Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Read more: www.scientificblogging.com 178,492

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
Elohim

Branford, CT

#124412 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If we need to, let's go back to the beginning again: How do fossils form?
Satan

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124413 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If we need to, let's go back to the beginning again: How do fossils form?
It depends, different sorts of animals lived in different environments. Sea fossils can be relatively easy to preserve. Land based animals require quick burial to preserve. That is one of the main reason that land life based fossils are very very rare compared to marine life based fossils.

By the way if there was a worldwide flood the land animals would have had the same quick deaths that the sea animals would have and the numbers of the fossil types would be almost equivalent. As it is most land based finds make the news whenever a new fossil is found. With sea based life it is an extremely common event. You practically never hear of new foraminifera being found since it would bore the average person to tears.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124414 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If we need to, let's go back to the beginning again: How do fossils form?
The better question is, how do fossils find themselves in the order they're in?

How does a Noah's ark-type flood account for, say, rhinos never appearing in the same stratum as ceratopsians?

How does such a flood account for, say, whales NEVER appearing in the same stratum as plesiosaurs?

Velociraptor: bird or dinosaur?
Archaeopteryx: bird or dinosaur?
Ostrich: bird or dinosaur?

How do you draw such distinctions?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#124415 Mar 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The better question is, how do fossils find themselves in the order they're in?
How does a Noah's ark-type flood account for, say, rhinos never appearing in the same stratum as ceratopsians?
How does such a flood account for, say, whales NEVER appearing in the same stratum as plesiosaurs?
Velociraptor: bird or dinosaur?
Archaeopteryx: bird or dinosaur?
Ostrich: bird or dinosaur?
How do you draw such distinctions?
The point is, they're (fossils) not in any particular order, except the order they were buried in during "their" catastrophy.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124416 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr Robert Carter--> Marine biologist
http://creation.com/dr-robert-carter
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8905048/multidi...
----------
Just for your general education--->
A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm
Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov
http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/v...
50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov
http://scigod.com/file/SGJ_V1 (3).pdf
And last but by no means least-->
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/nobelistsgod...

Just a not on the errors in the above post.

1. The term "creationism" was not coined till around 1870 so it is not possible for someone to be a creationist prior to that time.

2. It is possible to believe in god WITHOUT belief in literal creationism. Most scientists who are Christians do not believe in a literal 7 (6) day creation.

3. Some of the lists of scientists on the list highlight fact #2

Charles DARWIN
Ernst HAECKEL
Francis COLLINS
Albert EINSTEIN
to only list a few.

4. The list of Nobel winners is not limited to scientists.


Don't just throw things against a wall to see what sticks.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124417 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Natural selectin is a tautology.
None of your assertions have been scientifically validated.
Whoever survives is by definition the fittest.
Its only appears a tautology because its a "shorthand", a pithy phrase to describe a process that is not tautological at all.

The longhand version is that in a population containing variation, those variants that happen to be more suited to the existing environment will be more successful at surviving and reproducing than those less suited. "More suited" boils down to the very practical requirements of feeding and protecting themselves, etc.

Nothing tautological about it at all. That argument is merely a weak attempt at word games by creationists.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124418 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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).
No, its not all invisible. The physical form is an expression of the genetic code. We can gain information from it. Your only argument is that this information is incomplete and therefore we could be mistaken.

However, acting on partial information gives a better result than acting on no information. Therefore any cues as to health and fitness are valuable, and will improve the odds of successful offspring. My example made that perfectly clear and you have not refuted it, merely repeated your error.

Its a game of odds, not a determination of certainty.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124419 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you quote yourself constantly?
Isn't it enough to suffer your comments once Dogem?
Rather narcissistic...

It is a technique to keep the rat from getting out of the trap to easily. It shows everyone what a dodge the replying post is. Both questions and answers are there, together, on one page.

It seems to be fairly effective.


[QUOTE who="Russell"]<qu oted text> No one that I know "does not like science"....

It is not a matter on not liking science. It is a matter of being forced by God (in their imaginations) to reject science. Indeed, to hate science.

