Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,059

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." Read more

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124391 Mar 21, 2013
By the way Rusty, Wiki with all of its faults is a far superior site than creatard.com .

When someone lies or makes a mistake on Wiki another member will correct it if he can. Every article in creatard.com has fatal mistakes in it and no one tries to repair them at all.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124392 Mar 21, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty funny that you think Dr. Marks is in your camp. He is vehemently against racism, especially scientific racism. He is still, however, an 'evolutionist'.
Have you heard of the concept of a hostile witness?

Did you think I was somehow unaware that Jonathan Marks is an evolutionist?

Gee

You're simpler than I thought
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124393 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be hard to estimate.
The Mayan Empire, The Incan Empire, countless other Native American groups defeated for oro and as a secondary consideration new Catholics.
The Crusades, the Inguisitions, the massacres of countless early protestants. Who knows? That number may approach 100 million but it was probably close to 10 million.
And don't forget about the various wars by Christians against Christians. The War of the Roses in England was a Christian war.
I tell you what Rusty, I am going to bed. Why don't you find one of your sites that exaggerate just a little bit and see how many there were.
How many?

Stop being hysterical...

How many deaths are directly attributable to Christianity?

You are too vague and fuzzy for my liking
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124395 Mar 21, 2013
Please note that post #124385 is missing

I believe that is my reply to SZ

It's missing

I suspect perhaps due my use of the word "dumb" too often for the mod

How can one debate SZ without saying dumb?

From now on, SZ, just know I am thinking you're dumb......even if I don't say it

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#124396 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you heard of the concept of a hostile witness?
Did you think I was somehow unaware that Jonathan Marks is an evolutionist?
Gee
You're simpler than I thought
I have no idea what you're aware of. And, judging by your posts, not much.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124397 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good argument but it does not really work. Lets score it, while trying to avoid the nauseating meat-market aspect of this whole argument.
Lets say there are 100 points available.
You get 0-50 for the pluses/minuses that can be sensed (seen, smelled, understood by interaction, etc). Thus you can (hopefully) influence this part of the total.
You get 0-50 for the pluses/minuses that are an undetectible and random quantity, and assuming that none of this can be sensed in any way.... so this "score" would be a random distribution from 0-50.
Just add them up.
Whatever proportion you choose to assign to visible vs invisible attributes, your odds on average of a good mate are higher if you choose the best you can on the information you have. A particular individual might get unlucky, having chosen the bombshell who turned out to be a timebomb...but clearly you can see that statistically, ANY information that can improve your odds of a strong partner are going to be valuable.
BTW, evolution would not lose its "main mechanism". Sexual selection is just one aspect of natural selection, and evolution works without it. It may even be that at times sexual selection drives species into evolutionary dead-ends, as traits that are exaggerated initially in a positive way may become burdensome if selected to excess.
Point system? You're just making up stuff to avoid the reality. It doesn't matter what the attraction was, the point is you can't see what's underneath genetically; it is all invisible. At the extreme end, if you were attracted to someone who you know is genetically defective and at the other extreme, a person who appears fit and is genetically fit or isn't. Doesn't matter. The point is that natural selection is selecting without knowledge of the underlying genetic fitness.

Many genetic diseases occur in the population at known percentages, i.e., 1 out 200, etc., but unless a person is tested, one doesn't know who has the recessive gene and who is at risk. People at risk could run the gamut fitness-wise. Recessive genes do not discriminate.(Although, we as humans might discriminate against people who were tested and were known to carry something).

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124398 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How many?
Stop being hysterical...
How many deaths are directly attributable to Christianity?
You are too vague and fuzzy for my liking
What's the problem idiot?

Do you hate having the same standards applied to you that you try to apply to everyone else?

That makes you a hypocrite.

Hypocrites hate it when they get beaten at a game they started. Especially when their opponents use the same rules that they are.

What a douchebag.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124399 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't state what constitutes a scientist then your statistics are meaningless.
Don’t talk utter bollocks all your life, take a day off. You posed the question as confusion after the fact that I cited polls taken by “specific scientific organisations”. You only posed the question because you could not argue with my post because it is factual.

Posing irrelevant questions to obfuscate fact and justify your own un-factual belief does not make those facts go away, it just means you pose irrelevant questions.

I know what “constitutes” a scientist, it seem that you don’t, you are effectively diluting science by including “mechanics for the human body”* in that definition.

Look it up, it’s easy, go to Google and type “define scientist”, there are several online dictionaries that could (but probably won’t) educate you

* not my quote but that of a doctor of my acquaintance.

P.S. If you can’t state any peer reviews for the babble then your whole belief is meaningless.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124400 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
Please note that post #124385 is missing
I believe that is my reply to SZ
It's missing
I suspect perhaps due my use of the word "dumb" too often for the mod
How can one debate SZ without saying dumb?
From now on, SZ, just know I am thinking you're dumb......even if I don't say it
Go ahead Rusty. I don't think that will give you much satisfaction since you have lost every debate with everyone here, including me.

