Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
121,501 - 121,520 of 172,073 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124675
Mar 22, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are projecting. I asked for this evidence of yours several times and you have never, not once, presented any. Where is your evidence? You keep claiming you have it for your assertions, yet you never present it. Present of admit you're lying.
No

You show me your's first

I'll show you mine after

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124676
Mar 22, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And how about the "false steps"?
I take it you have no clue about why knife-edge paraconformaties with alleged millions of years separating the layers formed
I put it to you that millions of years is a CROCK!
I know your memory is not all that good, but I did already explain both.

Remember my rule on evidence. You cannot demand evidence until you learn what evidence is.

If you want answers to your questions a second time over that would not be at my convenience, so to demand answers you must take the class first.

If you keep refusing I will simply point out the fact that I already answered your questions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124677
Mar 22, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
You show me your's first
I'll show you mine after
Nope, that would fall under evidence.

You need to learn what evidence is first.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124678
Mar 22, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
You show me your's first
I'll show you mine after
I have not made any assertions, you made assertions and claimed to have evidence, so unless you present that evidence you are a liar.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124679
Mar 23, 2013
 
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are indeed, that stupid. Your thesis totally ignores the fact that the different evolutionary stages of the horse were found at different layers in the fossil strata indicating different time periods.... but silly me, you are a creoturd ... you wouldn't think that way would you?
And
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
More an embarrassment of riches.
In the early days, creatures were found in the fossil record showing a fine prgression of intermediates from eohippus to equus. It was tempting to call these particular finds, THE transitionals.
But more digging, and more intermediates turned up. Meaning we cannot be sure exactly which pathway led from eohippus (or a close relative), through the successive possible intermediates to equus.
Not a problem for the actual predictions of evolution at all. Merely a case of jumping the gun on assuming the first intermediates found were THE pathway to equus.
Its more like finding a map of the US and assuming that the first route from LA to New York that you saw was the actual pathway your friend took on his trip last year, then discovering that there are other roads he may have taken to reach the same destination. Of course, you can call up your friend and ask him. Its a bit tougher with the fossil record. Subtle analysis can help, but we can never be certain.
What we do know is that the intermediates were predicted by evolution but neither predicted nor explained by creationism.
Mate
You got bigger issues than horse evolution...

But horse evo-fossils are a contrived sequence

Three-toed and one-toed horse fossils were found in the same volcanic eruption, in the same locality,‘frozen in time’.

“This hardly supports the idea that one type was the ancestor of the other!”---sayth reliable and reputable Creation.com

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/evotouri...

----------

No one seriously believes horses evolved from a tree badger....do you?

"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem."

– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.

----------

How about whale evolution?

Got anything new there?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124681
Mar 23, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
And
<quoted text>
Mate
You got bigger issues than horse evolution...
But horse evo-fossils are a contrived sequence
Three-toed and one-toed horse fossils were found in the same volcanic eruption, in the same locality,‘frozen in time’.
“This hardly supports the idea that one type was the ancestor of the other!”---sayth reliable and reputable Creation.com
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/evotouri...
If a population of 3-toed horses evolved to a one toed horse, that does not mean all populations of 3-toed horses should be extinct.

So we would have to look at the whole record. If there are 3-toed horses found earlier than the 1-toed, then no problem.
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we’ve got science as truth and we’ve got a problem."
– Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, in a recorded interview with Luther Sunderland, published in Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, Master Books, El Cajon, California, USA.
So, Eldridge is making a valuable point about falsely assuming that intermediates found are the particular transitionals. We know well, and expect, evolution to produce whole branches and sub branches - such as the 22+ known hominid species that are nearly all intermediate but cannot all be the direct ancestors of modern man, of which 21 are extinct. Why assume that the first ones we find in the fossil record are THE transitionals? That would be lucky indeed. Yet its an assumption often made back when we had comparatively few fossils.

We are more careful now. Evolution predicts we will find intermediates. We find intermediates. With humans, with horses, with whales, with dino-birds, mammal-like reptiles, reptile-like amphibians, fish-like tetrapods and tetrapod-like fish! All in the right places!

