Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,800

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
Mugwump

UK

#124046 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to think that millions of years is the panacea for overcoming all improbabilities. You don't have "infinite" time. If man evolved from apes, at most 400,000 generations were available to create and incorporate millions of favorable mutations. Have you ever critically looked at the math?
Can you outline the maths that makes evolution impossible - don't mean detailed numbers - just which variables you are looking at , rough values , any assumptions ?

It's YOU that is making the claim that probability disproves evolution - but not giving any details why

Second time of asking

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124047 Mar 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you outline the maths that makes evolution impossible - don't mean detailed numbers - just which variables you are looking at , rough values , any assumptions ?
It's YOU that is making the claim that probability disproves evolution - but not giving any details why
Second time of asking
I don’t know if you have noticed but he is very good a hyping claims and then not giving any details – I wonder why that is?
Mugwump

UK

#124048 Mar 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t know if you have noticed but he is very good a hyping claims and then not giving any details – I wonder why that is?
Oh I have noticed - that's why it is fun demonstrating it.
One way or another

United States

#124049 Mar 19, 2013
Fertilizers and coral bleaching
By Jim Ryan

Fertilizers spewing from the mouth of the Mississippi have created a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Fertilizers are creating the bleaching of the corals, the killing of shellfish and a lot more. The scientists are blaming the oceans problems on co2, but that's a lie.

Just look at the coral reefs around Cuba, that uses almost no fertilizers. No bleaching of their reefs and their reefs still grow the most sensitive corals.

With fertilizers creating the oceans problems, instead of co2 as the scientists, congress and media claim, when climate gate proved they were wrong, as they were getting ready to implement carbon sequestration, which is more bogus crap, all designed to increase taxes and give trillions more to the stock market.

You take everything from laborers, when labor is the only thing that makes wealth and you destroy any life laborers can have.
Congress, Wall Street and the stock market have destroyed laborers. Laborers will also be their downfall.

Can anyone here explain why Cuba, so close to America is not affected?

Hint-- the Gulf Stream !

Like the proverbial pebble in the pond, I've found that if any consideration has merit and allowed the light of day, it will be passed on fairly quickly and since neither science as a whole nor the media has challenged, its up to the people. Since gov and big business have been claiming global warming and trying to get the carbon tax going, their evidence seems scant to me. Now this ocean acidification and coral bleaching, they say is due to CO2 is just too much, when the effects of fertilizers seems so clear to me. I'm 60 now. As a young man that fished often, I saw how Tampa bay waters at night went from pitch black, to where we could see the fish move, outlined by fluorescent flashes as they moved in the water. We hear of all the damage by acid rain and still the powers that be ignore fertilizers and blame it on something they can tax. By posting here, not only have a few Americans read it, but an Aussie that is interested in such. It seems likely to me, that he will bring this up online in Australia, just as maybe you and someone else here.
Some things written here are incontrovertible and they not only deserve an answer, but maybe a vote, for the right reasons, in the correct manner. All in gov, the media and science are ignoring this catastrophe, for the sake of another tax.
One might think at least one scientist, one government or someone in the media would say, fertilizers have a lot of acids in them, we see the dead zone in the gulf, we have acid rain and now ocean acidification. It seems none of the so called leaders have a brain

Thanks for your help.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124050 Mar 19, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I have noticed - that's why it is fun demonstrating it.
Ahh, another one who likes topix as much as I do and for the same reason.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124051 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One more thing...
Tell us how huge intact skeletons in large numbers were deposited in a single formation.
You mean like in those famous tar pits?

Or the famous cave site where multiple skeletons of Homo Heidelburgensis were found?

Ever heard of Pompeii and Mt Vesuvius?

How about the legendary account from the Sumerians about the Euphrates once going into massive flood and wiping out whole towns...requiring repentance and sacrifice to the Gods, of course, because to the primitive mind a natural disaster can only mean the wrath of God...probably the source of the Biblical tale of Noah...

You just knew there was a sensible non-worldwide flood answer to your question, right? So why did you bother?

