Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180382 comments on the www.scientificblogging.com story from Feb 24, 2008, titled Should evolution be taught in high school?. In it, www.scientificblogging.com reports that:

Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124092 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's truly laughable to listen to an atheist to pretend to lecture others on probability concepts, when he flatly rejects them altogether to justify his religion.

It's truly laughable to listen to a creotard pretend to lecture others on probability concepts, when he flatly rejects them altogether to justify his religion.

I call projection.


“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124093 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Human DNA is not a hodgepodge of random mutations. It is a sophisticated code with multiple levels of overlapping messages, data compression, intricate algorithms, etc.
Specific beneficial changes must occur to give natural selection a chance.
You can join Kittenkodder as a veritable moron.
DNA is code like fish are bicycles.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124094 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
False. Many of them could not have formed in flood conditions but require dessication (drying out). Others are fine shales requiring huge amounts of time with still water to settle. Others are the remains of creatures that if alive at the same time, would have choked the oceans three miles deep, "shoulder to shoulder". Instead they had to exist for millions of years with slow deposition. Your response to this can be summed up as "one petrified hat".
<quoted text>
False. As previously explained.
<quoted text>
With great patience, you have been given rational explanations for every single item above, cheap shots to the minimum. You want to go through them AGAIN?
On the other hand, you continually throwing this debunked crap at me still does not explain in creationists terms the question I asked you...
"The order of burial does NOT match any conceivable "creationist" criterion such as running speed, natural altitude adaptation, or any other criterion that could fit the record into a fairy tale about escaping rising flood waters."
Regurgitating debunked claims to avoid examining this properly is just a red herring because you know you cannot explain it.

Can he really be this dumb?

If I am shown something wrong with my argument I either dump it or find a way to improve it. I don't regurgitate it at every opportunity.

Is there something wrong with ME?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124095 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> What UC is saying is that natural selection can't select a beneficial nucleotide. It must select a phenotype of over 6 billion nucelotides.

In an individual, no. But we are not talking about individual here, are we? Or do you think they are? Do you understand WHY nucleotides can be selected for on an individual level in a population?
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Survival of the fittest is an abstract concept that doesn't remotely reflect reality.

"survival of the fittest" is not a mechanism for evolution. That is another H.S. Biology concept you seem to have missed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124096 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I never suggested that Einstein believed in an Abrahamic God. He believed in a god. And you said that you "know" that there is no God. Therefore, you are calling Einstein and countless other brilliant scientists "morons".

This is simply poor reasoning. I know that alchemy is b.s. Newton believed in it. Am I now calling Newton a moron? Of course not.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124097 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I can reference all of this if you have doubts....
1. The probability of a specific point mutation occurring at a specific site is about 1 in 2 billion births in humans and other higher mammals.
2. G. Stebbins estimated that about 500 mutations would be necessary for one animal to evolve into a reproductively isolated species.

Wow. That quick? That is only 3-4 generations!
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> 3. G. Simpson (describe horse evolution), estimated that the selective value of most mutations is 0.1%
4. Sir Ronald Fisher demonstrated that the probability of survival of the average beneficial small mutation with a selective value of 0.1% is 1:500 births.
5. Therefore, the probability of a single beneficial point mutation occurring at a specific site and being preserved in the population is 1 in 1 trillion births.

Your first time doing arithmetic? You are throwing numbers together without rhyme nor reason. What you have calculated it the probability of a SPECIFIC point mutation occurring and being passed on. What are the chances of that happening?!

Of course this is not what evolution ACTUALLY claims happens so it is another moo point (you know, moo.... like a cows opinion. It does not matter.... It's MOO!)

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
6. The difference between DNA of humans and chimps is about 2%(generous concession to evolutionists). Therefore, humans and chimps differ by about 60 million base pairs.
7. The difference between humans and a common ancestor with chimps would be about 30 million base pairs.
8. Evolution of man occured over 8 million years, involving 350,000 to 400,000 generations, in an estimated population of about 10,000 individuals.
Not even close to one trillion births would have occurred during that entire timeframe.


I got to cut this off. This is garbage math. If you can't see what is wrong with then you need a math class and possible a psychiatrist.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124098 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>We were talking specifically about atheism. Christine said that she "knew" that God did not exist. I merely pointed out that she was calling Einstein a moron.

Logic refuted in previous post.

The fact is there have been good scientists who have been Christians, agnostics, deists, Buddhists,.....

Likewise there have been poor scientists in all the above catagories.

Evolution works in science as well. Good science continues, poor science dies out.

Creationism and ID are dead in science because they are poor science (actually, neither is actually science).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124099 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You've just disqualified yourself as having any understanding of mathematics. Where a leaf falls is random. DNA is not random.

[sigh.... bangs head on desk].

First of all this has been YOUR claim in the past. I am glad that one of our refutations of the notion that evolution was random finally got through to you.

Second, DNA mutations ARE random. That is the one random element in all of this. But mutation is important but the real drivers of evolution are selection and elements related to selection.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124100 Mar 19, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
There are 6,000,000,000 base pairs (specific sites) in a human genome sequence.
Given a 1:2,000,000,000 chance of mutation at each site, that would be a certainty of mutation for each birth at least three times over.
Your reasoning is flawed right out of the gate.

Actually his numbers must be wrong in that regard since the known mutation rate for a genome the size of ours (about average in length) is about 150 per generation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124101 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Human DNA is not a hodgepodge of random mutations. It is a sophisticated code with multiple levels of overlapping messages, data compression, intricate algorithms, etc.
Specific beneficial changes must occur to give natural selection a chance.
You can join Kittenkodder as a veritable moron.

