Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124737 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you keep defending Ernie Haeckle?
He was an undisputed con artist.
Nevertheless, Ernie maintains a place of honor among the high priests of Darwinism.
And yet no matter how many times you are challenged you cannot list what he supposedly did wrong.

When you claim that someone is a thief, but cannot say what he stole, when you claim that someone is a murderer, but cannot tell us who he killed, or if you call someone a con artist, but cannot tell us how he conned anyone, then you are guilty of making false allegations.

Exactly what did Haeckel do that was wrong?
defender

Tucker, GA

#124738 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>Lets see, according to your own over inflated claims, there is

Piltdown. One definite fraud for sure (but corrected by evolutionists)

Nebraska. Never taken seriously by scientists and vastly overblown by creatards in their desperation to find something.

Haekel. Optimistic exaggeration on his part morphed into sinister overblown claims by creatards...while much of his underlying reasoning and observation is in fact intact.

Yeah, brilliant. All claims fixed by evolutionists themselves, in science's own self correcting process.

You keep on with these century old wankerfests because its all you've got. Get real.
Umm... You know some of your buddies on here still believe Haekel's optimistic exaggeration (outright lie) about human beings having fish gills in early development right? And that it's still taught in text books as truth... But oh well guess that dishonesty doesn't count huh?
If you want some modern lies just pick up a copy of Scientific American or log on to Talkorigins ... Lots of fun on the bun!!!
defender

Tucker, GA

#124739 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>No, they say it because population geneticists do not have a problem with it. Also because we have good evidence now that the earliest eukarayotes developed in a form of communal coming togehter of once free living bacteria - mitochondria and chloroplasts, and even some ciliate structures, show this clear signature.

Etc.
Lie... Flat out... Stop it..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124740 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire evolution of man supposedly occurred over about 350,000 generations. That would have required millions of changes in DNA.
Lenski's experiments after 50,000 generations are not convincing.... If anything, they prove the impossibility of evolution.
No, that is not how long the entire evolution of man took. That is only the time period for man to evolve from our common ancestor with the chimpanzee.

We have already gone over the math in that and the number of changes necessary was well within the realm of possibility.

Do we have to go over the math again? Really?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124741 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lie... Flat out... Stop it..
Not a lie.

Lying is what creationists do time after time.

I can count the number of times that people associated with evolution have been caught lying or committing outright fraud on the fingers of one hand.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124742 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm... You know some of your buddies on here still believe Haekel's optimistic exaggeration (outright lie) about human beings having fish gills in early development right? And that it's still taught in text books as truth... But oh well guess that dishonesty doesn't count huh?
If you want some modern lies just pick up a copy of Scientific American or log on to Talkorigins ... Lots of fun on the bun!!!
Haeckel was right about the existence of "gill slits", though that is an over simplification. The proper term is pharyngeal arches, or branchial arches. They develop into gills in fish and into different structures in tetrapods.

Here is an excellent article that explains why there is nothing wrong with calling them "gill slits" even though we know that they never do act as gills:

http://pigeonchess.com/2012/05/31/gill-slits-...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124743 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Now if you knew the definition of scientific evidence you would know that what you said is an idiotic lie.
And you have yet to find any evidence against evolution. You have made false claims against evolution that have been shown to be wrong.
Here, I will give you a freeby. Evidence can either support or oppose a theory. We have even given you examples of what would be evidence against evolution if it was found. Evidence against a theory can debunk it.
So let's hear your so called evidence against evolution.
Please don't list "evidence" that has already been debunked such as your failed probability arguments.
I've presented numerous evidences against evolution, and you've arbitrarily dismissed them all.
Example...functionality of ERVs
Example...independent origin of pentadactylism in amphibians and anthracosaurs
Example... Homologous genes producing non-homologous outcomes
Example... No genetic mechanism to create information
Example...Lenski's experiment showing that bacteria can't evolve after 50,000 generations.
Example...implausibility of functional intermediates
Example...genetic entropy
Example...collapse of Lamarckism
Example...collapse of junk DNA paradigm
Example....collapse of genetic determinism.

You've never answered any of these enormous problems
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124744 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not how long the entire evolution of man took. That is only the time period for man to evolve from our common ancestor with the chimpanzee.
We have already gone over the math in that and the number of changes necessary was well within the realm of possibility.
Do we have to go over the math again? Really?
Your "math" assumed that all mutations were beneficial...Your "math" was nothing of the kind.
defender

Tucker, GA

#124745 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I've presented numerous evidences against evolution, and you've arbitrarily dismissed them all.
Example...functionality of ERVs
Example...independent origin of pentadactylism in amphibians and anthracosaurs
Example... Homologous genes producing non-homologous outcomes
Example... No genetic mechanism to create information
Example...Lenski's experiment showing that bacteria can't evolve after 50,000 generations.
Example...implausibility of functional intermediates
Example...genetic entropy
Example...collapse of Lamarckism
Example...collapse of junk DNA paradigm
Example....collapse of genetic determinism.