This is one of the true Mysteries of Religion!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124052 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Fertilizers and coral bleaching
Can anyone here explain why Cuba, so close to America is not affected?
Cos God, like you, loves Commies.
HTS

Sidney, MT

#124053 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the book.
I refuted it point by point for over three years now. Getting tired of this discredited and useless source.
Of course a nucleotide comes in a package. What is selected is the survival fitness of the organism which can be affected by the efficiency of any protein which can be affected by the protein's composition which can be affected by a single nucleotide.
Sanford says something of apparent significance while counting uncritical acceptance of the willing that constitutes his only audience.
Not only that, but Sanford repeatedly makes the false assumption that the only mutation is a point mutation whereas we KNOW, as did he, that often whole sequences are inserted or deleted AND that whole gene duplication sometimes occurs, an issue which he dealt with in the most idiotic fashion in Appendix blah blah STILL using the assumptions of point mutations while arguing about gene duplication.
The book is ultimately a product of a doddery old fool who has forgotten his scientific integrity in his panic about the supposed effects of "atheism" on society and why it must be stopped. Right there in the preface, he gives his game away.
Sanford does not assume point mutations to be the only types of mutations. He's giving Darwinism every benefit of the doubt. You know perfectly well that transposons and polyploidy cannot account for what is seen in the genetic code. You cannot change the meaning of a book by randomly inserting words and paragraphs. Your evolutionary paradigm defies common sense.
So you've "refuted" Sanford point by point? I've refuted Darwinism point by point. I've eviscerated you with the sword of scientific logic. Your arrogant words are meaningless. All you have done is parroted stories. Show me scientific evidence that any of your conjectures of evolutionary transmutation are possible.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124054 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate you keeping the cheap shots to a minimum. But you're still wrong about it.
Tell you what, demonstrate how all the fossils formed without rapid burial. Tell us all how any creature could fossilize slowly over millions of years. Give us the scenario how this could possibly happen. Tell us how, for example, a fish, reptile, bird, or mammal died and what the circumstances were;, i.e., old age, sickness, hit on head with a rock, eaten by a predator (no, that wouldn't work), Hit by lightning, drowned, whatever. And then tell us how all the scavengers and decomposers, rain, sun, and wind, decompositiona and rot was ALL avoided but instead, over many years it was covered over by dust which formed a "geological layer" (LOL!- sorry, can't keep from laughing) And then another thousand, 10, 20, 100, 1000, years goes by and at SLOWLY becomes fossilized (ROTFLMAO!), and then FINALLY, after untold millions of years it finally becomes a fossil in its geologic layer of time. OMG Chimney how could you believe this crap?
You know, if you only ONCE read the link I have repeatedly posted,

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

You might realise that your questions are answered, and besides that many more issues are raised that your Flood scenario cannot possibly deal with.

Its a mystery to me why you are afraid to read it. At least then you would know what you were arguing about and where I am coming from.
One way or another

United States

#124055 Mar 19, 2013
For every new tax, millions more fall into poverty and they will need help, straining those that are not in poverty yet.
One way or another

United States

#124056 Mar 19, 2013
There are always millions on the edge of poverty and they suffer the most, because they make just a little too much to get help. They are the ones taxed the most.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124057 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Sanford does not assume point mutations to be the only types of mutations. He's giving Darwinism every benefit of the doubt. You know perfectly well that transposons and polyploidy cannot account for what is seen in the genetic code. You cannot change the meaning of a book by randomly inserting words and paragraphs. Your evolutionary paradigm defies common sense.
So you've "refuted" Sanford point by point? I've refuted Darwinism point by point. I've eviscerated you with the sword of scientific logic. Your arrogant words are meaningless. All you have done is parroted stories. Show me scientific evidence that any of your conjectures of evolutionary transmutation are possible.
Every child discovers the world is a sphere with surprise for the first time and asks why people at the bottom don't fall off. That's common sense. Its not a scientific argument.

You have eviscerated nobody, and your grandiose talk simply adds to the consensus that you are deluded. All you have done is parrot a few long debunked arguments which any evolutionist could roll in his sleep.