You haven't got a hope in hell explaining that with ex-nihilo separate and distinct 6000 year creationism. Evolution both explains it and predicted it.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124682
Mar 23, 2013
 
Furthermore--->

"Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6%(1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences.

This genomic "revolving door" of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives."

----Demuth JP, De Bie T, Stajich JE, Cristianini N, Hahn MW. The evolution of mammalian gene families. PLoS One. 2006 Dec 20;1:e85. PubMed PMID: 17183716;
PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1762380.

And for lazy bones--->
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17183716

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124683
Mar 23, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No
I am not prepared to provide evidence that the Lord is real, in order to win brownie points in a debate
You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart.(Jeremiah 29:13)
Its clear that if the Lord is real, He has gone to great pains to ensure you can never prove it. Wouldn't need faith if you could.

Well, to me skepticism is a virtue and faith of the kind your religion cherishes is a character defect.

However, the situation gets worse for you when you jump from "there is a God" to "everything in the Bible is true", as the first statement has nothing to do with the second and the Bible IS full of garbage that is demonstrably false.

That takes MORE than mere faith to believe. It requires the acceptance of logical inconsistencies, and events that physical evidence tells us did NOT happen. And as we see here, defending it takes quote mining, straw man building, ad hominem, arguing from consequences, circular reasoning, conspiracy theories, selectively ignoring evidence, and straight out lying.

Give it up Russell, you are better than that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124684
Mar 23, 2013
 
Poor Rusty still does not understand that there are more than one way to measure the difference in genomes.

Worse yet he has just argued for junk DNA. I wonder what HST will think of that?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124685
Mar 23, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
Furthermore--->
"Our results imply that humans and chimpanzees differ by at least 6%(1,418 of 22,000 genes) in their complement of genes, which stands in stark contrast to the oft-cited 1.5% difference between orthologous nucleotide sequences.
This genomic "revolving door" of gene gain and loss represents a large number of genetic differences separating humans from our closest relatives."
----Demuth JP, De Bie T, Stajich JE, Cristianini N, Hahn MW. The evolution of mammalian gene families. PLoS One. 2006 Dec 20;1:e85. PubMed PMID: 17183716;
PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1762380.
And for lazy bones--->
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17183716
Calculating the similarity of human and chimp genomes is largely a question of how you go about it. And mere similarity was never evidence for evolution as one could easily claim design based on any figure whether 20% or 99%.

The evidence for evolution is not how much they differ, but where and how they differ. Such as the pattern of mutations in the pseudogenes, placement of ERVs, most of which are non-functional no matter how much you try to trump up a placental aid or whatever. Also ubiquitous proteins. All showing the nested hierarchy but without functional reasons....leaving only common descent as the explanation.

This is what matters.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124686
Mar 23, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Right now I am discussing creationism and the Noah's myth with a friend of my brother's. Both of them are Seventh Day Adventists, I can't debate with my brother, it gets a little to intense. So far the discussion is going well. He keeps bringing up bogus claims and I calmly show him how they are wrong. He has not sunk to HTS or Rusty's level of repeating busted arguments yet. He actually seems somewhat reasonable so far.
He has brought up a couple of creation scientists that are scientists in their own right. They have quite a few published articles in peer reviewed journals. In none of these articles do they espouse creationist claims. Yet I have a strong feeling that they do in their non-peer reviewed articles. I have pointed out how it is a bit hypocritical that they have not presented any of their creation science for peer review yet they act like they have for their creationist works.
It seems like dishonesty is inherent in creation from top to bottom. The scientists who are at the top should be more honest in their failures. Sadly that is not the case. The dishonesty at the top spreads down to the bottom where Rusty and How's That feed.
I have not consigned Russell to the slime-bath depths of some of the lying creatards here, not yet. He still genuinely believes he has a scientific case to present.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124687
Mar 23, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I know your memory is not all that good, but I did already explain both.
Remember my rule on evidence. You cannot demand evidence until you learn what evidence is.
If you want answers to your questions a second time over that would not be at my convenience, so to demand answers you must take the class first.
If you keep refusing I will simply point out the fact that I already answered your questions.
I do recall a pathetic remark to the effect that on the extreme edges there was evidence of erosion...

That does not satisfy me one bit

----------

I also recall a picture of a rather flat structure...