[QUOTE who="Russell"]<qu oted text>Jonathan Marks, biological anthropologist has said this about people who believe as you do--->
"It is actually no great scandal to reject science. In the &#64257;rst place, nobody rejects all science; that person exists only in the imagination of a paranoiac. In the second place, we all have criteria for deciding what science to reject—at very least, we might generally agree to reject &#64257;nancially con&#64258;icted, racist, sexist, fraudulent, unethical, and/or incompetent science (Tucker, 2002; Goldacre, 2009; Marks, 2009a; Rosoff, 2010). If nothing else, the history of physical anthropology attests ably to that point (Little and Sussman, 2010).
"The people who did not accept Arthur Keith’s scienti&#64257;c ideas about Piltdown Man, Robert Bennett Bean’s scienti&#64257;c ideas about racial
craniometrics, Charles Davenport’s or Eugen Fischer’s
scienti&#64257;c ideas about race mixture, Earnest Hooton’s scienti&#64257;c ideas about criminal anthropology and eugenics, Carleton Coon’s polygenism, Richard Leakey’s ER-1470, or David Pilbeam’s Ramapithecus were the smart, critical thinkers.
"Science education does not consist of believing everything scientists say, however normative and authoritative it may seem—for that would be utter credulity, the very opposite of science education."
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/pubs/2012%20Y...
Marks J. Why be against Darwin? Creationism, racism, and the roots of anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;149 Suppl 55:95-104. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22163. Epub 2012 Nov 2. Review. PubMed PMID: 23124443.

There is a confabulation of a number of different points here. Some of them correct and others not.

It is the job of a scientist to be skeptical about anything that passes before him. It is the job of ignorant slobs to deal with whatever they are good at and leave brain surgery to the brain surgeons.

If I were talking to a person who was at all rational or serious about following the above advice then I would respond at greater length and with a tone an content aimed at a more scientific response. Since you lack those two qualities I see no point.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124420 Mar 21, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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 think you should have said "the majority of mutations that get fixed in the population", i.e. successfully spread. Your phrasing could lead to the conclusion that you think most mutations that occur in the genome are beneficial...when we know that is not the case. I am sure you do too. But HTS will jump on any little error he can...and they are of course well schooled in the quote-mine, if nothing else.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124421 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly
Squawks and chirrups don't compare

Yes. We humans can only imitate nature to the best of our limited abilities. A humpback whale has a brain nearly 4 times as large as yours and with more neurons and neuronal connections.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124422 Mar 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, they're (fossils) not in any particular order, except the order they were buried in during "their" catastrophy.
Yes, they are in a particular order, and its one you cannot explain if all these creatures were supposed to be alive at the same time.

Only evolution explains the order we see. Creationism cannot, and your dancing around the point for the last few days instead of providing a credible answer highlights this deficiency beautifully.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124423 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh
I have read it all right....
Scientific racism is alive and well


Apparently you did not understand it then.

Question: was that a scientific article?

[Hints: did it contain primary or secondary research, did it pass through any sort of pre or post publication peer review, did it utilize the scientific method,.....]

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124424 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You are beginning to sound like one sick puppy yourself....
Sorry mate
Everything you say is lame

Translation: you have me by the balls and there is nothing I can do but run.

Here is a reminder to others what you are running from.


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you can't refute anything nor provide evidence so you try the old hand wave technique.
Scientists do agree on evolution. The number of professional scientists that are creationists would not fill up one state mental hospital.
There are more Ph.D scientist in the U.S who have a diagnosis of Schizophrenia than who support creationism.
Think about that.
You can pretend it isn't the truth, but everyone knows.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is both a clear truth and an outrageous lie.
Scientists disagree about few of the basics. It is at the cutting edge where they disagree.
In a room full of random scientists they will all agree gravity exists.
They will disagree on if there is more than one type of Higgs boson.
They will agree evolution happens. They will disagree on the prorating of the mechanisms.
They will agree that blacks holes exist. They will disagree on if information can survive transit across the Schwarzschild radius.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124425 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't lecture me with rubbish
I don't need ejjerkating...
I detest the Wiki
So they are essentially the same animal
Why were they given a different genus and species name?
I know...
No reason at all
----
Gulf Shrimp today---> named Litopenaelis setiferus
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...
There you go--> Wiki for you
Identical to
Fossil shrimp from Solnhofen--->same layers as Archeopteryx fossils were found
Named -->Antrimpos speciosus
There you go--> Wiki for you
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antrim...
----------
Pencil Sea Urchin
From Virgin Islands St Thomas
Living creature is Named -->Eucidaris tribuloides
Fossil is named---> Hemicidaris intermedia
http://www.diomedia.com/imagePreview/01ACGTQ2...
They're identical
----------
But wait....there's more.....