Sorry, but that is exactly what it is. A bit of a mess with an amazing theme.

But your idea of what DNA is like is a bit more like a creationist sound bite than substance.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124102 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not going to argue with morons that think they can rationalize away incontrovertable concepts of mathematics by a worldview of absolute relativism.

I'm not going to argue with morons that think they can rationalize away incontrovertable concepts of mathematics by a worldview of absolutism.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124103 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't exactly how Koala's came to be in Australia; however, I didn't think the human population growth assumptions were a problem. I think I showed satisfactorily that if you start with the survivors and plugged them into a standard growth formula, using rates as observed, you wind up with approximately correct population levels. I thought we went over this.
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

You do remember that you got your head handed to you, don't you?

You do remember that observed population growth rates over human history were FAR to low to support the end global population we now observe.

Of course not. You have been shown to be far to dishonest for that.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#124104 Mar 19, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am old school. I prefer "psychotic break".
I usually stick hard to lay terms, in keeping with my formal education,(lest I be accused of over-compensating) but couldn't resist just once interjecting a more technical "decompenstating" for the standard psychotic break. OK, I'll start behaving now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124105 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Natural selection selects the whole organism - never the genes in the chromosomes. There is no certain correlation between the quality of fitness of the whole organism to the quality of the underlying genes. This also refutes the theory.

LOL. This should be submitted to FSTDT
One way or another

United States

#124106 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What UC is saying is that natural selection can't select a beneficial nucleotide. It must select a phenotype of over 6 billion nucelotides. Survival of the fittest is an abstract concept that doesn't remotely reflect reality. When seeds fall to the ground. The genetically superior seeds will not reproduce more than any other seed, because it is almost exclusively environmental factors (soild quality, etc.) that determine reproductive success. Also, genetically inferior seeds will not be preferentially eaten by predators. So this whole notion of natural selection is nothing more than a bedtime story.
Really good thinking and new thinking. Clapping!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124107 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How interesting that you would lecture me about logic...when all arguments for evolution rely on perceived logic and no experimentation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...

You lose!

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Has a fruitily ever been selectively bred into a reproductively isolated novel species?

Has a fruitily ever been magic poofed into a reproductively isolated novel species?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Have any of the millions of generations of bacteria resulted in multicellular life?

Have any of the millions of generations of bacteria been poofed into multicellular life?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You have no observable experimental evidence of anything.

Outright and outrageous lie.

And I am stopping at this point. If you can't do better than to tell creotard whoppers then I really don't need to read any further.

One way or another

United States

#124108 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What UC is saying is that natural selection can't select a beneficial nucleotide. It must select a phenotype of over 6 billion nucelotides. Survival of the fittest is an abstract concept that doesn't remotely reflect reality. When seeds fall to the ground. The genetically superior seeds will not reproduce more than any other seed, because it is almost exclusively environmental factors (soild quality, etc.) that determine reproductive success. Also, genetically inferior seeds will not be preferentially eaten by predators. So this whole notion of natural selection is nothing more than a bedtime story.
You should keep a record of the new thinking you bring. Even what seems small is also new. It will matter and thanks for the new thoughts.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124109 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the language of the genetic code.
To you DNA is pixie dust.
You can throw any transposon or duplicated chromosome at an organism and "poof"... any complexity imaginable because you know that evolutiondidit.

You have proved you don't know the first thing about genetics, about biology, nor about science at any level. I can have a more informed and intelligent discussion with my 12 year old nephew.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124110 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as?

Genetics

The fact that civilization was in full swing during this time period.

The fact that the story is metaphor and has much depth in non-literal meaning.

The fact that there is not, any evidence of it.

The fact that there is plenty of evidence against it.

Common sense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124111 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So all the fossils are the result of mini-catastrophic events? There this also - just like a one-time major world-wide flood event - precludes "time-marked" layers and your whole theory because it requires uniformatarianism, it requires gradual erosion and the building up of layers and strata in a very consistent basis. But all that is out the window if all the fossils are being formed catasrophically, whether individually or all at once.
Why do you think fossils are so rare, compared to the myriad of creatures that have lived and died? Because in the overwhelming majority of cases, dead creatures go back into the cycle. The odds against fossilisation are probably millions to one.

Mini catastrophes do not seriously interrupt the total layering. On the contrary, these smaller events contribute to the overall layering.

You keep using the quaint term "uniformitarianism" or should I say misusing it. It really only refers to the expectation that the same physical laws and principles applied in the past. When an asteroid hits, that does not violate the principle, even though its going to have severe "non-gradual" impacts. "Stopping the sun in the sky" - THAT would violate the principle because physical law as we understand it precludes that possibility.

For most of the time though, sediments do build gradually and under different conditions, also erode gradually. There are fine shale layers in the middle of your "flood layers" that require millennia of gradual deposition with minimal turbulence, interspersed with anhydrate layers requiring massive dessication - drying out at 30 + degrees C ...that cannot all happen in a one year flood.

So back to the question. Why is the fossil record consistent with evolution and not with creationism? You still have nothing better than the "faster runner theory" and you know as well as I do how absurd that is. And you are still avoiding the question with twaddle about uniformitarianism etc.

Do you see that you are merely avoiding a question you know you cannot answer?

Now which is faster? The velociraptor or the giant ground sloth? Daffodil or liverwort? Think that's a cheap shot? Its PRECISELY the logical question your creationist flood explanations demand.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 162,356
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 1 hr Dogen 577
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr 15th Dalai Lama 76,822
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 12 hr Dogen 4,275
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 16 hr Simon 13,743
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Tue John 32,164
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Jul 16 The FACTory 221,745
More from around the web