Since no explanation had been provided I just assumed it was your unbelievably flat head...

----------
Is that your idea of evidence?

I think I will steer clear from you as a teacher of what evidence is, old chap....

Wide berth...

You have no clue

AND you have no answer for my challenges

----------
However...

I must admit I have found a paper about "false steps" in Darwinian evolution....

You won't like it tho'...

Wanna know what this is?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124688
Mar 23, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
...I have found a paper about "false steps" in Darwinian evolution....
You won't like it tho'...
Wanna know what this is?
Go on Russ, hit us with it. I am always up for another laugh.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124689
Mar 23, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I do recall a pathetic remark to the effect that on the extreme edges there was evidence of erosion...
That does not satisfy me one bit
----------
I also recall a picture of a rather flat structure...
Since no explanation had been provided I just assumed it was your unbelievably flat head...
----------
Is that your idea of evidence?
I think I will steer clear from you as a teacher of what evidence is, old chap....
Wide berth...
You have no clue
AND you have no answer for my challenges
----------
However...
I must admit I have found a paper about "false steps" in Darwinian evolution....
You won't like it tho'...
Wanna know what this is?
No, that was not what I said.

I did laugh at you for expecting the same sort of erosion in a high relief area and a low relief area. It truly showed that you are an ignorant idiot.

Poor Rusty, still the perpetual idiot.

Evidence varies depending upon the question.

You will never understand evidence on your own. Why don't you face it and throw in the towel?

I don't want to keep laughing at you, it almost feels like teasing the kid with Down's Syndrome when we argue with you. Sadly most Down's Syndrome kids know that they are not quite all there. Rusty doesn't.

More's the pity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124690
Mar 23, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not consigned Russell to the slime-bath depths of some of the lying creatards here, not yet. He still genuinely believes he has a scientific case to present.
And I had hopes for HST when he showed a glimmering of reason.

Sadly I do believe both of us were wrong.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124691
Mar 23, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I do recall a pathetic remark to the effect that on the extreme edges there was evidence of erosion...
That does not satisfy me one bit
A side note Russell. Do you have any idea how academia really works - not the parody you read about in creation sites?

The question of the erosion is something that has been answered to the satisfaction of geologists, it seems.

Any geologist who can find a good reason to raise a controversy and find fault with an existing conclusion will JUMP at the chance. This is how reputations are made. This competition is why errors tend to break down and truths tend to accumulate over time in any field. Its not perfect, but it works. Weak assumptions and false conclusions are hounded by every ambitious student of the field.

If you had any kind of case for your skepticism, I would wager that geologists all over the world would have jumped at it already. But clearly, there is little or no controversy about it in geology circles.

As a non-geologist layman, I will tend to ask myself what I do not understand, if I am "unsatisfied" with a conclusion as you claim to be, before I decide that the whole field is completely wrong.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124692
Mar 23, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If a population of 3-toed horses evolved to a one toed horse, that does not mean all populations of 3-toed horses should be extinct.
So we would have to look at the whole record. If there are 3-toed horses found earlier than the 1-toed, then no problem.
How does one know they are horses?

Cloven animals could be cows, goats or deers

Ever since Dr. Othniel C. Marsh of Yale, published his paper on horse evolution in 1874

EVERYONE still believes that the so-called horse series is airtight evidence

Nothing could be further from the truth yet most natural history museums have told the same wrong story.

They typically display a series of skeletons of animals, starting with a five-toed badger-like animal ending with a large single-toed horse.

The animals in between are alleged to be transitional forms showing how the five toes gradually merged into one as the animal grew larger.

This series was completely refuted by another respected paleontologist, George Gaylord Simpson, in 1951.

Despite this, fifty years later, some uninformed evolutionists still cite the horse as an example of evolution recorded in the fossil record.

http://www.harunyahya.com/image/Darwinism_ref...

http://strattonweb.tripod.com/HorseEvolution....
<quoted text>

All modern horses have undivided hooves.

If it is true, as evolutionists like to say, that “the present is the key to the past”, one would have to assume that all extinct horses also had undivided hooves.