You've never answered any of these enormous problems
He can't ... It's just that simple... Nice post...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124746 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've presented numerous evidences against evolution, and you've arbitrarily dismissed them all.
Example...functionality of ERVs
Example...independent origin of pentadactylism in amphibians and anthracosaurs
Example... Homologous genes producing non-homologous outcomes
Example... No genetic mechanism to create information
Example...Lenski's experiment showing that bacteria can't evolve after 50,000 generations.
Example...implausibility of functional intermediates
Example...genetic entropy
Example...collapse of Lamarckism
Example...collapse of junk DNA paradigm
Example....collapse of genetic determinism.
You've never answered any of these enormous problems
ERV's are minimally functional. Do you know how they are "functional"? I do. It is not evidence against evolution. Strike one. In fact ERV's still ring the final death knell of creationism.

You have not demonstrated independent development of pendactylism. In fact we are not sure when it arose. I would like to see some articles claiming otherwise.

Lenski's experiment demonstrated evolution. We can't help it if you don't understand evolution.

You have never shown the implausibility of intermediate forms.

I tell you what, you have a list of arguments that you lost here.

Bring up your best three one at a time and we can discuss them.

Of course when you do and they are all shown to be wrong it will be three strikes and you are out.

I hate it when creatards try to do a Gish Gallop.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124747 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
He can't ... It's just that simple... Nice post...
Actually I can. He has been shown to be wrong countless times, including being wrong on all of these claims.

Did you see that the tard included Lamarckism in his list?

What a Maroon!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124748 Mar 23, 2013
And the tard included genetic determinism too.

That has never been part of evolutionary theory either.

The idea was always an oversimplification of the fact that genetics plays a role in the behavior of an animal but it is not the single overriding force.

I guess tards like simple explanations and when that simple explanation is shown to be incomplete they think they have accomplished something.

HST, you cannot defeat evolution with strawman arguments.
defender

Tucker, GA

#124749 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And the tard included genetic determinism too.

That has never been part of evolutionary theory either.

The idea was always an oversimplification of the fact that genetics plays a role in the behavior of an animal but it is not the single overriding force.

I guess tards like simple explanations and when that simple explanation is shown to be incomplete they think they have accomplished something.

HST, you cannot defeat evolution with strawman arguments.
Evolution has already been defeated... It's not really even a theory as much as it's a failed model...
HTS has several great points listed but far from all the arguments... I'm not saying that science should just give up but it's time to start embracing the truth and stop accepting speculation as proven science...

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124750 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it!
A new term "creoturd" even lower on the scum scale than a creatard.
Yeah, I had to come up with it after I got an "official" moderator warning about using "...[email protected]" derivatives.
defender

Tucker, GA

#124751 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And the tard included genetic determinism too.

That has never been part of evolutionary theory either.

The idea was always an oversimplification of the fact that genetics plays a role in the behavior of an animal but it is not the single overriding force.

I guess tards like simple explanations and when that simple explanation is shown to be incomplete they think they have accomplished something.

HST, you cannot defeat evolution with strawman arguments.
Genetic drift is a huge part of the theory... So what are you saying here?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124752 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has already been defeated... It's not really even a theory as much as it's a failed model...
HTS has several great points listed but far from all the arguments... I'm not saying that science should just give up but it's time to start embracing the truth and stop accepting speculation as proven science...
Please, don't lie. That is breaking the 9th Commandment.

He has no points. His entire list consists of claims that have already been debunked.

I am tired of playing with that idiot. I have offered to help him understand science but he seems to think that being ignorant will give him plausible deniability when he is at the Pearly Gates. I don't think his "I didn't know that I was wrong so you have to let me in." strategy will pass muster.

The following is an undeniable fact, there are literally mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence that supports creationism.

Do you want to know why?
LowellGuy

United States

#124753 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm... You know some of your buddies on here still believe Haekel's optimistic exaggeration (outright lie) about human beings having fish gills in early development right? And that it's still taught in text books as truth... But oh well guess that dishonesty doesn't count huh?
If you want some modern lies just pick up a copy of Scientific American or log on to Talkorigins ... Lots of fun on the bun!!!
What is pharyngula?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124754 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic drift is a huge part of the theory... So what are you saying here?
Genetic drift is not genetic determinism.

Why would you think they are in any way the same?

Is it just because they both have the word "genetic" in their names?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124755 Mar 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I had to come up with it after I got an "official" moderator warning about using "...[email protected]" derivatives.
Really? I no longer can access the email account that I originally signed in with.

I wonder how many moderator notes that I have received.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124756 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? I no longer can access the email account that I originally signed in with.
I wonder how many moderator notes that I have received.
They give the nasty notes on your login page not email. Strange they won't let you change your email addy. I have the same issue.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min The Northener 204,933
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 58 min Brian_G 43,200
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr replaytime 18,549
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws 5 hr One way or another 2
Questions about first life 16 hr FallenGeologist 1
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 17 hr It aint necessari... 914
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 151,481
More from around the web