have any evidence so need to rely on what is to them alone is clear and obvious faith.

In terms of "fraud" there is a lot of similarity between his work and the works of Schiaparelli, Burton and Percival Lowell in their sketches of the canals on Mars.

Telescope quality was still poor then by today's standards and the same goes for microscopes. And the worst those guys were accused of was being a bit too imaginative and not accounting for optical distortions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123715 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a lessson from the coelacanth...
Yet another embarrassing failed prediction of Darwinism.


Here is a list of Darwin's predictions.

Show me where a coelacanth is mentioned, please.



Failure to do so will confirm that you are a liar.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123716 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.

I have refuted this. You failed (for some strange reason) to even acknowledge I refuted this.

What are you afraid of? That you will have to find new material to tell lies about? Suck it up.

No one has made a successful case for Haeckle's drawings being fraudulent. If I am wrong then enlighten me.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123717 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How is the Coelacanth embarrassing?
Another embarrassingly idiotic post by HST.

He has no morals. Rusty at least makes some effort, on occasion, but HTS cannot stop himself from telling lies, even about things that are easy to verify.

Anyone who needs a god standing over them to behave correctly has not morals. That is just fear, not morality.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123718 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the guy who argues in outdated creationist cliches.
Says the guy who can't pick science out of a line-up.
Says the guy who will believe anything a creations site tells him.
Science is a culture of skepticism, not a culture of believing whatever you want to believe.
There is no skepticism in evolutionary biology.
The immutable doctrine is EVOLUTIONDIDIT.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123719 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me again why God created humans with an appendix which is no longer useful for its original purpose.
The stale "imperfections of nature" observation is a philosophical argument that has been repeatedly and soundly debunked. You only underscore the weakness of the evolution hypothesis by continually dredging it up.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123720 Mar 15, 2013
*** HTS CONFESSES MACROEVOLUTION!!!***
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.

Where are you getting these bedtime stories from? Coelacanth were never seriously considered to be a major transitional, at least not for very long.

Coelacanth is proof of evolution. NONE of the existing GENUS of Latimeria (modern Coelacanth) exist in the fossil record.

Coelacanth seems to have evolved from Macropoma or Macropomoides from the mid to late cretaceous. All of those species and families and ORDERS have died out. So, if you ADMIT that the modern coelacanth is related to the coelacanths in the fossil record you are confessing MACROEVOLUTION in a very large way.

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

So you have CONFESSED MACROEVOLUTION, but are denying that transitionals exist. Weird.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123721 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual" because I question politically correct dogma?

No, you are anti-sciece because you hate science and deny discoveries from every major field of science.

You are anti-intellectual because you are stupid.

I hope this clarifies the issue for you.
HTS

Williston, ND

#123722 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He has no morals. Rusty at least makes some effort, on occasion, but HTS cannot stop himself from telling lies, even about things that are easy to verify.
Anyone who needs a god standing over them to behave correctly has not morals. That is just fear, not morality.
It's interesting that rather than providing scientific arguments to refute what I post, your only retort is to call me a "liar".
You say I have no morals, yet you embrace a worldview that is totally devoid of morality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123723 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.

True
False
True (though most coelacanth in the fossil record lived in shallow waters).

The last two seem to result from projection on your part.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123724 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Look on any evolutionary tree of life.
The coelacanth is not considered transitional by taxonomists.

You really need to get more educated on this subject before speaking on it. At least rusty does not make as many silly mistakes as this.

coelacanth IS a transitional (except for the ones that went extinct without leaving a lineage).

It is not considered to be a MAJOR transitional.

Also, please learn the following words and their meaning in biology.

Species
Genus
Family
Order
Transitional
Major-Transitional.

Thanks for your support.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123725 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no skepticism in evolutionary biology.
The immutable doctrine is EVOLUTIONDIDIT.

Says the guy who cannot write a post on general science without demonstrating major gaffs and lack of understanding.

Evolution has been subject to more scrutiny than any other theory in the history of science and it just becomes stronger and more comprehensive.

While you don't seem to understand it, your comments on evolution would bring every major field of science into question.

Just in the last few days you have questioned
Physics
Astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology)
Chemistry
Biology,
paleontology
Geology,
and anthropology.

So, just how serious do you think we need to take your uninformed opinions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123726 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The stale "imperfections of nature" observation is a philosophical argument that has been repeatedly and soundly debunked. You only underscore the weakness of the evolution hypothesis by continually dredging it up.

My "argument" was only in response to logical error in the particular post I was replying to. It was an attempt to show the poster their error in logic using an analogous counter example. I use the exact same error as they made only using a countering example.

Not that they are bright enough to get it.

And the appendix still no longer has the same useful function in the digestive system that it once did.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#123727 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that rather than providing scientific arguments to refute what I post, your only retort is to call me a "liar".
You say I have no morals, yet you embrace a worldview that is totally devoid of morality.

You have facts bas ackward. I believe in God, but I do not need the fear of god to motivate me to do what is right.

Atheists have better morals than we Christians do because they do what is right without any requirement to do what is right.

Why are there a disproportional number of Christians in prison while atheists are underrepresented vs. their numbers in the general population?


And it is an observable fact that you flub up basic science every opportunity you get. You can't say two words about evolution without throwing in a straw-man.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#123728 Mar 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's interesting that rather than providing scientific arguments to refute what I post, your only retort is to call me a "liar".
You say I have no morals, yet you embrace a worldview that is totally devoid of morality.
HTS, we have shown countless times when yo have lied. One of your favorite methods is to quote mine and after catching you several times I do so automatically. I have yet to be shown wrong in those accusations and if you were not quote mining it would be easy for you to prove it. You may not be doing the dirty work yourself but you are at the very least going to sources that you know quote mine since you have been caught in the past when you used the same source. Passing off a friend's lie that you know is a lie is still lying.
HTS

United States

#123729 Mar 15, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to get more educated on this subject before speaking on it. At least rusty does not make as many silly mistakes as this.
coelacanth IS a transitional (except for the ones that went extinct without leaving a lineage).
It is not considered to be a MAJOR transitional.
Also, please learn the following words and their meaning in biology.
Species
Genus
Family
Order
Transitional
Major-Transitional.
Thanks for your support.
Your unbridled arrogance is blinding you.

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) 13 min deutscher Nationa... 132,581
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 31 min Chimney1 531
How would creationists explain... 37 min Chimney1 334
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... 1 hr nobody 7
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 11 hr Brian_G 13,618
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Fri Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
More from around the web