But, in order to show how the single toe evolved, one has to display “horses” from the past that had two, three, four, or five toes. Therefore, creatures with multiple toes are arbitrarily classified as primitive horses just so they can be called modern horse ancestors.
----------

The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:

"But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic.

It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger.

Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time."

--Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230

----------
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are more careful now.
'We' who?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution predicts we will find intermediates. We find intermediates. With humans,
No we don't
You find humans or apes
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
with horses,
No
As demonstrated above
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
with whales,
You mean ambulocetus?

It is so far from being clear cut I would quickly discard this now
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
with dino-birds,
Raptorex?

I'm joking of course

But really!

Raptorex?

Acheopteryx did not have scales
It was a flying perching bird

What else you got?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
mammal-like reptiles,
Such as?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
reptile-like amphibians,
Like what?
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
fish-like tetrapods and tetrapod-like fish! All in the right places!
No
I think you have a bad case of the warm and fuzzies when it comes of popular "science" regarding this stuff

Check the actual literature regarding the fossils

The inconsistency of the theory of the evolution becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124693
Mar 23, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that was not what I said.
I did laugh at you for expecting the same sort of erosion in a high relief area and a low relief area. It truly showed that you are an ignorant idiot.
Poor Rusty, still the perpetual idiot.
Evidence varies depending upon the question.
You will never understand evidence on your own. Why don't you face it and throw in the towel?
I don't want to keep laughing at you, it almost feels like teasing the kid with Down's Syndrome when we argue with you. Sadly most Down's Syndrome kids know that they are not quite all there. Rusty doesn't.
More's the pity.
Don't spin me stupid yarns

Knife edge paraconformities can't be explained be high relief and low relief regions

Give it up

And why have you named yourself "mud"?

Its so strange..
----------

By the way..

Where is the scathing rebuttal to osteocysts in triceratops horn?

C'mon

You seemed excited in the begiining

But now have completely fizzled out...as usual

Nothing to bolster you on Schlepping Ribbons?

Awwwww....that's so pathetic

You have my sympathy....

<and my amusement>
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124694
Mar 23, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Go on Russ, hit us with it. I am always up for another laugh.
OK

But SZ is being placed in a conundrum...

However.....

On second thoughts

Its not a bad paper...

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124695
Mar 23, 2013
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How does one know they are horses?
How would you guess an eohippus is an intermediate between later equus and earlier mammals? Meaning, precisely, that eohippus was on the branch or a closely related one, one of whose descendants eventually became horses? The clues would be in other aspects of its skeletal anatomy that were intermediate between your "tree badger" and a modern horse. Pretty tentative though.

However, if you had another fossil intermediate between eohippus and equus, its starting to look more likely. Add more intermediates, all showing the same trends, and it gets easy.

That does not mean precisely that eohippus, or orohippus, epihippus, mesohuppus, miohippus, kalibohippus, etc etc can testify that they are THE TRANSITIONALS. Only that a succession of more horselike creatures were roaming the earth in a pattern consistent with evolution. Any one of these could be on the true line or on a branching line that ended in extinction.

And this is what evolution ACTUALLY predicts we should find.
No we don't
You find humans or apes
No, we find fossils that have measurable characteristics intermediate between any known human or ape...again a succsssion, with the older ones more similar to apes yet not the same, with features becoming more and more measurably similar to humans later.

As evolution predicted and can explain, but creationism did not expect and does not explain.
Raptorex?
Acheopteryx did not have scales
Actually, there are 30+ avian/dino intermediates showing a convergence between both groups. We cannot know which of these, or perhaps some undiscovered species, formed the true evolutionary line from dinos to birds. Many could be candidates. But we do see the convergence, as predicted by evolution. The line between bird and dino is so fuzzy that even creationists argue about whether a particular species is one or the other. That should tell you something Russell.

Same goes for ambulocetus, and whatever other examples you want to throw my way. Creationists can argue whether Homo erects was man or beast. Or Habilis. Or Ergaster. Or even Heidelburgensis, or A. Sediba. You might as well be arguing which shades of grey should be called light, medium, and dark grey. Or how many angels fit on the head of a pin. For all it matters to real scientists.

In every case, its a contiuum, and shows convergence as we go back into the fossil record. As predicted.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••