When you are tired of being an idiot and would actually like to learn something I am still willing to teach even the worst of fools a lesson or two.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124401 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Typically a local catastrophe such as a flood or a volcano will simply cover the existing layer, and later events will cover this layer, and so on. Sometimes the events will be sudden, and sometimes the "event" is a long period of steady sedimentation.
You are grasping at straws.
Now please explain how fast velociraptors and flying pteradactyls are only found in far deeper strata than lumbering giant ground sloths, why flowering plants only appear in the strata after the mid Jurassic, etc. Your theory should make some very clear predictions about the fossil order and the reality is NOTHING like what you predict.
So all fossils are a result of "their own" local catastrophy? So where ever a fossil is found, that can't be dated in relation to its surroundings because it is a local catastrophy. Got it.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124402 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I said that DNA is the most complex assembly of matter THAT IS KNOWN TO EXIST. Your accusation is false.
Lying again? jeesus fooking christ on a crutch, don’t you ever get sick of lying? Your post is only on the same page, not to difficult for you to scroll up and see what you actually wrote

EXACT WORDS
DNA is the most complex organized purposeful assembly of matter in the universe that has been proven to exist

My accusation stands and is backed up by your own lies

FYI the human brain is probably the most complex thing that is known to exist

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124403 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So all fossils are a result of "their own" local catastrophy? So where ever a fossil is found, that can't be dated in relation to its surroundings because it is a local catastrophy. Got it.
If you want to call the rapid burial of the creature that formed a fossil a local catastrophe I have no problems with that.

As Chimney1 pointed out you have no excuse why a velociraptor would be buried more deeply in the fossil record than the exceedingly rapid three toed sloth.

You cannot explain the fossil record using Flood "geology". In fact the myth of a worldwide flood was debunked long before Darwin came around.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124404 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are merely trying out your little argument on ChristineM with a hopeful "one size fits all" attempt. Perhaps you should read what UC wrote, and I responded to, properly, before making a fool of yourself.
My post in response to UC has made NO assumptions about mutations at all and would still make sense even if there were NO positive mutations.
Speaking of ChristineM's argument, BTW, the whole thing rests on nothing more than her forgetting to state "beneficial mutations that get fixed in the population" rather than really asserting that they were a majority of the actual mutations that occur.
I fully accept that most mutations will be neutral or harmful rather than beneficial.
Hence the reason why I mentioned cancer etc as not beneficial. HTS seems to have totally ignored this point, which is typical of him, he ignores such a lot so what can we expect? He only cherry picks particular phrases that he feels he can argue with.

My exact words were

Well considering that evolution is primarily environmental then the majority of mutations are going to be adapted for that environment. For the environment they will more than likely be beneficial. Cancer etc still exists of course, unfortunately even after millions of years of evolution non beneficial genes can still claim dominance.


http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124405 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has been tested, and it has failed...
1. Lamarckism: failed
2. Junk DNA: failed
3. Homology: failed
4. Genetic determinism: failed.
5. Fossil record: failed.
6. Progressive improvement of genome: failed
The only thing evolution has succeeded in is convincing man that he has a purposeless existence.
Do you ever cease lying?

Or is it just that you are stupid and find it easier looking at godbot sites because they don’t tax your ignorance?

None of you list is “failed”

Lamarckism, currently being re-assessed by biologists, particularly the use it or loose it ideas which are known to be factual.

The current research on what you call “Junk DNA” is the most likely to bite your a$$. In the last few months several papers have been published by genetic scientists reporting that vast stretches of “junk” DNA are actually the seat of crucial gene-control activity. It is now known that at least 80% of the human genome is biochemically active.

Homology, used in medical research every single day both in development and testing of new treatments.

Genetic determinism, proven factual, inherited diseases, personality traits etc. Because you and your godbots mates don’t actually understand the tem is no ones fault but your own.

The fossil record is proven over and over again to be valid, we have even had this argument previously and you bottled out. Because it does not fit with the bronze age ideas of dinosaurs and humans coexisting is down to your own lack of understanding.

Finally progressive improvement of genome, so are you saying that according to your model we should all be slime living in buckets?

You really are dumb, even by the high standards of idiocy impose by your type.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124406 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to call the rapid burial of the creature that formed a fossil a local catastrophe I have no problems with that.
As Chimney1 pointed out you have no excuse why a velociraptor would be buried more deeply in the fossil record than the exceedingly rapid three toed sloth.
You cannot explain the fossil record using Flood "geology". In fact the myth of a worldwide flood was debunked long before Darwin came around.
Wait a minute. The concept of "more deeply" doesn't apply if we agree each fossil is a product of its own catastrophy. Also, keep in mind, in a world-wide catastrophic flood scenario, "deeper" is also irrelevant.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124407 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to call the rapid burial of the creature that formed a fossil a local catastrophe I have no problems with that.
As Chimney1 pointed out you have no excuse why a velociraptor would be buried more deeply in the fossil record than the exceedingly rapid three toed sloth.
You cannot explain the fossil record using Flood "geology". In fact the myth of a worldwide flood was debunked long before Darwin came around.
Oh and by the way, I guess we both agree that all the text books are wrong regarding fossil formation. This is very profound!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124408 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute. The concept of "more deeply" doesn't apply if we agree each fossil is a product of its own catastrophy. Also, keep in mind, in a world-wide catastrophic flood scenario, "deeper" is also irrelevant.
What world wide flood?

Do you mean the one hyped in the babble, the one that not only did not happen but could not physically and technically happen?

You can’t make valid excuses from a fallacy

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124409 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a minute. The concept of "more deeply" doesn't apply if we agree each fossil is a product of its own catastrophy. Also, keep in mind, in a world-wide catastrophic flood scenario, "deeper" is also irrelevant.
Yes it does, "more deeply" is where we find it in the geologic column.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124410 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and by the way, I guess we both agree that all the text books are wrong regarding fossil formation. This is very profound!
I don't think so. I would like to know which remark of mine you are misconstruing.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124411 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think so. I would like to know which remark of mine you are misconstruing.
If we need to, let's go back to the beginning again: How do fossils form?

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 Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 4 min Dogen 869
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min MikeF 154,292
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 1 hr Haytham15 1,713
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Thinking 17,888
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... 4 hr MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee 16 hr Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Wed MikeF 3,394
More from around the web