On the other hand, no creationist has ever offered a convincing flood based explanation for the fossil order found in the strata. Not even close. Yet this is something evolution explains and even predicted.

Now, Sanford makes a glib stab at gene duplication but in reality he only ever deals with point mutations. And he makes the embedded assumption that mutations are occurring from an original point of "perfection" which never existed nor needed to.
Urban Cowboy

Arlington, VA

#124058 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rapid burial is not an issue.
Landslide, eruptions, tar pits, floods, and so on happen all the time.
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.
Mugwump

UK

#124059 Mar 19, 2013
One way or another wrote:
There are always millions on the edge of poverty and they suffer the most, because they make just a little too much to get help. They are the ones taxed the most.
Fair comment actually

in the UK currently there is a proposed 'bedroom tax' which will mean anyone on welfare who has an unused bedroom will have a reduction in benefits. Projected to raise around 500m

At the same time, income tax for the highest earners is being dropped from 50 to 45 %

And the poverty gap widens
Urban Cowboy

Arlington, VA

#124060 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
"..and besides that many more issues are raised that your Flood scenario cannot possibly deal with."
Such as?
Mugwump

UK

#124061 Mar 19, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as?
Well there's how the various species ended up at the current geographically distinct locations from a single starting point - koalas being the oft cited example - I recall you explained this by a booming trade in koala skinned handbags with the raw material being kept in oz for convenience

Or how 8 individuals repopulated the planet in a little over 2500 years - contrary to what population figures suggest.

Or how the pyramids were built with such a low population in the early years post flood.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124062 Mar 19, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to believe in evolution, you have to believe that the proverbial monkey will one day type Shakespeare. This is because essentially all proposed mechanisms of evolution require one improbability after another.
You simply assume that ToE is a fact, and cavalierly ignore principles of probability. It stems from the arrogant mindset of atheism.
How many more times will you regurgitate this nonsense assertion from the creationist website? It has been demonstrated to be a fallacy, yet you still hold onto it as if it actually proves something.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124063 Mar 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
How many more times will you regurgitate this nonsense assertion from the creationist website? It has been demonstrated to be a fallacy, yet you still hold onto it as if it actually proves something.
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#124064 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.
Wow, projecting this much should get you a job in a theater.
HTS

Williston, ND

#124065 Mar 19, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Every child discovers the world is a sphere with surprise for the first time and asks why people at the bottom don't fall off. That's common sense. Its not a scientific argument.
You have eviscerated nobody, and your grandiose talk simply adds to the consensus that you are deluded. All you have done is parrot a few long debunked arguments which any evolutionist could roll in his sleep.
On the other hand, no creationist has ever offered a convincing flood based explanation for the fossil order found in the strata. Not even close. Yet this is something evolution explains and even predicted.
Now, Sanford makes a glib stab at gene duplication but in reality he only ever deals with point mutations. And he makes the embedded assumption that mutations are occurring from an original point of "perfection" which never existed nor needed to.
How interesting that you would lecture me about logic...when all arguments for evolution rely on perceived logic and no experimentation. Has a fruitily ever been selectively bred into a reproductively isolated novel species? Have any of the millions of generations of bacteria resulted in multicellular life? You have no observable experimental evidence of anything.
I have heard all of your worn out arguments, and they have been repeatedly proven false. All arguments that you have presented are nothing less than attempts disproofs of intelligent design.
Do you actually think that by perceived "disproof" of a worldwide flood that you're providing evidence for evolution? If you do, you have a very weak theory indeed.
Do you seriously think that by the random addition of frame shift mutations, transposons, ERVs etc. that a purposeful genetic code can result? What is the scientific basis for that ridiculous assumption?
You have only one answer...evolutiondidit.
You have philosophically rejected God, and you are left with no other alternative. That is not science.

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
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 min Dogen 140,944
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min Dogen 16,627
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min DanFromSmithville 149,298
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 40 min Iconoclast 1 597
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 3 hr Meman 4
Brainwashed: Christian school taught Intelligen... 3 hr paul porter 1
Human Activity Has Accelerated Climate Change 13 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
More from around the web