What you have said is that you don't understand how taxonomic classification is done.

Carolus Linnaeus, who developed the classification system (or at least one of them) that is in use today, was a Christian, btw.

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

You seem to be blaming Wikipedia for simply reporting the correct classifications. That just seems sad.



Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not in the same family, genus or species.
Coelacanthus pencillatus: "They bear a superficial similarity to the living Latimeria, though they were smaller, and had more elongated heads. Individuals grew up to 3 feet in length, and had small lobed fins, suggesting that Coelacanthus were open-water predators.
Coelacanthus was a long-lived genus with a worldwide distribution. They survived the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and eventually died out during the Late Jurassic, around 145 million years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanthus

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124426 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
From the Great Barrier Reef
Living creature--->Fungia fungites
Fossil from dinosaur layers named--->
Cyclolites undulate
They're identical

Not from anything I could find.

Unsubstantiated assertion till you can provide proof.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#124427 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Heavens....
I did not realize how deeply troubled you are
Jonathan Marks is a biological anthropologist of some repute

The guy who wrote "Why I Am Not a Scientist "?

Do you understand what Marks even MEANS by his term "Scientific Racism"?

DO you know that it has NOTHING to do with REAL science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racis...
Russell wrote:
<quoted text> Christianity is not responsible for anywhere near the number of deaths directly attributable to atheism and evolution
Since you have a fascination for moving pictures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =FmrRC6zD4ZkXX

THIS IS the sort of thing that Marks is speaking out AGAINST in writings about scientific racism.

YOu are making OUR point!!!

[A slew of BS numbers deleted at this point as they only confirm nonsense]

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124428 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
Have you made any technological or medical advances based on your religion like I asked yet? Or should I check back later?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124429 Mar 21, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, its not all invisible. The physical form is an expression of the genetic code. We can gain information from it. Your only argument is that this information is incomplete and therefore we could be mistaken.
However, acting on partial information gives a better result than acting on no information. Therefore any cues as to health and fitness are valuable, and will improve the odds of successful offspring. My example made that perfectly clear and you have not refuted it, merely repeated your error.
Its a game of odds, not a determination of certainty.
Storytelling is not science.
You have no proof or even scientific evidence of any of the above claims. You have intuitions founded on atheism.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124430 Mar 21, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you made any technological or medical advances based on your religion like I asked yet? Or should I check back later?
Evolution has contributed nothing to the advancement of science. It is useless.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124431 Mar 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have said is that you don't understand how taxonomic classification is done.
Carolus Linnaeus, who developed the classification system (or at least one of them) that is in use today, was a Christian, btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_class...
You seem to be blaming Wikipedia for simply reporting the correct classifications. That just seems sad.
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not in the same family, genus or species.
Coelacanthus pencillatus: "They bear a superficial similarity to the living Latimeria, though they were smaller, and had more elongated heads. Individuals grew up to 3 feet in length, and had small lobed fins, suggesting that Coelacanthus were open-water predators.
Coelacanthus was a long-lived genus with a worldwide distribution. They survived the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and eventually died out during the Late Jurassic, around 145 million years ago."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanthus
Dogen... storytelling is not science. Your bedtime stories about the coelacanth are amusing, but are devoid of any scientific validity.

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) 8 min Chimney1 141,200
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min dirtclod 159,205
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 55 min Chimney1 18,433
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 5 hr Chimney1 996
Humans DID evolve from apes! (Oct '14) Fri Chimney1 68
Poll How Do You View The New Millerite Adventist Inv... Apr 13 Zog Has-fallen 1
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) Apr 13 Denisova 360
More from around the web